Expanded Science

[Rade]

From this review of Popper:

Popper's Philosophy of Science

 

We find this summary of Popper logic:

 

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

 

This summary of Popper logic derives from his use of modus tolens argument form.

 

==

 

In this thread, Jocaxx has presented an argument called "Expanded Science" that he finds necessary because he claims that the above logic of Popper to find "truth" in science is false. Here I show that the argument of Jocaxx against Popper is false.

 

==

To begin...

 

Let us apply the three Popper logic statements to the claim made by Jocaxx that he uses to reject Popper--his argument based on his Theory A1:

 

Theory A1 (of Jocaxx): Disease X is caused by bacteria

 

Jocaxx claims that Popper logic applied to Theory A1 reaches a false conclusion. Is he correct ?

 

==

 

To apply the first statement of Popper logic we must know the results of experiments using bacteria on disease X. Let us assume all experiments to date show only bacteria to cause disease X. From this information, we can then make a prediction:

 

Prediction A1: Disease X is never caused by non-bacteria (such as virus, chemicals, etc.).

 

We see that Prediction A1 can be put to experimental test, as any good prediction must, that is, we can see if Prediction A1 can be falsified.

 

==

 

Suppose at some time in the future an experiment is conducted that shows disease X is caused by a virus. What does this mean ? Does it mean that Popper logic has failed as claimed by Jocaxx ? Of course not.

 

When we apply Popper logic step #2 to the new information about virus we reach the correct and true logical conclusion: "The prediction [A1] is not true."

 

==

 

We complete the search for truth by application of Popper logic statement #3, "Therefore, the theory [A1] is not true." Thus we conclude that use of Popper logic does allow one to determine the truth of Jocaxx Theory A1: "Disease X is caused by bacteria"

 

==

 

Now, if you have been following the argument of Jocaxx you will see he claims Popper logic cannot be used to determine the truth of his Theory A1. Then, reaching this conclusion, Jocaxx finds it necessary to invent "Expanded Science" logic, because Popper logic is false. But, as shown above, Jocaxx makes a mistake--Popper logic does not fail to find the truth in Theory A1.

 

Where does Jocaxx make his mistake ? It seems clear to me that the mistake of Jocaxx is that he does not realize that the modus tolens argument of Popper requires that one must evaluate the "truth" of any theory [A1, A2,...] against the predictions that can be derived from the theory.

 

In summary, I have shown that Popper logic does not fail to find truth in Jocaxx Theory A1. Thus, the philosophy of Expanded Science is based on a false premise concerning application of Popper logic.

 

==

 

In fairness to Jocaxx, so that he can defend his claim, my question is---what do you find false about this logical set of modus tolens statements below used by Popper to determine the "truth" in your:

 

Theory A1 "Disease X is caused by bacteria" ?

 

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

[Pyrotex]

So, are you claiming that geocentrism IS literally true?

No, it isn't literally true. BUT it did enable 16th Century astronomers to predict the positions of the planets with remarkable accuracy.

 

And THAT is what True Science does!!

 

But Solarcentrism enables 21st Century astronomers to predict the postions of the planets with accuracies 1000's times more accurate than geocentrism could.

 

Solarcentrism is NOT literally true either! All the planets, and the Sun, too, orbit around an abstract point that is the "center of mass" of the entire solar system. Sometimes this point is actually outside the surface of the Sun!

 

Geocentrism and solarcentrism are still science because they are successful at predicting and explaining BEHAVIOR of the material universe.

[lawcat]

In this thread, Jocaxx has presented an argument called "Expanded Science" that he finds necessary because he claims that the above logic of Popper to find "truth" in science is false. Here I show that the argument of Jocaxx against Popper is false.

.

 

Rade, I think you misunderstand Jocaxx. Jocaxx's argument is not formal but informal, and it completely misses the mark.

 

Look at what he alleges:

 

6.1-Critique and Defenses on the 'Popperian Falcificacionism'

 

 

The main criticism to the "Popperian falsificationism" is that the tested theory is always inside an environment which conditions cannot always be fully controlled or evaluated. Thus, there can be a "false negative" in relation to its validation, and the theory can be prematurely discarded.

 

In other words, Jocaxx does not trust the scientific environment, not Popper or logic. He does not like that falsifiability is left to experts. He wants to impose an uber condition on scientists, which is a method, Occam's Razor. Look:

 

This critique to the "Popperian falsificationism” is valid; however, it can be easily refuted with the following argument: if this theory was unfairly distorted by a misled or even fraudulent observation, this observation did not really act as a refutation of the theory. A false refutation is not a refutation.

 

In addition, Jocaxx then invokes scientific methodology prior to age of reason to support his call for Occam's razor.

 

A second type of criticism, also widely used, is that "falsificationism" does not follow what the history of science has shown.

 

These are merely informal objections that stem from fear of scientists. In essence, his question is how can we trust scientists to do the right thing, to falsify. in his view, popper erred not in logic, but in leaving this up to science.

 

Therefore, his solution is this. Jocaxx constructs a new definition based on Occam's razor, which is really not a definition but an instruction to scientists on what to do if they intend to make science.

 

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.

 

 

These two criteria compose the foundation of this new science.

 

In his view, science should only consider reality. And in considering reality, to reach conclusions about reality, all that is necessary is Occam's razor.

 

 

So, OK. I do not intend to say that Jocaxx is completely wrong in probing this. He just misses the mark. But imo all is not lost. For example, instead of Occam's Razor, Jocaxx could construct another criterion which is closer to QM theory or even what Doctor Dick has been writing about.

 

For example, Jocaxx could say, instead of Occam's Razor, that only those theories, or explanation in DD's world, which have the highest probability are scientific, and if two have equal probability then Occam's Razor should be used.

 

IMO, DD and Jocaxx start from the same fundamental principle: We can not trust ourselves, and therefore evidence at all. We know nothing intrinsically, except that we can distinguish some patterns, and say something about probabilities. DD takes this in QM direction, and Jocaxx takes it to Occam's razor.

[jocaxx]

I am wtith litle time now then i have to be, unfortunatelly, brief.....

 

 

 

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.

 

See the text:

"

The postulates and scientific methods described herein are adopted, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, by nearly all scientists and philosophers in science. However, they are yet not sufficient to accurately delimit what is scientific and what is not, or to separate science from pseudo-science. ...

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]:

"

 

So, the falsificacionism is the poppers criterion beside the default.

 

Even so, the other critereas , perhaps , can be deriveted from falsificacionism.

At least the (1) can be.

 

 

 

 

 

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]:

 

Because this I am proposing ES and unifying the method.

 

 

 

Ao considerar o número de elementos, por exemplo, o número de elementos de prova, os cientistas já consideram tudo o que é relevante.

 

No !

I am saying about the number of element that the theory cover and NOT the number of elements

to make some induction or number of elements to prove or refute the theory.

 

 

 

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.

 

For the same evidences no two theories are equaly probable to fit these evidences.

 

 

The "Occam’s Razor" establishes that we should not put unnecessary hypotheses in a theory. The term "unnecessary" is the key of the Occam’s Razor: If we can explain a fact with fewer hypotheses, then it must be done. Extra hypothesis must be discarded. If several theories explain the same phenomena, we should give preference to the theory with the smaller subset of hypotheses. It is possible to show that the accretion of unnecessary hypothesis to a theory makes it become less likely to be true [11]. Thus, we can understand the Occam’s Razor as a criterion of classification of the most likely theories. The theories that suit the Occam’s Razor the most are more likely to be true.

 

Many refer to the Occam’s Razor as the “simplicity” criterion, but this is dangerous.

The "simplicity" in Occam’s razor does not refer to what is simplest to understand,

but to what is most likely to happen.

For example: for some, saying that life on Earth was promoted by aliens may be much easier to understand than an explanation that uses random and unlikely shocks of molecules, but not more likely to happen, since the alien hypothesis would imply that it would be also necessary to explain the origin of these aliens’ life added to explanations on how they would have acquired technology enough to get to our planet..That is, the apparent "simplicity" of the hypotheses of life being planted on Earth by aliens, contains, in fact, the complexity of the origin of extraterrestrial life, added to the complexity of an evolution faster than ours.

 

 

 

Jocaxx claims that Popper logic applied to Theory A1 reaches a false conclusion. Is he correct ?

 

Yes but not by yours prove.

The Idea is:

If the Theory is scientific it is falsifiable.

So -> If the theory is not falsifiable it is not scientific.

If theory A1 is proved false implies A3= (not A1) is proved True.

But if A3 is true it CAN NOT BE FALSIFIED so it is not scientific.

A1= Disease X is caused by bacteria

We can derivate from A1 ==> A2 = Disease X is not caused by virus

If A2 is proved false, then A3 = Not A2 = "Disease X is caused by virus" is proved TRUE

So A3 is not scientific !

There is a contradiction : "Disease X is caused by bacteria" is Scientific

and "Disease X is caused by virus" IS NOT SCIENTIFIC !!

 

That is my criticizes.

 

----

But it is important to say that independently popper's science be consistent or not

his science do not cover all aspect of reality and can not search for truth for this reality.

Therefore Expanced Science is my solution to EXPAND the area coverage by science

in order to cover everything from reality.

 

I think it is interesting someone, that disagree from thos concept, to put

some counter-example in order to refutate Expanding Science ans perhaps

we can develope it a bit more :-)

[jedaisoul]

So, are you claiming that geocentrism IS literally true?

No, it isn't leterally true. BUT it did enable 16th Century astronomers to predict the positions of the planets with remarkable accuracy.

 

And THAT is what True Science does!!

I entirely agree with your comments, but I suspect you took mine out of context.

[Qfwfq]

Am I correct that the "if and only if" relates solely to Poppers later work on logical falsification?

It means that Popper proposed falsification as the solution to the demarcation problem.

 

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?

He considered a crackpot idea as being a conjecture that is within the domain of empirical sciences if it is falsifiable. Once it gets refuted, it is a conjecture that has turned out not to be a fact. I don't see where the problem is.

 

Lamarck's theory of evolution has been quite totally refuted by our understanding of molecular biology. It definitely isn't svientific fact. Does that mean it isn't a scientific theory?

[Pyrotex]

Another point that jocaxx appears to have missed ---

 

Science is not determined by one person, one experiment or one observation. Science is a process based on consensus. If I claim to have falsified an existing theory, or demonstrated the need for a new theory, other scientists are NOT going to take my word for it. They will want to know in detail HOW I did this. Then they will attempt to do it themselves.

 

Only after the vast majority of scientists have repeated my experiment, or examined my data, or verified my logic, will my results be accepted as Science.

[Rade]

...For example, Jocaxx could say, instead of Occam's Razor, that only those theories, or explanation in DD's world, which have the highest probability are scientific, and if two have equal probability then Occam's Razor should be used.

How would this work for quantum theory ? For example, Feynman sum-over-history explanation has equal probability of truth as (1) Heisenberg matrix mechanics, (2) Schroedinger wave mechanics (3) Dirac transformation theory. Exactly what does science gain if it applies Jocaxx logic that we must use Occam's Razor to decide which of the four explanations of quantum theory is true science ?

[modest]

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.)

 

Ok. I see where you're coming from. Likely the inconsistency,

 

Defenders of Popper have claimed that this criticism relies on an uncharitable interpretation of his ideas. They claim that he should not be interpreted as meaning that falsifiability is a sufficient condition for demarcating science. Some passages seem to suggest that he takes it as only a necessary condition (Feleppa 1990, 142). Other passages suggest that for a theory to be scientific, Popper requires (in addition to falsifiability) that energetic attempts are made to put the theory to test and that negative outcomes of the tests are accepted (Cioffi 1985, 14–16). A falsification-based demarcation criterion that includes these elements will avoid the most obvious counter-arguments to a criterion based on falsifiability alone.

 

However, in what seems to be his last statement of his position, 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).

 

Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

stems from Popper's own inconsistency on the position.

 

you liberally paraphrased it with what he much later proposed

 

Well... ok, I quoted from chapter 1, section 5. On the same page, the following section (1.6) is entitled, "Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation", so I wouldn't say "much later", but your point is taken.

 

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.

 

Yeah I think that's a fine way to put it.

 

We also might say that a good theory, or a 'better' theory, supplants an older theory that was nevertheless a good and scientific theory of its day.

 

Yet I believe that there must be a third requirement for a good theory. It is this. We require that the theory should pass some new, and severe, tests...

 

...The first reason why our third requirement is so important is this. We know that if we had an independently testable theory which was, moreover, true, then it would provide us with successful predictions (and only with successful ones). Successful predictions—though they are not, of course, sufficient conditions for the truth of a theory—are therefore at least necessary conditions for the truth of an independently testable theory. In this sense—and only in this sense—our third requirement may even be said to be 'necessary', if we seriously accept truth as a regulative idea.

 

C&R Ch.10 S.5

 

The way that I originally interpreted this, when I read it, was that the current scientific system (for example, what might be printed in a current biology or chemistry book) would need to be corroborated, or even well-corroborated. If not, then it could not be part of the current scientific system.

 

Popper talks quite a bit about theories being corroborated, and the degree to which they are corroborated, in both books. But, most people pay little attention to that in favor of the more simple characterization 'falsifiability = scientific'. In fact, there's a paragraph in C&R, let me find...

 

In the text of this chapter i have drawn attention to the criterion of progress and of rationality based on the comparison of degrees of testability or degrees of empirical content ore explanitory power of theories. I did so because these degrees have been little discussed so far.

 

I always thought that the comparison of these degrees leads to a criterion which is more important and more realistic than the simpler criterion of falsifiability which I proposed at the same time, and which has been widely discussed. Buth this simpler criterion is also needed...

 

--Appendix A C&R p.2002

 

The idea that something is either scientific or not depending on its logical structure is probably an oversimplification of Popper (either that he made himself on occasion or that others have made on his behalf).

 

In any case... a complected issue I'd say.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

How would this work for quantum theory ? For example, Feynman sum-over-history explanation has equal probability of truth as (1) Heisenberg matrix mechanics, (2) Schroedinger wave mechanics (3) Dirac transformation theory. Exactly what does science gain if it applies Jocaxx logic that we must use Occam's Razor to decide which of the four explanations of quantum theory is true science ?

 

LOL. That is a good general question. What does science gain from Jocaxx's paper? I suppose it gains a shot at falsifying a theory, according to Popper, which should be persistent and relentless effort.

 

But back to your specific objection to my suggestion. I just read his latest post and noticed that he defines Occam's razor to mean to accept only the highest probability statements. IMO, at least such definition does not miss the mark of the paper which is to provide definition. For example, a definition can build on Popper such that: Science is a system of statements that have highest probability of conformity with reality. This, in the least, is a definition that we can work with. But Occam's Razor is ambigous, historically inconsistent, subject to different interpretations, it's hard to work with and misses the mark.

 

As far as whether introducing "probability" into definition helps us enough to overturn falsifiability, my answer is I don't know. We need to have an acceptable scientific paper on this that can be scrutinized in different settings, medicine, litigation, etc. But I suspect, at the bottom line, falsification test must take place for any statement to be deemed scientific, and I don't personally see how Popper can be overturned on this point.

[Rade]

But I suspect, at the bottom line, falsification test must take place for any statement to be deemed scientific, and I don't personally see how Popper can be overturned on this point.

Roger Penrose (The Road to Reality, 2004, p. 1020) argues that modern science cannot be held to the Popper criterion that a theory can be scientific unless it can be observationally refutable. He finds it to be too stringent a criterion. He argues that many modern theories predict mass-energy for particles, such as string theory, that are too high to be experimentally refuted. He also discusses areas of cosmology (the region of universe outside direct observation horizon, inflation, curvature) that may be outside the falsification criterion of Popper.

 

However, whereas Jocaxx claims that Popper logic needs to be modified to include the non-material universe, Penrose does not. Penrose looks to see how the criterion that a scientific statement must be observationally refutable can be relaxed in those limited situations dealing with questions of the material universe where experimentation is not possible, at least not at the present time. Perhaps, one answer to Penrose is to expand the Popper criterion to include a criterion that a statement that cannot be observationally refutable must be capable of being mathematically refutable to be held to be a scientific statement. So, taking an example from Penrose, string theory predicts certain mass-energy possibilities outside ability to be experimentally tested (it is impossible for them to be falsified)--are these predictions statements of science ? Perhaps the answer is yes, if and only if such statements are capable of being mathematically refutable--? not sure--just asking a question for discussion.

[lawcat]

Well, let's take that statement: mass-energy for A particles is too high to be empirically verified.

OR, in other words: It is impossible to empirically verify mass-energy for A particles.

 

This statement is falsifiable. this statement can be false for several reason: 1) if the statement is true because we lack tehnology, then it could be false because we have the technology; 2) if the statement is true because A particles do not have mass-energy, then it could be false because A particles indeed have mass-energy; 3) if the statement is true because there are no A particles, then it could be false because there are A particles. In any case the statement is falsifiable, but does not have to be false. The statement could be true, but it is still falsifiable.

[lawcat]

This is my little 3-page essay on demarcation. I see some confusion on falsifiability and demarcation of science, and demarcation of empirical science, and demarcation of physics, and what it all means. I am writing this in hope that it will structure the discussion now and in the future so that we know where each argument and objection fits within the structure of definition.

 

For example, if you have a problem with falsifiability, then you may have a problem with the logical structure of a statement. If you have a problem with determination of truth, then you may have a problem with who is doing the determination or how. And so forth.

 

As a preliminary matter, the word physics, medicine, empirical, religious, are just descriptors of appropriate forum where determination of truth is to take place. In other word, there can be physical science, medical science, political science, religious science. They are just different forums having their own rules. These rules are important in determining accepted methodology, techniques, and choice of acceptable evidence for example. Experts in each forum, by consensus, decide on these things independent of the demarcation of science.

Another point is that the definition is simple, as it should be, but understanding the meaning of each word and its background information is very important as always. So keeping the importance of forum in mind separate from demarcation, here is the definition.

 

Science is a system of truths. Truth is a valid statement consistent with valid evidence.

 

What follows is the structured explanation.

 

So we have three requirements: 1) there must be a valid statement, 2) consistent with 3) valid evidence. Each one is necessary, and all together are sufficient.

 

1. A valid statement is a sentence that a) can be true or false in form, and is not vague or irrational.

 

a) Statement - True or false requirement signifies falsifiability, the sentence must be capable of existing in true or negated form. For example, "God does exist" is a statement. It is a statement because it can be in true or false form--it is falsifiable. The negated version of that statement is "God does not exist." Therefore, the statement "God exists" is falsifiable. "God does not exist" is also falsifiable by "God does exist," and is therefore a statement. Both are falsifiable statements.

 

But, neither is a valid statement, even though falsifiable. Neither is valid because "God" is not defined. It is capable of many definitions. For example, the statement "RfG exists" is equal to "God exists." Neither truth nor falsity can be determined. The statement is not valid because it is vague without the definition of God.

 

So, falsifiability is not the end of analysis--it is not a sufficient condition. Falsifiability is merely the first step, a necessary condition, to determine whether a sentence is a statement at all, because science is first and foremost a system of statements. Falsifiability does not tell us anything except whether we are dealing with a statement.

 

:friday: Valid -- We must confirm whether the statement is valid, whether it is vague or irrational. An example of irrational statements is "God is not God" That would be an invalid statements. It is falsifiable by "God is God," but it is not valid because it is irrational.

 

Let's say that God is defined as “unique invisible entity who speaks.” Now, we have a definition of God that removes vagueness from the statement “God exists.”

 

2. Consistent with Evidence - Not all valid statements are scientific--not all valid falsifiable sentences are scientific. So the second inquiry is to determine which one is scientific.

 

For a statement to be scientific, it must be consistent with evidence.

 

Here we are introducing two new conditions: a) consistency, and evidence.

 

a) Consistent -- means not contradicting. A statement must not contradict the evidence. To check for contradiction, an i) independent, ii) test or review, iii) must be done.

 

i) Independent signifies who. Only a scientist, an expert in that particular field, can check for contradiction. Thus for example, we don’t trust doctors to review electrical engineering statements. Independent also signifies disinterested, thus a person who created a statement is not independent.

 

ii) Test or review signifies manner in which consistency is examined. The methods of checking must be suitable or accepted by the trade in a particular field. The accepted trade practices suffice. Preferably more than one or two tests or review should be done, more tests increase probability of truth. Here, if one is dissatisfied with the current practices, one must persuade the community that there is a better practice, or in court that the practice is not widely accepted, or the accepted practice is irrational—there is no rational basis for which a trade has chosen the practice. Pretty high standard.

 

iii) Done signifies conclusions. There must be a conclusion on consistency/contradiction by a person(s) doing the review. There are three possibilities. The statement can be consistent, contradictory, or speculative. Speculative means that it is neither consistent nor contradictory; a reviewer could not reach conclusion.

 

So, a statement "God exists," while testable in a religious setting, in science it must be tested by scientists; or it can only be tested by religious experts in the field of religion. In addition, whoever does the testing for the purposes of science, the method used must be acceptable in scientific field if the statement is to become scientific. And preferably, more than one such tests must be done.

 

So, if a statement is “God created the Earth” then geologists, physicists are all relevant scientists. If a statement “God baked my lasagna” then a culinary expert will suffice.

 

:ebomb: Evidence must be admissible for consideration. Admissible Evidence is evidence that is relevant and reliable, and not inadmissible by policy.

 

i) Relevant evidence is any finding having tendency to make the correctness of the statement more or less likely than it would be without the finding.

 

In the case of "God does exist," we have collected several pieces of evidence: scriptures, personal accounts, stories, scientific findings on invisible entities and invisible entities that speak, and speaking entities.

 

All these are relevant evidence. Personal account of a man testifying about God experience has a tendency to make the correctness of the statement "God does exist" more likely than it would be without the personal account. It is relevant. Atheist's personal account of lack of God experience is also relevant.

 

Scientific findings on invisible entities are relevant. They have a tendency to make the correctness of the statement "God does exist" less or more likely than it would be without such observation—finding “all known entities that speak are visible” would tend to falsify the statement that there is an invisible entity that speaks.

 

ii) Reliable evidence is evidence that we can trust. We must be able to trust the evidence as to collection and nature of that evidence.

 

We must trust the collection procedures or techniques—this addresses “how” evidence is obtained. This is separate and different from methodology of determining consistency with evidence. So, for example, interrogating a person under duress to admit that she saw God makes the testimony unreliable. Bringing a defendant to the scene of crime before the crime scene is fingerprinted raises questions of reliability. Spectroscopy of human hair from the same nebulizer where ferrous substances are tested raises question of reliability of evidence.

 

Nature of evidence—this addresses from what source and what it is. It is up to each trade to decide whether the evidence in its nature is reliable or not. We generally trust hard direct evidence as long as collection procedures are reliable. Testimonies are a problem, because people lie for their own benefit. Lies are not a valid evidence, because we can not rely on lies. This is not a problem in material sciences, but in others it can be., In medicine, a wife may come in and tell the doctor that her unconscious husband complained of back pains hours ago, or took some pills. This may be fine in the medical field. The assumption is that a wife would not lie. In other fields, such as psychology, testimonies are basically the only evidence. Whether a testimony is reliable based on its nature is up to each trade decide.

 

So whether a testimony of a person who saw God is reliable is up to each trade to decide, depending on the forum and its rules. If challenging the accepted rules of evidence, then one must prove that the accepted rules are irrational, evidence is not relevant or highly unreliable such as fraud, duress, and accepted, or evidence is highly reliable and relevant but not accepted. High standard.

 

So if a statement is posited as scientific, it first becomes a candidate for scientific statement. If after testing for consistency it is determined consistent with evidence, then the statement becomes scientific. If it is determined contradictory to evidence, then the negation of the statement becomes scientific. If it is determined that consistency or contradiction can not be determined, then the opinion statement deeming the original statement speculative becomes scientific.

 

Scientific statement is always true, and truth is a statement consistent with evidence. In physics forum, truth is consistent with physical evidence. In medical forum, truth is consistent with medical evidence. In religious forum, truth is consistent with religious evidence.

[Rade]

Lawcat--before I get too far into your post, can we agree to the following modification (in red) of this statement:

Science is a system of truths. Truth is a valid statement consistent with valid evidence.

 

Science is a system of valid statements consistent with valid evidence

 

We just combine your two statements into one. What I like is that it is implied that science is limited to seeking truth about what is real, i.e., what is based on fact(s) that can be considered valid evidence.

[modest]

A further modification, perhaps.

 

a) Statement - True or false requirement signifies falsifiability, the sentence must be capable of existing in true or negated form. For example, "God does exist" is a statement. It is a statement because it can be in true or false form--it is falsifiable. The negated version of that statement is "God does not exist." Therefore, the statement "God exists" is falsifiable. "God does not exist" is also falsifiable by "God does exist," and is therefore a statement. Both are falsifiable statements.

 

I would agree that "god does not exist" is falsifiable, but "god does exist" would not usually be considered so. The latter is existential. I might put it this way: there are two physical possibilities, either god is observed or not. If god is observed then "god does not exist" is falsified. If God is not observed then "god does exists" is hardly falsified. Perhaps you just weren't in the right place and time to see God. As Popper put it in appendix A of Conjectures and Refutations: "No observation in the world can establish its falsity. There can be no empirical grounds for its falsity."

 

 

 

But, neither is a valid statement, even though falsifiable. Neither is valid because "God" is not defined. It is capable of many definitions. For example, the statement "RfG exists" is equal to "God exists." Neither truth nor falsity can be determined. The statement is not valid because it is vague without the definition of God.

 

That would be the verificationist view, but it has been refuted so heavily it's almost impossible to accept.

 

I agree that falsifiability is not the last step, but I would disagree with the idea that falsifiability is somehow linked (or, in any way linked) with meaning. As Popper, again, so eloquently put it:

 

Here I must again stress a point which has often been misunderstood. Perhaps I can avoid these misunderstandings if I put my point now in this way. Take a square to represent the class of

all

statements of a language in which we intend to formulate a science; draw a broad horizontal line, dividing it into an upper and lower half; write “science” and “testable” into the upper half, and “metaphysics” and “non-testable” into the lower; then, I hope, you will realize that I do not propose to draw the line of demarcation in such a way that it coincides with the limits of language, leaving science inside, and banning metaphysics by excluding it from the class of meaningful statements. On the contrary: beginning with my first publication on the subject, I stressed the fact that it would be inadequate to draw the line of demarcation between science and metaphysics so as to exclude metaphysics as nonsensical from a meaningful language.

 

I have indicated one of the reasons for this by saying that we must not try to draw the line too sharply. This becomes clear if we remember that most of our scientific theories originate in myths. The Copernican system, for example, was inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the ‘centre’ because of his nobility. This indicates how myths may develop testable components. They may, in the course of discussion, become fruitful and important for science. In my Logic of Scientific Discovery I gave several examples of myths which have become most important for science, among them atomism and the corpuscular theory of light. It would hardly contribute to clarity if we were to say that these theories are nonsensical gibberish in one stage of their development, and then suddenly become good sense in another.

 

To say that something is meaningful in no way indicates its falsifiability or, for that matter, indicates its inclusion in the realm of empirical science.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

can we agree to the following modification (in red) of this statement:

Science is a system of valid statements consistent with valid evidence

 

Of course. In the future you don't have to ask. The structure of the sentences gives it away.

 

A further modification, perhaps.

 

Of course. That was the purpose of the post. Now let me comment on your objections where they fit within the structure, before addressing the modification.

 

I would agree that "god does not exist" is falsifiable, but "god does exist" . . . is hardly falsified. Perhaps you just weren't in the right place and time to see God.

 

So your objection is that God has no evidence, so "God exists" can not ever practically falsify the statement "God does not exist." But then, in the same manner, "God does not exist" can never be determined truth, and therefore can never be scientific.

 

The problem here is not logical but evidentiary. Such consideration is part of step 2 and 3. And after consideration, it may well be that the only valid scientific statement about this is: "God does exist" is speculation. But in any case, this determination is not part of logical falsifiability but of step 2, independent determination of truth--testing and review.

 

So I agree with this:

 

I would disagree with the idea that falsifiability is somehow linked (or, in any way linked) with meaning.

Falsifiability is simply logical determination of whether the sentence for review can be of both forms--a statement at all.

 

Let's consider the sentence: "Angels fly wingless."

 

Step 1: Is this a statement? Yes, it is falsifiable by a statement "Angels do not fly wingless." (and vice versa)

 

Step 2: Is it valid? Yes, because it is not vague nor irrational. Angels are well defined, flying is defined, and wings are defined. It is not irrational because it is not self contradictory.

 

Step 3: Evidence: Literature, paintings, folk stories.

Step 4: Is this admissible evidence? Depends on the forum. in Physics, this is not admissible because it does not make the truth of the assertion more or less likely, but just in that forum. In the forum of literature, it is admissible. It is relevant and it is likely reliable.

 

Step 4: Checking for consistency. Applying reading and observation of evidence we can see that "Angels fly wingless" is inconsistent with evidence because evidence points to the fact that Angels have wings and fly with wings. (or the opposite, or it is speculative if both)

 

___

 

Now to modification.

 

The first step can be modifed to read: A valid statement is a statement capable of being true or false, and not vague, irrational, or irrelevant..

 

The requirement of the relevancy of the statement is justified because every scientific statement is also evidence. In other words, once a statement is determined scientific it becomes admissible as evidence in the future.

 

So statements of God, Angels, Demons, can be deemed irrelevant by policy of the forum. because they are inadmissible as evidence. This policy is justified for numerous reasons. The most obvious one is that many assertions of God are speculation, evidence is inconsistent,and anecdotal. Neither truth nor falsity can be determined by forum's methodology--God is mysterious, and yet if accepted the assertions contradict truths, which makes the assertions irrational for forum's purpose. But if physics is to make this policy, they need to go through steps 2 and 3 to make this jsutification rational. (which has been done long ago.)

 

IMO, the falsifiability is only logical. The determination of truth which is the act of corraborating or falsifying statement with evidence is an independent act. Rules of evidence of the forum are crucial in determination of truth in that forum, as well as methodology for determination of consistency.

[modest]

I would agree that "god does not exist" is falsifiable, but "god does exist" . . . is hardly falsified. Perhaps you just weren't in the right place and time to see God.

 

So your objection is that God has no evidence, so "God exists" can not ever practically falsify the statement "God does not exist." But then, in the same manner, "God does not exist" can never be determined truth, and therefore can never be scientific.

 

Where I said "falsified" up there, I meant "falsifiable". Sorry 'bout that. It may have caused some confusion because you have my intention backwards. That "god does not exist" is falsifiable. That "god exists" is not.

 

It is not that one statement falsifies the other. No empirical observation can be conceived that falsifies the statement "god exists". Nothing that you ever observe or potentially could observe would prove the statement false. By the common definition, this makes the statement non-falsifiable. It's existential:

 

Purely existential statements are not falsifiable—as in Rudolf Carnap’s famous example: ‘There is a colour (‘Trumpet-red’) which incites terror in those who look at it.’ Another example is: ‘There is a ceremony whose exact performance forces the devil to appear.’ Such statements are not falsifiable. (They are, in principle, verifiable: it is logically possible to find a ceremony whose performance leads to the appearance of a human-like form with horns and hooves. And if a repetition of the ceremony fails to achieve the same result, that would be no falsification, for perhaps an unnoticed yet essential aspect of the correct ceremony was omitted.)

 

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/05-JJ-se%28falsi%29.pdf

 

Falsifiability is simply logical determination of whether the sentence for review can be of both forms--a statement at all.

 

I don't believe that would be the usual understanding. There are perfectly meaningful statements which cannot be falsified. The sentence directly preceding this one is an example

 

~modest