Jump to content
Science Forums

The Weakness Of Falsifying Theories?


Recommended Posts

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190515144008.htm

 

Scientific reproducibility does not always equate to truth.  Will this settle some ongoing arguments?

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   

Like this one?  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190515115831.htm

 

I could swear I read this at least ten, if not 15 years ago.  I have been wondering if my developing thoughts about Science Daily's reports are seen by others or if it is just me.  Many never seem to give any real "meat".  Many are "old hat".   A few really are good.  U stuck with it for that. 

Edited by hazelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   

I am sorry, exchemist.  I have no idea how my reply to the above ended up on my own post (see somewhere below.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Some times it does and sometimes it doesn't. How will that help settle arguments or discussions?

 

Occams razor is one of the best tools for getting at the truth, combined with healthy scepticism. Don't believe everything you read :)

 

In fact it is safer to be sceptical about everything, especially on this forum :) . 

I am the world's greatest sceptic - in all except science.  I missed out on so much that I am never sure there isn't something I missed.  So I sit tight and listen.  I rather liked that article, though, for another reason.  Many of us - myself included - affirm that the word "falsifiability" is being misused, given its basic meaning.  Now we have an article that uses a different word - reproducibility.  They do mean the same in scientific research, don't they?  Or do they?  I can see it two ways.

Edited by hazelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its probably semantics, but I think falsifiability is in the land of vagueness lacking reproducible evidence, and might not be fact, whereas reproducible is a clear repeatable result that if interpreted correctly supports a fact. Observations in astronomy are often more speculative than in particle physics, with lots of seemingly plausible theories kicking about. The Higgs boson might be an exception to this, it does not seem to be a reproducible result at the moment, discalimer, as far as I understand :).

No doubt two different  "animals". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...