What Is "falsifiable"?

[Moronium]

Thanks for your input, Popeye. You're absolutely right, of course.   Not sure it will help poor JM though.  I've tried to explain the same thing in about 10 different ways to him now, but he can't comprehend it.

 

His response to you will probably be that you need to pay someone to teach you the "facts."

[Moronium]

 You claim the two statements are identical in substance when the very difference between the two defines falsfiability.  

 

I'm going to ignore your rant and your various accusations, complaints, and proclamations of superiority in this post of yours, JM.  They don't merit a response.

 

But, see if you can possibly understand that these two statements, though slightly different in form, are substantially identical:

 

All swans are white.

There are no non-white swans.

 

 

Remove the two gratuitous negatives (no, and non-white) from the second sentence and it turns out that you are simply repeating that "all swans are white."  Yet you somehow believe that it is the "difference" between them that "defines" falsifiability.  You claim that one unfalsifiable, while conceding that the other is falsifiable.   Such simple and profound misunderstandings of the language and of the most elementary logic renders a productive exchange with you impossible, I'm afraid.  It's unfortunate (for you) that you are so confident that you are infallible.  That, all by itself, presents a huge barrier to positive change.

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”  (Bertrand Russell)

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I disagree.

 

Both statements are logically synonymous and, as such, both can be easily falsified by a singular existential statement such as 'there is a black swan'.

 

If you are looking for a statement that requires that all possible observations are not contradictory, try something like “there exists a red swan” (your favorite color)

 

While It is entirely possible to verify that this statement is true, by actually producing the red swan, it is not possible in a practical sense to show that the red swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.

Logically synonymous is the problem that we are discussing.  Falsifiability has nothing to do with logic because science is useless if we constrain ourselves to deductive reasoning.  I would argue that "There exists a red swan" is falsfiable, as we can observe whether or not a red swan exists, while "There are no red swans" is not falsifiable, as in order to show the claim to be false, we must observe all swans.  FFS, the color of the swan isn't the problem here.  Again, the veracity of the claim is meaningless, and I think your proposal of an alternative entirely misses the point.

[hazelm]

All swans are white.

There are no non-white swans.

 

The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance in order to show it to be false, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

 

This is what falsifiability is.

JM, if you please, what does the second sentence require? 

[JMJones0424]

In order to show the first statement false, one must observe swans until you find a swan that is not white.  While we cannot know that is a true statement, it is a statement that describes our observations and we can know it to be false with a single contradictory observation.

 

In order to show the second statement false, one must observe that there are no swans that are not white.  If every observation that we make for every swan for the rest of eternity shows that every swan is white, then we haven't made any progress at all in showing this claim to be accurate, because we cannot observe all possible swans.  The second claim makes a statement that requires knowledge of all swans in order to show it to be false, and thus requires omniscience.

 

This is the same reason why the claim that "All swans are red" is falsifiable while "There are no not-red swans" is not.

 

I recommend you review the wikipedia articles on the problem of induction and deduction.  We can not use science to prove anything to be correct, because we are not omniscient and scientific explanations are not deductive.  We can use science to show that claims are not correct, though, and such a claim is falsifiable.  These are the claims that science addresses. 

 

Even though every measurement we make shows that every swan we measure is white, we can not prove that all swans are white.  We can, however, make the claim that all swans are white and if a future measurement contradicts this claim, then it is shown to be false.  However, while accurately describing our observations, the claim that there are no not-white swans is unfalsifiable because in order to show it to be false, we must observe every swan for all of eternity to show that none of them are not white, and no matter our quantity of observations, we are no closer to showing the claim to be accurate then we were when we started.

[OceanBreeze]

  I would argue that "There exists a red swan" is falsfiable, as we can observe whether or not a red swan exists, 

 

 

No we can't observe whether or not a red swan exists!

 

The falsification of theories occurs through modus tollens, via some observation. Suppose some theory T implies an observation O:

T→O

Then, an observation conflicting with O is made:

¬O

So by Modus Tollens T is falsified.

Now take the theory that there exists a red swan.

How can you possibly make an observation that conflicts with that theory? You would need to observe every swan in the universe to show that there is no red swan. The universe is a Big place! You can never observe every corner of the universe, so you can never falsify the theory that there is a red swan.

 

Now consider your second statement that there are no non-white swans.

All that is needed to falsify that is a single observation of a non-white swan. That observation can be very easy to do without any need to examine the entire universe! So, it is easily falsifiable in exactly the same way one would falsify your first statement that all swans are white.

 

 

Unlike Moronium, I am unwilling to spend any more time trying to convince you especially since you really have not presented a coherent argument at all, just repeating assertions backed up by nothing but ambiguity.

[hazelm]

I had this all down pat once!  Sometimes grammar is like math - unthinkable.    Thank you, JM.

[Moronium]

This is the same reason why the claim that "All swans are red" is falsifiable while "There are no not-red swans" is not.

 

 We can not prove that all swans are white.   However, it [can be] shown to be false.  However that there are no not-white swans is unfalsifiable... 

 

'All swans are red" is identical to (in substantive content) "there are no not-red swans" 

 

'All swans are white" is identical to (in substantive content)  "there are no not-white swans" 

 

I've already pointed that out to you once.  Think about it.  That may, or may not, help.  I suspect it won't help in the least, but......

[JMJones0424]

Read the wikipedia articles you cited.

[Moronium]

Read the wikipedia articles you cited.

 

 

Heh, back to that again, eh?  Don't have anything to say for yourself, or even about what that article says?  Why not just stick with "you need to get an education" as your pat response?

 

I did read it.  If you did, then obviously you misconstrued it.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

No we can't observe whether or not a red swan exists!

Of course we can, and we do.  But our observations do not prove that red swans don't exist.  This is the crux of the problem.  Because we can't make all possible observations, it is reasonable to divide claims by those that require observations that can be made by those that require all observations are made.

[Moronium]

Of course we can, and we do.  But our observations do not prove that red swans don't exist.  This is the crux of the problem. 

 

 

Here you display one of the (seemingly innumerable) mistakes you are making.  You're confusing "proving" something with "falsifying" it.

[JMJones0424]

No.  "Because we can't make all possible observations, it is reasonable to divide claims by those that require observations that can be made by those that require all observations are made."

 

I have enough cherries, I don't need any more.

[Moronium]

 it is reasonable to divide claims by those that require observations that can be made by those that require all observations are made.

 

Yes, that is reasonable. The problem is that you don't know how to tell the difference.

[JMJones0424]

Do so then *******.

[JMJones0424]

No we can't observe whether or not a red swan exists!

 

The falsification of theories occurs through modus tollens, via some observation. Suppose some theory T implies an observation O:

T→O

Then, an observation conflicting with O is made:

¬O

So by Modus Tollens T is falsified.

Now take the theory that there exists a red swan.

How can you possibly make an observation that conflicts with that theory? You would need to observe every swan in the universe to show that there is no red swan. The universe is a Big place! You can never observe every corner of the universe, so you can never falsify the theory that there is a red swan.

 

Now consider your second statement that there are no non-white swans.

All that is needed to falsify that is a single observation of a non-white swan. That observation can be very easy to do without any need to examine the entire universe! So, it is easily falsifiable in exactly the same way one would falsify your first statement that all swans are white.

 

 

Unlike Moronium, I am unwilling to spend any more time trying to convince you especially since you really have not presented a coherent argument at all, just repeating assertions backed up by nothing but ambiguity.

I didn't make a claim that we could observe whether or not a red swan exists.  This is important.  We can observe if a red swan exists.  The claim that red swans exist is falsifiable because we can observe a red swan and point to it to show that red swans exist.  We cannot support the claim that no red swans exist.  The color of the f'ing swan doesn't matter, and if you think it does, then I suspect that you are conflating veracity with falsfiability.

 

You are using logic to support scientific statements, and as such, you are representing the very problem that falsifiability seeks to correct.  Seriously, read the wikipedia article on the problem of induction.  Even if every measurement we make shows that all swans are white, we cannot use logic to show that all swans are white because we have not and cannot observe all swans.  What we can do is make an inductive statement regarding our observations.  All swans are white is not true in a logical sense, but it is an accurate representation of observations and can be shown to be false by the observance of a not white swan.  There are no red swans is not a useful claim because, while it also describes current observations, in order to show it to be false we must observe all possible swans.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JMJones0424

[OceanBreeze]

I didn't make a claim that we could observe whether or not a red swan exists.  

 

Yes you did. Read your post.

 

Logically synonymous is the problem that we are discussing.  Falsifiability has nothing to do with logic because science is useless if we constrain ourselves to deductive reasoning.  I would argue that "There exists a red swan" is falsfiable, as we can observe whether or not a red swan exists, while "There are no red swans" is not falsifiable, as in order to show the claim to be false, we must observe all swans.  FFS, the color of the swan isn't the problem here.  Again, the veracity of the claim is meaningless, and I think your proposal of an alternative entirely misses the point.

 

And you are totally confusing verifying a theory with falsifying it.

 

Presenting a single instance of a red swan verifies the theory that a red swan exists, so it is verifiable.

 

In order to falsify the theory that a red swan exists you must be able to present the entire set of red swans everywhere in the universe and show that NO red swan exists.

 

Really, you have this so mixed up in your head that it is pointless to discuss it with you any further.

 

Believe what you want, mate it doesn't matter to me! :good: