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.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

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-[

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

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

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

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.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

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.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

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 ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.