Relatively simple in scientific terms, but not so simple in philosophical terms, and this, of course, is a fine example of where the subjects overlap.

I make no assumptions in this regard, you better believe me!

There is no rush mate, at least not as far as I am concerned. Things are hotting up nicely. :wink:

Ever hear me mention the "soup two-step?" .. you just saw it :wink:

I have read the above posts, and I fail to see where I have failed to grasp either the predictions of dark matter and energy, or the concept of falsifiability.

Also, there have been a lot of trolls around lately, and my patience for dancing around issues is quickly being consumed. So instead of playing games, I strongly urge you to directly make your point.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Soupdragon, can you please give me your definition of Scientific Falsifiability?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Well done Archer17, this is one of your more civilised posts. Keep it up.

Let me assure you, I am not playing games, and I trust you are not inferring that I am a Troll? But it's late here in the London, and I'm off to bed now. Apologies for the delay, but I'll be back (If I'm not banned in the meantime)!

BTW, I'm flattered that you have deigned to challenge me directly. Jerry Jensen laid down a challenge, as I recall, in relation to the Big Bang, a subject on which I am sure you are much stronger. As far as I am aware, he is yet to enjoy a a similar rejoinder.

Tally Ho!

You make a lot of blanket assertions without any supporting explanation, not to mention evidence! If you just like to "heat things up", that makes you an internet troll. Internet trolls are despicable. Is it your objective to be despicable?

Both dark matter and dark energy are falsifiable, as the BA has clarified. But there are indeed some popular (scientific?) speculations whose falsifiability is not readily apparent. As previously mentioned, the idea of "parallel universes" would not seem to be falsifiable, since we can never detect anything outside of our own universe. As Gell-Mann points out, "even if such theoretical speculations are shown to be without foundation, the notion of multiple, largely independent universes still provides a nice (if rather abstract) way of thinking about probabilities in quantum cosmology." The "parallel universe" idea probably derives from Hugh Everett's "many worlds" hypothesis, which Gell-Mann indicates is largely misunderstood. The idea is that there are not actually many universes, but the idea of "alternative histories of the universe" is useful in quantum theory. In depth discussion on this is found in Gell-Mann's The Quark and the Jaguar.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Besides an unnecessary reference to my behavior and a lot of words, what have you really said? You still haven't answered a simple question.. I rest my case.

Again, your famous two-step. You managed to take two seperate posts that referred to you both directly and indirectly and managed to escape without commiting yourself.

All we want from you in the context of this thread is your defintion of Falsifiability.

While most of us don't consider you a troll, you are getting dangerously close to that line. You make wild accusations, fail to provide more than one or two easily disproved examples and said that the BA, despite having a PhD and a decade of scientific experience cannot fully grasp this concept. All that I might add, without saying "why" or answering the simple question of what you think falsifiability means.

Why do you expect answers to your questions when you can't answer the question that forms the basis of your arguement?

[/i][/u]

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

After seeing you putting it off for so long I'll put my request in soupdragon.

Answer the question, how do you define falsifiability?

To not answer the question in your next post will simply falsify the theory that you are a serious debater. :^o

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

Here is the post that makes me doubt SD knows what falsification is:

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Ok, I'm taking a guess here and soupdragon can correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading soupdragon's posts and thinking about his "belief system" thread, it might be that soupdragon has decided that rather than get into a quagmire over his philosophical definition of falsifiable that he will accept the scientific definition of falsifiable - once somebody offers it - for the purposes of moving forward with his argument that a lot of scientific theories are not falsifiable.

At least that guess would be consistent with this statement:

and this:

And his original question was what do scientists mean when they say scientific theories are falsifiable. Perhaps he'd rather just work with our scientific definitions then his philosophical ones in this discussion? In that case if he offers his definition the discussion would get dragged way off from where he's trying to go if we start arguing with his definition.

I know that is the standard explanation. For other universes and before the BB it is currently true. But we have scientific studies of many things we cannot measure directly. That doesn't mean we can't ask a scientific question about those things through indirect means. For religion, can you say there is no Pele, the volcano goddess of Hawaii? Of course you can. The idea you can never prove it one way or the other, to me, is just a rhetorical way of dancing around a sticky subject. With the correct choice of criteria, we can test the 'theory' of a god just as we can test the theory of quantum mechanics.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

But suppose an isolated tribe were discovered that did have current history as to how they discovered fire. Unless or until such a tribe is discovered, we have to be satisfied that the hypothesis cannot currently be tested, but a scientific hypothesis is possible.

Like I said, my ignorance of science may be showing here. But then again, maybe my ignorance of science is allowing a different perspective on falsifiability. ...oohh, I'd better be careful, that sounds like the manic phase of omnipotence... 8-[

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

All that is needed is the criteria to measure the outcome by.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Well, now we get to the crux of the matter. But this makes me even more confused. I have a hard time with the 'no theory ever' part.

OK, I found dear Mr. Popper without too much trouble. Now I have to read it like a good little science learner. I'll be back.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

From Mr Popper himself, (see link above).
I think I've been following these guidelines in my thought process. I notice first that the discussion by Popper is re theory, not just process. That clears it up a bit for me in that regard. Second, his summary of falsifiability includes both refutability and testibility. I take his point to mean testing a theory needs to include some criteria that gives a more vigorous answer than all tests might give. And, finally, I don't see falsifiability as defining all aspects of what is and what isn't scientific, because science has more parts to it than theory. I myself deal with a lot of the more basic stuff...risk benefit of vaccines based on evidence...stuff like that.

Well, I shall await other comments on the above and go read another link that google turned up when I put in 'falsifiability and science', "The Case Against God: Science and the Falsifiability Question in Theology". Hmmm.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Perhaps a comparison of the BB with evolution is useful: Darwin's original thesis contained seven primary concepts, three of which have been falsified and four which have been modified, but remain basically unchanged and unchallenged.

The original incarnation of the BB has certainly been falseified: Without inflation or a similar epic the universe is much too big. I personally argue the reintroducton of the 'cosmological constant' is an admission the Einstein deSitter mathematical formula is no longer consistent with observations, but to most astrophysicists this is a reasonable modification.

The observational data have continually boistered the remaining arguments of evolution. Every time we peer further into the cosmos, the BB has to be tweaked with new parameters. Is the Big Bang a success or a very stubborn failure?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Let's try and keep this on topic. I mean, everything you say is interesting and in no way to I mean to disregard what you've written, but most of us are still waiting for soupdragon to explain his concept of falsifiability, since it apparently isn't the same one that everyone else has. I know there are other topic to debate the BB, so let's save this one for our original conversation.

Theories that arise strictly from a mathematical answer to a physical question would then be less exposed to falsifiability if there is no way to test the theory.

and,

Then states that such a theory is nonscientific.

So what is such a theory? Confirmations of the theory may be found in that it answers problems with another theory such as the BB. But being almost untestable it becomes more mathematical conjecture than scientific theory.

I blame calculus! :-?

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

I would certainly agree that a theory that arises purely mathematically (i.e., string theory, though that appears to be changing with certain experimental advances) is not falsifiable, and hence non-scientific. It may be mathematically falsifiable, but not necessarily scientific. Not to start any debate about it here, but creationism (or any attempt to explain things with divinity) are certainly not falsifiable, since as you say there are no conceivable events/experiments that could deny it. That's the point of falsifiability, to provide a way for a theory to be wrong. If there is no way to show a theory to be wrong, it's not falsifiable, and not science.

Is theory of black holes falsifiable? I don't mean whether they exist or not, I mean whether there is singularity in the middle or not.

I imply nothing. I stated clearly that my patience for people avoiding issues is nearly gone, and you have avoided this one long enough. You have been asked a direct question, clearly stated, multiple times. I suggest you choose your next post's words with care.

I am unaware of this challenge, as I cannot keep up with every thread on this board. However, many of the arguments made by Jerry Jensen are beyond my knowledge to argue. Cosmology is not my field, so I am not familiar with all the details. I leave that to others. It would be nice if Tim Thompson or Dr. Don would stop by again.

But this is not about anyone else; this is about you. You may not have started this thread, but you jumped in with the second post. It's time to defend your statements.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

I started this thread, but soup suggested it, in another thread--that is the quote I included in the OP.

If there is no way to test the theory, then it isn't exposed to fasifiability at all.

Metaphysics, philosophy, religion, idle speculation...

But the BB is falsifiable!

As Popper says, some scientific theories are more falsifiable/refutable than others.

P.S. I'm still waiting for soupdragon2 to define falsifiablity for us. He started out claiming that many scientific theories were not falsifiable. If he truly believes this sentence, then he must have a clear idea of what all the words in it mean.
He also claims that the concept of falsifiability 'creates a lot of confusion'. I don't think that is true myself. But, if indeed there is 'confusion' over the concept, then, in order to correctly understand what soupdragon meant, and whether we agree with him or not, we need his definition of 'falsifiable'.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I will attempt to clarify the issue of falsifiability before 1800 GMT today. However, as I have warned, it is essentially a philosophical subject, albeit one with obvious implications for science. Karl Popper is regarded as a philosopher of science, after all. Probably THE philosopher of science, in fact. But my point here is that it is important for me to address the stringent requirements of both camps. Of necessity I can neglect neither. In this respect they are inextricably entwined!

In order to achieve this task I will break my repsonse down into a number of logical steps, and number the various points for cross reference. I will try to use simple (well, non-philosophical) language in order to do so.

The steps will probably look something like this.

Brief intro
1. History of Falsifiabilty
2. Common misunderstandings and confusions
3. What is it? I will attempt a simple definition!
4. What it is not!
5. Some implications
6. Some examples of scientific theories that meet the requirements, and some that don't, and why... (Here I will address and argue issues relating to Dark Matter and Dark Energy.)
7. Problems and shortfalls with Falsifiability, and some alternative thoughts
Summary
Conclusion

I'm sure that some of you might say 'Why not go straight to 3?' However, I'm sure it will become clear that this in not possible for a subject that is not as simple as at first it might appear. I say again, it is essentially a philosophical subject, like it or not. This cannot easily be refuted. Science is a philosophical activity to all intents and purposes. At the very least it is based on the branch of philosophy known as empiricism.

Edit: Ooops. Point 4 added after edit. Thank you Eye-Zee.

And 6. But take your time.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Some thoughts in the meantime.

Oh, dear. I can see this going to be tough. If a theory cannot be tested, it is not falisfiable. It is illogical to say that if it can't be tested then it is not exposed to...

Hopefully this will become clear later.

Succinctly put, but it seems I will need to go further. Please bear with me.

I trust that, by implication, this extends to all contributors to this thread, especially while it is under close scrutiny by the powers that be.

No.

Your mind is made-up?

Ah, this is perhaps the most pertinent point yet. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that scientists and philosophers may work with different definitions?

For me this is the problem! I contend that they cannot and should not work with differing defintions. Hopefully the opening paragraph in my previous post underlines this fundamental point.

Again, perhaps this cuts to the heart of the matter? See above.

I thought you were only going to address the issue of the falsifiability criterium for a theory to be scientific.

I once made the point that testability can be a bit more general in this forum, though that also depends on what one understands by “theory”.
Perhaps you should give us your definition of "theory" as well...

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.