Expanded Science

[jocaxx]

Popper to suggest the criteria that True Science uses the ability to falsify statements as the criterion to determine "truth" about the material universe.

 

IMO, I dont think so, because poper falsiability criterion it do not say some theory can be proved true, only proved false.

See the Wiki:

"Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.

It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific:

a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. "

 

This 'asymetry' means you can prove false but not the truth.

 

 

First, your philosophy of Expanded Science allows Intelligent Design to be classified as a topic that can be analyzed using the methods of science, Popper thinking does not allow for this.

That is, you claim that Natural Evolution is more probable that Intelligent Design. I claim that Intelligent Design is a mechanism that is outside of science, and, even if it is true, there is no way to verify the claim using science.

 

If it is true, then this is another point bad to Popper's science .

Because it not allows classify this proposition even if it could be truth.

And worse than this: IF the DI was truth and natural selection was false, the popper's science never could be

knows about this supposed truth: it is a very serious limitation from poppers science.

 

 

Second, you claim that you use Expanded Science logic to conclude "we do not have evidence about creator of designed intelligence". But this is clearly a false conclusion. There is much "real" evidence of possible creator in books such as the Hebrew Bible, and since the Bible is part of reality, it is open to analysis by Expanded Science.

 

I agree with you that i can not conclude that "we do not evidence about creator", but we have STRONG evidence

about evolution and the God's hypothesis is highly improbable and this hipothesis is unnecessary by Occans razor.

So we can conclude by ES that, until now, evolution is more probable than DI.

 

 

Third, you use Expanded Science thinking to conclude, without explanation, that the mechanism of "Natural Evolution is simpler" than the mechanism of Intelligent Design. However, the evidence available for Intelligent Design indicates that the exact opposite is true.

Take for example the Intelligent Design mechanism for creation of human species ..

 

GOOOOOOD! You are using logical arguments about probability like 'Expanded Science' recommend to use ocans razor !

Do you perceive this?

Your argumentation is Science by ES but, second yorselve, is not second popper science.

It is good because we bring teology to science field !!

 

But, unfortunatelly, i do not agree with yuu because the origen of first live replicant ( some rudimental RNA molecule )

is tooooooo very much simpler than God and starting from this first replicant we can arrive to man.

 

 

The thinking of Expanded Science requires a convoluted set of statements and claims to reach the final conclusion that "it is less probable" that Intelligent Design is a true mechanism to explain humans. However, Popper thinking requires a single logical step of reason---I.e., Intelligent Design mechanism (take dust of earth and add breath of creator) is outside of science because it cannot be falsified. Thus, by application of Occam's Razor we see that Expanded Science thinking must be logically rejected in favor of Popper approach.

 

I do not agree because:

1-Poppers science I proved is inconsistent. ( very serious mistake in order to guide the science )

2-Poppers science is very restrict and even true theories could not be approached by the science ( very bad ).

3-ES is very simple because use Occans razor principle that is very intuitive ans simple

 

Forth, Expanded Science allows for some low probability (<1.0% ?) that Intelligent Design is a "true scientific explanation" for how humans came to be on earth.

 

It is true ! I agree with this.

 

 

 

In contrast, Popper thinking assigns (0.0 %) probability that Intelligent Design theory represents a "true scientific explanation" for how humans came to be on earth.

 

No.

Second you said : DI can not be studied by poppers science. You said:

"First, your philosophy of Expanded Science allows Intelligent Design to be classified as a topic that can be analyzed using the methods of science, Popper thinking does not allow for this."

 

 

The statement "take dust of earth and add breath of creator" is NOT ranked as being scientific because "IT IS NOT A CAPABLE STATEMENT". However, the thinking of Expanded Science leads to the conclusion that "take dust of earth and add breath of creator" is a CAPABLE statement, it is just not very probable. I side with Popper on the issue.

 

Yes !

I agree with you !

Because one of the intentions of the ES is just unify science and philosophy!

"Abstract: initially, in this article, we present the foundation on which current science stands. Next, we explain the main stream of modern science, the “Popperian Falsificationism”, and show why the current criticism to the system is flawed. Later, we will prove that the “falsificationism” is logically inconsistent and we will propose a new concept of science, unifying it with philosophy."

 

--------------

 

1. That it was not a literal quote from Popper. Which you have now acknowledged.

 

I do not agree because:

You do not prove popper do not said this even all texts show it ( did you read ALL books he wrote?!?!) :

 

"Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable.

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific."

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Another text sayin the same is :

 

" Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific:

a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. "

Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

2. Saying "in order to be ranked as scientific the theory must be falsifiable" does not justify the claim "If the theory is falsifiable it is scientific".

 

You can not say popper did NOT say "'A' if and only if 'B'" ONLY BECAUSE YOU READ he says "'A' if 'B'"

because in his whole work he can said "'B' if 'A'" and you DID NOT READ STILL.

 

Because this I prefer entrust imwikipedia then you.

Did you read the ALL work and text from popper?

[lawcat]

The immediate problem with that approach is the question of whether the theories are falsifiable. This rests on the recognition that no amount of confirmation of a [specific]statement can prove it it to be true in all cases, but one exception can prove a general and specific statements to be false.

 

There I fixed in Popperian manner. :(

 

It is very important to understand that when we talk about truth we always speak of statements. Only statements can be true or false. In addition, since we are always dealing with statements, statements can be neither true nor false, but speculative.

 

because verifiability requires repeatability a scientific theory must be a general statement that applies to a number of specific examples.

 

Hence the statement "this box contains a frog" is not a scientific theory because it is a specific statement about one box, not boxes in general. Hence it is not repeatable.

I must disagree. The statement is certainly scientific. First, procedurally, it is both falsifiable and verifiable and repeatable. We can check the box numerous times. Moreover, without the specific statement no general statement can be made.

 

I.e. Whether other boxes do, or do not, contain frogs has no bearing on whether this box contains one.

True, but this point is irrelevant. We are just considering one box and making a statement about one box. If we need more, we will check other boxes. If there are no other boxes, the experiement is complete, and the statement is complete.

 

Then there is the question of whether being "scientific" justifies the title "science". I think that is a matter of consensus. I.e. If the body of scientists accept that a specific topic is science then it is. Whereas, if they do not accept it a science, then it isn't. That is why string theory is science, even though it is presently unproven and potentially unprovable. Of course, future discoveries might discredit string theory. In which case the consensus could change, and it would cease to be science.

 

Agree.

[jedaisoul]

I do not agree because:

You do not prove popper do not said this even all texts show it ( did you read ALL books he wrote?!?!) :

I do not have to. I quoted Popper VERBATIM with the reference. In reply, you made an unsupported claim that he actually said something slightly different. I challenged you to provide a reference QUOTING POPPER for your version. You have not done so.

 

" Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific:

a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. "

Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. This is not given as a quote from Popper. It is given as what an unnamed Wiki author INTERPRETS Popper as meaning.

 

2. Although Popper did say this, he was referring to logical falsification not practical falsification. I quote Stanford:

Popper declared that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion. “A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable”. Furthermore, he emphasized that the falsifiability referred to here “only has to do with the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences” (Popper [1989] 1994, 82).

 

3. What can we deduce Popper meant by this compound statement? I would suggest that it may be split into two statements which we may paraphrase as:

a) Is scientific if falsifiable, and...

B) Is scientific only if falsifiable.

 

From a) we can conclude:

c) All statements known to be false are scientific. This is because they have been falsified, hence must be falsifiable! Which is nonsense. So I think it is inappropriate to take that meaning from what Popper said.

 

More charitably, we may deduce he meant: "is scientific only if falsifiable". That does not exclude the possibility that non-scientific statements may also be falsifiable, and is consistent with other quotes from Popper.

 

You can not say popper did NOT say "'A' if and only if 'B'" ONLY BECAUSE YOU READ he says "'A' if 'B'"

because in his whole work he can said "'B' if 'A'" and you DID NOT READ STILL.

You claim that Popper meant:

a) Is scientific if falsifiable.

 

I claim that Popper meant:

B) Is scientific only if falsifiable.

 

I have provided references that substantiate my claim in respect of Popper's earlier statements. I have also used logic to show that you cannot deduce a) from B). Then I have shown that the compound statement “A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable” can be interpreted two ways. One which is nonsensical, and another which is consistent with his earlier statements.

 

I suggest that Popper meant "is scientific only if falsifiable", which is consistent with his earlier statements. It is up to you to substantiate your claim that Popper actually meant "is scientific if falsifiable", despite that being obviously flawed as it includes ALL claims known to be false as being scientific!

[jedaisoul]

It is very important to understand that when we talk about truth we always speak of statements. Only statements can be true or false.

I disagree. mathematical relationships are true (or false) as well as statements about them. E.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is true in itself, as well as a statement.

 

In addition, since we are always dealing with statements, statements can be neither true nor false, but speculative.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spaculative". If you mean statemnts about the future, then, as a presentist, I would agree that they are neither true nor false, because the future is not fixed yet. However, I'm not sure if that was what you meant, so await clarification...

 

I must disagree. The statement is certainly scientific. First, procedurally, it is both falsifiable and verifiable and repeatable. We can check the box numerous times. Moreover, without the specific statement no general statement can be made.

I was using the term "scientific" as used by Popper. His statements related solely to scientific theories that were general statements which applied to all members of a group. I.e. "All swans are white".

 

This does not mean that other statements are necessarily not scientific. I was trying to make the point that you cannot disprove Popper by using specific statements like "There is a frog in that box", as his analysis excluded them. Similarly his analysis does not cover statements that relate to some members of a group. E.g. "Not all swans are white".

 

I hope that clarifies my meaning.

[lawcat]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I disagree. mathematical relationships are true (or false) as well as statements about them. E.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is true in itself, as well as a statement.

 

If we are using Popper, then we must go to his fundamental statement: Science is a system of statements. I don't see how math can escape this. 1 + 1 = 2 is a statement. 1 is neither true nor false nor speculative. It just is by definition. + is neither true nor false. Neither is statement, and only statements can be true or false.

[lawcat]

OK jocaxx, I originally had no interest but let me provide my input as a neutral reader to help you sharpen your paper

 

Science has truth as its only objective.

Agree.

 

The Truth in science can be defined as “all information compatible with reality”.

I would prefer "consistent" instead of "compatible."

 

Truth is a statement consistent with evidence. Both falsifying and corraborative statements can be true, and that's the goal.

 

The Universe is Logical

 

You should stay away from this assertion. Mainly because it goes to the essence of everything and opens up a can of worms. Universe, as scientifically accepted is probabilistic. Proving that probabilistic chains of events are logical is a difficult endeavor, and pursuading people that it should be so may be even more difficult. This assertion is also unnecessary for the purpose of your theory.

 

The scientific method

 

The Method, even to Popper, was not constrained to certain logic. Every discpline is allowed to make their own rules of methodology. And some methodology is purely by policy and has nothing to do with logic. The methodology is by no means contrained to what you have delineated. I think Popper took a better approach here by leaving this a bit loose.

 

The first philosopher who tried to clearly demarcate what is science and what is not was Karl Popper (7/28/1902-9/17/1994) [1]. Popper delimited science by adding the following criteria to it [10]:

I think Popper calls it Kant's problem. So credit where credit is due.

 

1-No scientific theory can be proved true.

2-A scientific theory can only be proved false.

3-A theory which cannot be refuted is not a scientific theory.

 

 

Thus, with this new set of postulates, Popper introduced the 'falsifiability' (or ‘refutability’) as the main criterion of distinction between scientific and unscientific theories. The ‘refutability’ of a theory means that, in principle, the theory is liable to be distorted and thus be or not refuted (Modus-Tollens would be a way to refute a theory).

I like this. This was good.

 

For example, when analyzing the case of our ‘Green Imp Theory (GIT) above, we now realize it is not a scientific theory, since it is a theory that cannot be distorted neither directly or indirectly; therefore, it is not refutable and cannot be a scientific theory.

 

The problem here is not so much irefutablity but lack of evidence. Green Imp can not be empirically tested by definition of itself, other than by anecdotal evidence. The theory, that every person has a green imp, is refutable by anectodal evidence. But to Popper, this is the subjective evidence which the science can not trust. It is unreliable.

 

 

It is important to reinforce the idea that there is no "confirmation" of a scientific theory. If a theory passes the tests, it is said that the theory was corroborated by the tests; never confirmed by them (in the sense that it has been proved true). When a theory is corroborated, it only gains reliability, because by the criterion (1) above, no theory can be considered true:

 

OK. This is in principle true.

 

6.1-Critique and Defenses on the 'Popperian Falcificacionism'

OK. Not bad, but could be better, more pointed. Critique and Defenses should be better enumerated and separated.

 

 

 

6.2 Refuting Popper

 

Could anyone, for example, prove we are not dreaming?

This is a bad analogy. Be careful with analogies. Here, the asnwer is Yes. By definition we dream when we sleep. We do not dream when we are awake. By definition, we are not dreaming. We decide what it means to dream, not nature. The difference in state is the proof. Similarly, we decide what color blue is. The difference in state between blue and red tells us that red is not blue. So be careful, you may confuse the reader, or even defraud the reader, maybe.

 

 

This theory is valid only under conditions of adequate pressure (1 atm), otherwise it is false. Thus, a more correct theory would be: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at 1 atm pressure." Do we have now all the necessary conditions? What if water is composed mostly of heavy hydrogen atoms (deuterium)?

Correct. In theory of statements, there is something called a rule of completeness. Incomplete statements are not necessarily false, but they are misleading because they are no complete.

 

 

Let us now change focus and show the inconsistency of the criteria (i) and (ii):

 

 

Consider the following theory: "This shoe box contains a frog."

Can we consider the theory true? Would that refute Popper’s postulate (i)?

Be careful not to be dishonest about Popper. Your example is not a theory. It is a singular statement of fact. A theory is a universal statement. It would be something like: All shoe boxes like this contain a frog.

 

These matters are not trivial, since it is possible to say that what we see is not a frog but a toad, or that it could be an optical illusion or even a dream and therefore, we cannot claim that the box contains a frog or that the box exists.

That is not a failure of theory but a failure of evidence. If I tell you to drink water to hydrate and you drink Castrol oil, that's your problem and not a problem of my theory.

 

If a theory can be proven false, then it is also true that its contradiction can be proven true.

This is a weak argument. A theory must be falsifiable. A contradicting theory also must be falsifiable. All theories must be falsifiable. A logical negation of the premise would be: If a theory can be proven false, then No theory can be proven true. Whi is Popper and it is consistent, but your assertion above is logically dishonest. Stay away from that. It weakens your position in readers eyes. It is unnecessary.

 

If we can prove this theory false by presenting, for example, a red goose, we will be at the same time proving that theory B "Not all geese are white" is true!

That is the essence of falsifiablity. It is always about truth. IF you prove something false, then it must be true. Falsifiability does not mean you always arrive at false statement. On contrary. You always give true statements.

 

Remember Poppers fundamental rule. Science is about statements. For example, if I falsify something, my statement about falsifying is true. If I fail to falsify something, my statement about the findings is true. It is always true.

 

Now you may ask, how is that possible? How can we ensure that all statements are true? Simple. But the requirement that statements msut be consistent with evidence. That's it.

 

 

we can never say that a theory can be proved false, because if a theory "T" can be proved false, the opposite theory "Non-T" (denial of "T") can be proved true, that is, we would have the theory "Non-T" as an absolute truth . Anyhow, we conclude that the "Popperian falsificationism" is intrinsically contradictory, and that makes it easier for a new theory about science to be elaborated.

Again, if theory T is consistent with evidence, it is true. IF there is another theory X, which is not theory T, and it is also consistent with evidence, then we look at which one is more consistent, and Popper addresses this problem.

 

Moreover, if one theory is found inconsistent with evidence, then it is not true, and it is falsified. The statement that the theory is false is true. Since the statement is true, the science as a system of statements remains about truth, and Popper is consistent.

 

 

7 - "Expanded Science " or "Ocanian Science "

 

 

If we take the words 'theory', 'hypothesis' or 'proposition' as synonyms, we can establish the following criteria to define the "Expanded Science, "Ocanian Science " or simply Science:

 

(i)-Only the propositions directly or indirectly linked to reality are objects of analysis for the Expanded Science .

(ii)-The propositions that most fit the "Occam’s Razor" should be considered closer to reality than the others.

 

I would suggest that you use consistent language. If you were using theory to describe certain statements then define it and use it throughout. You can use proposition, or opinion, or whatever, but be consistent. Otherwise, all these words have different impact upon reader and the text is hard to follow. Redefining throughout the text does not help but makes it more difficult.

 

 

These two criteria compose the foundation of this new science. The criterion (i) intends to distinguish what is part of the expanded science and what is not. Criterion (ii) intends to classify the propositions in relation to their degree of veracity, that is, we must believe the best “ranked” theories are closer to reality than those that do not fulfill the Occam’s Razor criteria.

 

Expanded Science i and ii above, is more of a methodology than definition of science. In other words, you are not defining science, but proposing methods to be used as rules, one being occam's razor, the other pertaining to consideration of evidence. This is just wrong on two fronts. One, the definition is dishonest as it is not a definition at all. Second, the methodology is not consistent with widely accepted practices--the rigor of science. But if you wish to convince the community to use this methodology you will have to do a heck of job in giving examples on why your way is better. As you have it is unacceptable for any serious consideration.

 

Occam’s Razor.

Forget Occam's Razor as a fundamental method. It negates scientific rigor and no one buys it. Razor is simply a policy decision for efficiency purposes.

 

 

- The volume was actually of a battery radio imitating a brick.

- The volume was something that resembled a brick, but it was not a brick.

- That was not a brick because you are in a dream, imagining it.

- A momentary short circuit in your brain made you imagine a brick in an empty box.

- A new weapon with alpha waves was tested on you so you would imagine the brick.

- Someone created a holographic image of the brick so that you would think it was real.

- There are no bricks, since this universe is an imagination of a great consciousness.

- Etc.

Science is not about to change it's methodology to accomodate loonies and incompetents.

 

Thus, we cannot undoubtedly prove that any statement about reality, as obvious as it may seem, is in fact, reality. However, by the criteria of the "Ocanian Science", we can use the Occam’s Razor and give preference to the more plausible theories in terms of the "razor" and, that way, consider the proposition "the shoe box contains a brick" as the most appropriate of them, the closest to reality.

Stay away from non sense. Think rationally. Delete this whole thing.

 

 

7.2-The Role of Evidence and the Classificatory List

 

 

We can define evidence as a fact in favor of a theory

 

Evidence is any finding having a tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the statement's truth more or less likely than it would be without the finding.

 

 

7.3-The Role of Logic and Scientific Methodology

 

7.4-The Old Popperian Science

 

 

7.5-Religions

 

 

The 7.6- Solipsism

 

 

7.7-The Jocaxian Nothingness

 

 

7.8-The Philosophy

 

 

The rest is a plea for OCaam's Razor as a guiding light in science. Your whole paper is about Occam's Razor. Since your whole paper is about Occam's Razor, the structure and title of your paper is improper and unaccceptable.

 

Your paper should start about Occam's Razor.

 

I. Introduction - Synopsis of your paper

II. Explain Occam's Razor, the history, the use in science

III. Critique it - Give the pros and cons of Occam's Razor

IV. Analyze - Why is Occam's Razor good, give several subheadings, explain where and how it can help science and scientists, give particular examples.

V. Conclude.

 

This is how you should write the paper. Your paper is all over the place and contains unnecessary references to Popper and other things, or references are completely out of place.

[Qfwfq]

What can we deduce Popper meant by this compound statement? I would suggest that it may be split into two statements which we may paraphrase as:

a) Is scientific if falsifiable, and...

B) Is scientific only if falsifiable.

You would suggest that it means exactly what the standard meaning of "if and only if" is. Yes, it means that the author is stating both a) and B), both of them.

 

From a) we can conclude:

c) All statements known to be false are scientific. This is because they have been falsified, hence must be falsifiable! Which is nonsense.

Uhm, wait a minute. You show that you aren't understanding the guy's whole line of argument and in fact, it isn't so simple.

 

Popper doesn't claim that a statement is scientific when it has been falsified. He would call that a conjecture that has been refuted, so it isn't a scientific fact. It failed the test. But it was a good candidate because a way of testing it existed. He calls the conjecture a scientific theory. A theory that turned out not to be fact. You described it as nonsense without having understood it.

 

But of course the whole thing is much more subtle because refuting a theory doesn't necessarily throw it out the window. It can mean it needs to be altered a bit. Folks consider Newton's mechanics to be a theory that got refuted by 20th century physics, but still an excellent and very useful theory in appropriate domains.

[jedaisoul]

You would suggest that it means exactly what the standard meaning of "if and only if" is. Yes, it means that the author is stating both a) and B), both of them.

Lets work with that, and see where it gets us. At least we are agreeing there are two meanings to this statement...

 

Popper doesn't claim that a statement is scientific when it has been falsified. He would call that a conjecture that has been refuted, so it isn't a scientific fact. It failed the test. But it was a good candidate because a way of testing it existed. He calls the conjecture a scientific theory. A theory that turned out not to be fact. You described it as nonsense without having understood it.

The trouble with this, as I see it, is that it classifies any nutcase idea as a "scientific theory" so long as it can potentially be falsified. It is that that I, and others, have been uncomfortable with: I quote Stanford:

According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions”.

 

Remember, it does not have to be falsifiable now, just potentially falsifiable. So the statement "All little green men live on Mars" is a scientific theory? Also, I acknowledge that once falsified an idea is shown not to be a scientific fact, but does it remain a scientific theory? If not, why not?

 

More importantly, do you agree with jocaxx that he has found an internal flaw in Popper's argument?

[Rade]

..Because one of the intentions of the ES is just unify science and philosophy!

Well then, ES (Expanded Science) methods are not needed, science and philosophy are already unified.

 

True Science (as a systematized method using observation and/or experiment) unifies the material reality to knowledge (i.e., philosophic thinking). Science uses Popper criterion of statements being capable of falsification to identify statements that are logically true and that separate the material from the non-material reality.

 

Doing philosophy on statements that fall outside of True Science (that is, those that fail the Popper criteria) fall under many different sub-sets of philosophy (same as science is a sub-set) such as religion, etc.

 

Jocaxx, if your goal of inventing Expanded Science thinking was to unify science and philosophy, then your efforts have been a waste of time--there has always been a clear unification of the two. I would be interested to know if other scientists (or philosophers) found no logical unity of science and philosophy until they read about Expanded Science ?

[jocaxx]

I do not have to. I quoted Popper VERBATIM with the reference. In reply, you made an unsupported claim that he actually said something slightly different. I challenged you to provide a reference QUOTING POPPER for your version. You have not done so.

 

JedaiSou definitively you do did not understand what I said.

 

I agree with you that popper said :

"statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific,

must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” "

 

what I do NOT AGREE is that you can conclude popper have said that

"Not all theory falsifiable is scientific"

 

And you are tell me exactly this !

but you do not show VERBATIM some text popper have said "not all falsifiable theory is scientific"

Do you understand?

 

And in the literature , perhaps wroten by people that read all popperian texts , we found:

 

"

See the Wiki:

"Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.

It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific:

a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. "

"

Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"

 

See what "if and only if" means:

 

From wiki:

 

If and only if

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Iff" redirects here. For other uses, see IFF (disambiguation).

In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements. In that it is biconditional, the connective can be likened to the standard material conditional ("if") combined with its reverse ("only if"); hence the name. The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. It is controversial whether the connective thus defined is properly rendered by the English "if and only if", with its pre-existing meaning. Of course, there is nothing to stop us stipulating that we may read this connective as "only if and if", although this may lead to confusion.

In writing, phrases commonly used, with debatable propriety, as alternatives to "if and only if" include Q is necessary and sufficient for P, P is equivalent (or materially equivalent) to Q (compare material implication), P precisely if Q, P precisely (or exactly) when Q, P exactly in case Q, and P just in case Q. Many authors regard "iff" as unsuitable in formal writing; others use it freely.[citation needed]

In logic formulae, logical symbols are used instead of these phrases; see the discussion of notation.

 

 

This is not given as a quote from Popper. It is given as what an unnamed Wiki author INTERPRETS Popper as meaning.

 

You also do not quote that popper think AGAINST "falsifiable ==> scientific theory"

so you can not conclude he do not think this.

 

 

Although Popper did say this, he was referring to logical falsification not practical falsification.

I quote Stanford:

Popper declared that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion.

“A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable”.

Furthermore, he emphasized that the falsifiability referred to here

“only has to do with the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences” (Popper [1989] 1994, 82).

 

 

It is what I was saying before.

 

The meaning is that falsifiable and scientifi are the SAME criterion.

 

Of couse i do not agree with popper because it goes to a nonsense conclusion as I already

showed in the example "The disease X is only caused by bacteria".

 

 

-------------------------

 

OK jocaxx, I originally had no interest but let me provide my input as a neutral reader to help you sharpen your paper

 

Thak you, very much B)

 

 

The Truth in science can be defined as “all information compatible with reality”.

I would prefer "consistent" instead of "compatible."

 

Truth is a statement consistent with evidence. Both falsifying and corraborative statements can be true, and that's the goal.

 

I disagree because "evidence" is not the same of the facts.

I think evidence , like a mesure, depends on our senses and can be wrong

because this I think we never can be sure if an evidence is true.

 

 

 

The Universe is Logical

 

You should stay away from this assertion. Mainly because it goes to the essence of everything and opens up a can of worms.

Universe, as scientifically accepted is probabilistic. Proving that probabilistic chains of events are logical is a difficult endeavor, and pursuading people that it should be so may be even more difficult. This assertion is also unnecessary for the purpose of your theory.

 

I think I understand what you meaning.

But in order we can use The deductive method and the The Hypothetical Deductive Method,

we need the modus pones and modus tolens rules of the logic.

Beyond this we can not be rational without logic.

Perceive the Quantum mechanichs , even being a probabilistic science, is based on logic.

 

 

 

The Method, even to Popper, was not constrained to certain logic. Every discpline is allowed to make their own rules of methodology. And some methodology is purely by policy and has nothing to do with logic. The methodology is by no means contrained to what you have delineated. I think Popper took a better approach here by leaving this a bit loose.

 

Well, if I had not put this limitation of logic the ES would be more general, I agree with you.

However all kind of bizarre statemens will be possoble because we can not

refute any theory because we could not refute using the contradiction principle of logic, did you get?

We could not 'falsify' any theory because we coould not use the contradiction principle of the logic where "A and Not A" is false.

because this I thin we have to keep the logic as premisse of the theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Could anyone, for example, prove we are not dreaming?

This is a bad analogy. Be careful with analogies. Here, the asnwer is Yes. By definition we dream when we sleep. We do not dream when we are awake. By definition, we are not dreaming.

 

I do not agree here.

When we are dreaming, not always we know, in ours dreaming, we are dreaming !

and all we fill seems to be true !

 

 

 

We decide what it means to dream, not nature.

 

I disagree. If in the dream you decide you are not dreaming it not mean you are not dreamin.

What you feel in the dream is not reality necessarily.

 

 

Consider the following theory: "This shoe box contains a frog."

Can we consider the theory true? Would that refute Popper’s postulate (i)?

 

... Your example is not a theory. It is a singular statement of fact. A theory is a universal statement. It would be something like: All shoe boxes like this contain a frog.

 

I disagree completely.

There is no postulate in popper or another author that said tha any theory must embrace

a big number of elements.

There is no scientific postulate about the size of set the scientific theory covers !

Is like the "big-bang" example i told above, there is a single element in the past

even so it is a scientific theory.

 

 

These matters are not trivial, since it is possible to say that what we see is not a frog but a toad, or that it could be an optical illusion or even a dream and therefore, we cannot claim that the box contains a frog or that the box exists.

 

That is not a failure of theory but a failure of evidence. ...

 

No body can prove any evidence is true !

All evidence is subject of doubt.

See the "The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle (PUP)"

Genismo

 

 

 

 

If a theory can be proven false, then it is also true that its contradiction can be proven true.

 

This is a weak argument. A theory must be falsifiable. A contradicting theory also must be falsifiable. All theories must be falsifiable....

 

this leads to a contradiction , see this example:

 

T1= "The disease X is caused only by bacteria" it is a poppers scientific Theory

 

If T1 is true , we can logicaly deduce the following theory :

 

 

T2 = "The disease X is NOT caused by virus" ; T2 is a scientifi theory too.

 

If we refute T2 , T2 is false and we get T3 = Not T2 is true:

 

T3 = "The disease X is caused by virus"

 

 

Now we have T1 scientific and T3 NOT SCIENTIFIC BY POPPER !!!

it is a contradiction because we can change the words virus and bacteria and have the same.

Didi you get ?

 

 

if I falsify something, my statement about falsifying is true.

 

Ok but BY LOGIC the negative of the statement you have falsified is true :

 

A is false ==> (Not A) is true !!!!

 

 

 

(i)-Only the propositions directly or indirectly linked to reality are objects of analysis for the Expanded Science .

(ii)-The propositions that most fit the "Occam’s Razor" should be considered closer to reality than the others.

 

Expanded Science i and ii above, is more of a methodology than definition of science. In other words, you are not defining science, but proposing methods to be used as rules, one being occam's razor, the other pertaining to consideration of evidence. This is just wrong on two fronts. One, the definition is dishonest as it is not a definition at all. Second, the methodology is not consistent with widely accepted practices--the rigor of science.

 

I think this definition is very clear and not subjective.

First we can separate what is scientific theory and what is not.

If you said in the "Alice in wonderland" the water fever at 50 degree. It is not reality,

because the "wonderland" is not reality it is a fair history.

 

If you say theories have to cover a big number of elements in the universe

it is wrong because it is very subjective. What is the minimum number of elements

some theory must cover in order to be scientific?? It is unnecessary.

All propositions about realit can be studied by Expandig Science.

 

 

 

 

 

Forget Occam's Razor as a fundamental method. It negates scientific rigor and no one buys it. Razor is simply a policy decision for efficiency purposes.

 

I do not agree.

See the PUP again:

Genismo

[jocaxx]

.Because one of the intentions of the ES is just unify science and philosophy!

Well then, ES (Expanded Science) methods are not needed, science and philosophy are already unified.

 

 

Not , because teology belongs to philosophy and is not subject for poppers science.

 

 

Jocaxx, if your goal of inventing Expanded Science thinking was to unify science and philosophy, then your efforts have been a waste of time--there has always been a clear unification of the two.

 

Where is it?

 

 

 

I would be interested to know if other scientists (or philosophers) found no logical unity of science and philosophy until they read about Expanded Science ?

 

Sorry, I dont understand the question.

[jedaisoul]

JedaiSou definitively you do did not understand what I said.

Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I do not understand what you have said. I have understood, and, like others, I've tried to explain where I disagree and why. You have merely repeated what you have already said. Well, I've had enough. Good luck.

[modest]

From a) we can conclude:

c) All statements known to be false are scientific. This is because they have been falsified, hence must be falsifiable! Which is nonsense. So I think it is inappropriate to take that meaning from what Popper said.

 

I haven't been following the discussion, so I appologize if I'm taking anything out of context. I believe the above is correct.

 

what I do NOT AGREE is that you can conclude popper have said that

"Not all theory falsifiable is scientific"

 

I would disagree with that.

 

In order for a theory to be admitted to the empirical sciences it must be falsifiable, but that is not the only criteria (according to Popper). There are three criteria he gave in The Logic of Scientific Discovery:

 

The task of formulating an a cceptable definition of the idea of an ‘empirical science’ is not without its difficulties. Some of these arise from the fact that there must be many theoretical systems with a logical structure very similar to the one which at any particular time is the accepted system of empirical science. This situation is sometimes described by saying that there is a great number—presumably an infinite number—of ‘logically possible worlds’. Yet the system called ‘empirical science’ is intended to represent only one world: the ‘real world’ or the ‘world of our experience’.

 

In order to make this idea a little more precise, we may distinguish three requirements which our empirical theoretical system will have to satisfy. First, it must be synthetic, so that it may represent a non-contradictory, a possible world. Secondly, it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation, i.e. it must not be metaphysical, but must represent a world of possible experience. Thirdly, it must be a system distinguished in some way from other such systems as the one which represents our world of experience.

The logic of scientific discovery - Google Books

 

Since it is translated from German, the language is a little difficult, so I might paraphrase the three requirements a theory must achieve in order to be part of science:

1. It cannot contradict itself. It must be internally logically consistent.
   
2. It must be falsifiable.
   
3. It must be confirmed which is to say at least some of the predictions of the theory have been tested and confirmed either by experiment or observation.
   

 

Certainly Popper did not intend all falsifiable theories be part of the empirical sciences.

 

~modest

[Rade]

...because theology belongs to philosophy and is not subject for Poppers' science...

Well, you are close. Some theology type questions (such as, does God of Hebrew Bible use feet to walk with Adam ?, etc.) are not subject to science, they ARE NOT CAPABLE OF OBSERVATION OR EXPERIMENT SUCH THAT THEY CAN BE FALSIFIED ! Other theology questions (such as, are there any true facts of history in Hebrew Bible) are subject of science. So, you are 1/2 correct, 1/2 incorrect in your thinking how theology relates to science.

 

Questions of theology and Poppers' Science are subsets of philosophy (they search for knowledge and understanding of reality using different "methods")--both are unified to philosophy. Thus, Expanded Science thinking not needed--it adds NOTHING to the equation. Here, see this example how philosophy is united to theology and science via search for truth without need of Expanded Science thinking:

 

 

Theology<-(non-material reality)<- PHILOSOPHY -> (material reality)->Science

 

 

Where is it--the unity?

^ up there^ (see also the text in my last post)

[lawcat]

 

If you say theories have to cover a big number of elements in the universe

it is wrong because it is very subjective. What is the minimum number of elements

some theory must cover in order to be scientific?? It is unnecessary.

All propositions about realit can be studied by Expandig Science.

 

Occam's razor is about efficiency. In considering number of elements, for example number of pieces of evidence, scientists already consider all that is relevant. For you to demand that science is supremely efficient in this regard is implying that others are not--that others are wasting time considering irrelevant evidence--or that scientists are constrained by Occam's Razor efficency. :rolleyes:

 

As far as theories, under Occam's razor, "simpler theories are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." In other words, the first question is whether there are more than one theory. The second question is, if there are more than one, then if two theories, whether the two theories are equal. "Crucial language."

 

This crucial language makes Occam's razor a maxim of very narrow application, for we only consider it when two theories are equal, and this is rare. usually, one theory is more plausable or more consistent with evidence than the other, and in that case the two are not equal. Therefore, the Razor has narrow application for efficiency purposes and can not be broadly used.

 

Finally, your paper misses the mark completely. You set out to solve the Kant's problem, and you ended up in Occam's razor which is generally a solution to Hume's pseudo-problem of induction. You set out to solve demarcation by definition, but you ended up giving instruction on methodology. You missed the mark. in other words, you are telling scientists what they should do (use Occam's razor if they inted to make science), instead of defining what they already do (which is use Occam's razor sparingly--not all statements follow Occam's razor).

 

But all is not lost. If I understand you correcly, you can build on Popper. You can create a theory that completes Popper, such that it is Expanded Science definition: Science is a system of falsifiable statements consistent with evidence, and if more than one such statement, all other things beings equal, than the simplest statement should prevail. You can claim this more complete, unless Popper already did this, which I suspect he did.

[Qfwfq]

Jocaxx, what is called science today came about from what was called natural philosophy in the past and, during the course of the 20th century, it became a somewhat separate thing from philosophy.

 

Lets work with that, and see where it gets us. At least we are agreeing there are two meanings to this statement...

Uhm, we don't quite agree on that. It has one meaning and I said that this meaning is the conjunction of those two statements. Loosely you might phrase it as "it means two things" but, more precisely, you should say "it means both" and the distinction is subtle but relevant; vel isn't the same as and.

 

The trouble with this, as I see it, is that it classifies any nutcase idea as a "scientific theory" so long as it can potentially be falsified. It is that that I, and others, have been uncomfortable with: I quote Stanford:

You are missing another distinction which I had pointed out: that between scientific fact and what Popper (all too loosely) calls scientific theory.

 

Remember, it does not have to be falsifiable now, just potentially falsifiable. So the statement "All little green men live on Mars" is a scientific theory? Also, I acknowledge that once falsified an idea is shown not to be a scientific fact, but does it remain a scientific theory? If not, why not?

Jedai, I remember well enough, I've read enough to know what the guy means about falsification. So you remember what I said yesterday:

 

Popper might call "All little green men live on Mars" a scientific theory but I don't. He also sometimes calls the likes of it a conjecture or other times maybe hypothesis and I agree much more with these terms. What remains certain is that he wouldn't call it a scientific fact.

 

More importantly, do you agree with jocaxx that he has found an internal flaw in Popper's argument?

I don't find his posts well informed, nor even very coherent and I wouldn't say I agree with much of what he says. I did find myself in disagreement with many things in Popper's C&R but not an actual "internal flaw" or inconsistency in his main argument on falsification. More that he uses some very confused terminology and some loose arguments and sometimes even shaky grounds. I don't disagree with the importance of falsification and heck, Popper wasn't really the first to say it anyway and he seemed incompletely informed to me. He was up against a mob of supporters of inductivism. I don't agree with his solution of Hume's problem of induction much more than with Hume's own solution.

 

Jocaxx, if your goal of inventing Expanded Science thinking was to unify science and philosophy, then your efforts have been a waste of time--there has always been a clear unification of the two. I would be interested to know if other scientists (or philosophers) found no logical unity of science and philosophy until they read about Expanded Science ?

Natural philosophy was clearly one of the main branches of philosophy, ever since Aristotle chose the title Φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως (lectures on nature) for one of his books, from which the term of physics came down to English.

 

But, heck, as I said above these things have been going down different paths in modern times and plenty of folks today think of them as totally different from each other. An improved historical perspective is what would clear up the matter of this whole thread.

 

I believe the above is correct.

The quoted words of Popper were "if and only if" and you well know that this means the logical conjunction of two implications. (“Falsifizierbarkeit, zwei Bedeutungen von”, pp. 82–86 in Helmut Seiffert and Gerard, according to Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 5th paragraph of section.)

 

I might paraphrase the three requirements a theory must achieve in order to be part of science:

1. It cannot contradict itself. It must be internally logically consistent.
   
2. It must be falsifiable.
   
3. It must be confirmed which is to say at least some of the predictions of the theory have been tested and confirmed either by experiment or observation.
   

The first is requisite for it to be considered at all, even in other domains of philosophy; it is not a part of his criterion of demarcation.

 

The third is about the distinction between conjecture and fact.

 

The second is literally the problem of demarcation which is what was being discussed in recent posts here, for which his words had been quoted. In what you quoted, Popper had not yet proposed his solution to the problem, so you liberally paraphrased it with what he much later proposed and, of course, it's his solution to this second point (not to all three).

 

In short, the meaning of what was being discussed is not the meaning of what you quoted from L. Sc. D. :rolleyes:

 

Certainly Popper did not intend all falsifiable theories be part of the empirical sciences.

He did not intend all falsifiable theories to be called scientific fact.

[jedaisoul]

qfwfq

 

Thanks for the clarification of various points. You clearly know far more about Popper's ideas than I do. No sarcasm intended. If you would not mind, I would welcome clarification of a few other points...

 

Am I correct that the "if and only if" relates solely to Poppers later work on logical falsification? That relates solely to sentence structure, not to practical falsification? If so, I think it makes it more understandable that he would include "crackpot" ideas as "scientific theories", because he was only talking about the structure of the logic, not the content?

 

His earlier statements about practical falsification are of the form "to be ranked as scientific a statement must be falsifiable". I've suggested that allows non-scientific theories to be falsifiable. If that is so, I find it to be more understandable. I.e. Popper never intended to imply that, in a practical sense, "all falsifiable statements are scientific".

 

No doubt I'm over simplifying, but I'm trying to get a grasp of why Popper would appear to allow that all falsifiable theories are scientific. Your comments would be appreciated...