Well, I don't think it would necessarily make it any 'easier', but I think more falsifiable is implicit.

We all agree that for a theory to be falsifiable, it has to be vulnerable to being falsified. Therefore, the addition of a falsifiable hypothesis adds to a theories vulnerability; it is more falsifiable, because there is now an additional, potential angle of attack.

Some theories are more testable than others. More vulnerable equates to more testable, in effect.

If a hypothesis decreases Fal, things become incresingly subjective, and the Fal methodology is undermined. If theories cannot be refuted, how can we progress. When would we know that is was time to move on? This relates to your second point, I guess.

Yes, to the former. I've said it before, but I allow that it depends upon one's point of view.

I personally think it is important to press the issues to the breaking point, see what the extremes demand.
I'm not sure of your reasoning here.

Take any additional hypothesis of any other theory. How does it conform with your thinking about DM and DE? In other words, I'm asking you to consider how DM and DE "make the original theories less falsifiable" but other AH do not.

Because they add subjectivity, not falsifiabilty.

They are bandages, and not acceptable under the strict definition of an Auxiliary Hypothesis.

What aspect of them is falsifiable? Can they not be explained by other phenomena?

Sorry, I'm out of time till Monday.

The only "strict" definition of auxilary hypothesis that has been mentioned (I searched all your posts for "auxilary") is from the Big Post:
Seems circular here.

OK, we have focus for the time being, as Auxiliary Hypotheses are central to Popper's concept of Falsificationism. They are certainly not circular.

1. I think we can agree on the following.

Scientific theories must be testable.
The more testable the better.
Testable is a synonym for Falsifiable in this context.

If we discover a problem with a theory, it is not conclusively falsified as it can be rescued.

So far so good?

2. It can be rescued by adding an Auxiliary Hypothesis.

Popper outlined a strict rule in relation to AHs, and for good reason. They should add to the falsifiabilty of a theory; they should make it more testable, not less.

What is the point of adding hypotheses that decrease the testability of a theory, as they only serve to increase subjectivity, which can be a downward spiral. Falsifiability leads somewhere because theories that conform to it can be refuted, which, after all, is the whole purpose of Falsificationism.

3. It follows that if we stray from this principle we stray into the realms of subjectivity, which is not healthy for science.

At the bottom of page one this is what The Bad Astronomer wrote:

Now at this point i guess we could go back and forth over the theory/axuliary hypothesis definitions. But it seems as if DM makes predicions and those predictions are testable. Not only that but it also seems that DM has been tested against another theory, MOND, and at this point in time has predicted with better accuracy the shape of x-ray emissions from galaxies.

So, soupdragon, how do you still think that DM is unfalsifiable?

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

Clearly, Popper allowed auxiliary hypotheses.

My question was, how do these hypotheses differ from other auxiliary hypotheses? Can you contrast some Auxiliary Hypothesis, which you accept as an auxiliary hypothesis, with the DM and DE hypotheses, so that we can see the difference?

Same here, and a lot of the pages seem to be comprised of arguments involving semantics. But thanks to your quoted passage (below), I've now seen Soup's take on DM/DE. However, unlike you, I disagree with most of his points, as specified below.

But the key here is observation. Something must account for what is observed, do you not agree? No one is sure what DM or DE are at this point, but these theories or hypotheses are standing in to explain verified and repeated observations. For the DM question, it may turn out that the strength of gravity varies over large scales of distance, and this might explain the "DM" observations, but at this point in time, such a variable-g theory is MORE of a stretch than hypothesizing that there is simply much more nonluminous matter that we cannot currently detect with our instruments. So it might be considered a "problem" that science doesn't know all the answers, but I hope this is not any big surprise to anyone....
That's a ridiculous statement. You've just jettisoned all of astronomy and cosmology! Has anyone ever "discovered" any galaxies in any laboratory? Uh, no. Have astronomers and astrophysicists nevertheless found out quite a bit about distant galaxies? Uh, yes. Can astronomers actually test hypotheses about distant galaxies? Uh, yes.
This is a highly subjective statement and is basically propaganda. They have to be added to existing theories because they are observed. And the term "patch up" has intentionally negative connotations. How would you resolve this observed discrepancy from expectation? Do a major modification on Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? You would rather do a full heart-lung transplant when a couple of stitches and a band-aid might well suffice? Hypothesizing that there must be more matter than we can see seems to be a reasonable AND PROPORTIONAL response to the observations. It's not advisable to do open-heart surgery when a patient has a paper cut!
Of course they add informative content. They provide a reasonable explanation for repeated observations. And of course they are falsifiable. If some other phenomenon is found to explain the observations, we'll have to say, "Oh, we don't need this idea of dark matter anymore." It will have been falsified.
I think that's taking "Fal" a little far. It should be reasonably conceivable that a theory could be falsified, but to specify the exact method is way too high a standard.
A prediction provides a chance to falsify a theory. But as you say, this does not ensure that a theory is falsifiable. I don't see how this "problem" is particularly relevant to DM/DE. They are falsifiable via other means.

DM and DE are basically open questions at this point. They are unsolved problems in astrophysics. They will continue to be verified or they will be swept aside by some better explanation(s), just like any scientific theory.

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

You forget that Soup is a proponet of the EU theories where electrical interactions via plasma are the foundation of solar systems and galaxies. EU theorists say that

1: Plasma filaments have been created in the lab.
2: These filaments can be scaled to any size.
3: It's possible to computer model the formation of these filaments so that every observed galaxy shape is created.

So maybe Soup feels that, in some way, galaxies have been discovered in the lab.

Of course, DM/E has to be falsified since EU says DM/E doesn't exist.

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

Hence the need to justify saying that DM/E are unfalsifiable, so that they can be dismissed out of hand.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Congratulations. You just won the Internet. =D>

An accusation of an underlying agenda. Not being too regular a reader in these forums I cannot comment about that.

I can however say that I have been uneasy about DM/E as an explanation of the observed anomalies for some time. Though my opinion is just that and although my background is not astrophysics it still bothers me. Then again it also took a while in undergrad physics for me to get Zen with the idea of the particle/wave duality of EM so perhaps it's just human intuition being applied where it doesn't belong. that and Soupd's philosphical arguements play to my own intuition.

Obviously there are two camps here concerning the validity of DM/E hypotheses. It resembles a pessimist/optimist, glass half empty/full arguement.

I'll be watching this thread but don't know how much more I'll post. Please continue though, discussions like this are better than any recreational drug for making one's head spin.

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

Consider the following scientific theory by a well known astronomer ( guess who ? ):
No good astrnomy because all astronomers are bad.
This theory is falsifiable.
All what we need to find is a good astronomer.

The question is, what's a good astronomer ?

__________________
Knowledge is Success ...............

Now we have various degrees of falsifiability? No way. Either its falsifiable or its not (ironic - now I'm going to argue for a stricter interpretation of falsifiability than Soup).

If a theory predicts a test will produce a result of 7 +- 1 and the test yields a 9.4 (+-1), the test has failed and the prediction is fasified. And if thats the only prediction the theory makes, then the theory is falsified. Falsifiable is a BINARY condition.

Now, if one theory makes one such theory and another makes two, does that make one theory more falsifiable than another? No. That only makes the theory broader and more complicated. Each piece of the theory, each individual prediction, is either falsifiable or not.

The number of and precision of the passed tests of a theory builds the body of evidence for it and adds to the level of proof - but once a specific prediction is falsified, thats it for that prediction.

I find this stance from you ironic, Soup, because it means that you must now accept that BBT is at least partially falsifiable. Just as Newton's laws were (to you, apparently) partially falsified, the BBT has made a number of predictions that have held up.

Now to me, of course (and I rather suspect to most others in this discussion), Newton's laws made specific predictions that were falsified (binary condition) and as a result was augmented/replaced by GR, which makes better predictions. But Newton's laws have not been completely discarded. One falsified prediction does not generally mean tossing out an entire theory (as you seem to want to do with BBT). Similarly, BBT has made predictions that have panned out and some that haven't. Its been modified/augmented, but like Newton's laws (and the very concept of gravity), it hasn't been discarded, because it still works.

Now, you may argue that enough predictions have been falsified to warrant discarding BBT, but that becomes a matter of opinion. BBT proponents take the view that enough have panned out to warrant keeping it with modifications. So maybe we need to discuss that - how much evidence is enough evidence?

I think you mean "prediction", not "theory", here.

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

Yeah - correcting that, thx.

Then allow me to make an objection:

What if there is only one experiment that can test Prediction 1, but there are three experiments that can, independently, test Prediction 2? Isn't Prediction 2 still "more testable" than Prediction 1?

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

On this, I'd say "testable" and "falsifiable" are not exact synonyms. Testability requires falsifiability, but there is more to "testable" than just falsifiability. So while I might say prediction 2 is more testable than prediction 1, I wouldn't say its more falsifiable.

From UT's question (had the same question), I am saying I don't consider "more easily falsified" or 'more opportunities to falsify' to be the same as "more falsifiable." Maybe Soup doesn't make the distinction (this may be a non-existent issue), but I wanted to clarify it. If that makes me pedantic, so be it - I consider that a compliment.

There is problem with this approach: If a theory is allowed to be patched ad finum, some or all of the original premise can be wrong, ad finum. My grandfather sincerely (and in his mind, scientifically) thought the dinosours were washed away in a flood, and he found proof of this in the alluvial deposits of dinibones.

We could have found a patch to Newtonian physics to explain M & M. Perhaps we did, and now it is time to look further...

Nice to hear you agreeing with us, Cougar. And so is the rest of the BB scenerio...

__________________
jwj

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

But isn't patching theories ad infinitum what science is all about, in a sense? I mean, it could be argued that what Einstein did was 'patch' Newton and Maxwell's conflicting results to make them fit the evidence.

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

Right, and I said above: Maybe we should flip it around - how much patching is too much patching? Or is there ever too much patching?

soupdragon2's answer seems good to me: as long as each new patch adds at least one new falsifiable* prediction, it's acceptable.

* Or, at least, falsifiable in the foreseeable future.

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

Somehow i don't think soupdragon agrees though, if that were the case this argument would of ended after the first page. DM does have atleast one faslifiable prediction. and that is the shape of x ray emissions from galaxies mentioned by the BA.

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

Nitpick: that condition will not falsify a prediction. The errors quoted are usually 1-sigma, so those results agree within 2-sigma.

And I would say that this is definitely a gray area: if the actual result had been 100 +/-1, then yeah, the prediction is falsified. But the case you quote is actually not strong enough to throw out the prediction!

...Good example, for both of us. Clearly GR has proven to be one of the best predictive tools in the history of science, but Einstein-deSitter cosmology keeps requiring patches where it shouldn't: Dark MATTER in the middle of galaxy clusters and on the edges of galaxies - how many kinds of this glue are there?

I would like to see this thread stay on track, because the concept of falsification is critical. I have found myself on the same side, and opposite side of Soup, and felt reasonably confident of where I was standing.

It is difficult because we assign weight of different arguments on the basis of our own experience.

Edit - dark matter in place of dark energy - Binary dyslexia is a CURSE!

__________________
jwj

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

I was mulling this over yesterday. Science is about patching, in a sense. These patches aren't meant to cover leaks as much as extend the grasp of the original theory.

But sometimes after a while you build up enough that you wind up outweighing the original theory. When that happens, you can get a paradigm shift. Relativity is the obvious example. Quantum mechanics is another.

Sometimes the patches are totally separate. There is some conflation going on here with the Big Bang, Inflation, and Dark Matter and Energy. These are all actually separate theories, and should be treated as such. If Dark Energy turns out to be wrong, for example, it doesn't mean the Big Bang is wrong. Same with Inflation, though that one is tied to the BB a little more closely.

I tend to look at theories it as models. Models work only within the confines of their domain. Sometimes the domain is quite clear and understood, other times it is vauge. The problems with a model can be broken into two types:

1) Model not complete, modifications are required.
2) The model is being used outside its domain.

Type 1 is easier to fix and correct as well as understand. That doesn't make the model wrong, just not fully complete.

Type 2 is harder to deal with since there are instances where we cannot be sure if we are operating within it's domain. If we operate within it's domain then we assume it is correct. If we operate outside it's domain then we assume it's incorrect. Personally I think it's a shade of grey rather than black and white.

I can provide many examples in my particular field but I'm sure most can find the same situation in their own area of expertise.

Many of the theories that are being debated may reside at the boundaries of their domains and it would be logical that there are conflicting results as we cross from one domain to another.

This opens a can of worms IMHO since we can falsify a theory yet it can still be correct within it's domain. That doesn't make it wrong. E.g Newtons law. While it is falsifiable outside its domain, it is still correct for all intents and purposes within it.


just my 2 cent worth.

__________________
MrObvious

My take on the posts since my last.

The Good

Yep, because they added to the informative content of a statement where they followed the rule.

Yep, I'll get back to you on this one.

I'm not sure I see your problem in this regard. To simplify, testable is now being used as a synonym for falsifiable in the conext of this thread.

Some theories are more testable than others, yeah? And the more testable the better. The point is that making a theory more testable is good, and making it less testable is not so good, and may be very bad in fact. A descent into subjectivity can lead to circularity.

As regards the BBT, have I ever claimed that is was not falsifiable? Sure, some tenets of it can, and arguably have been, falsified, but I am well aware of its complex and rubbery nature.

The whole point of AHs is to rescue theories before they are abandoned, providing they follow the rules.

I agree with disinfo, very strongly. But I'm not keen on the term patches, because these sound like bandages.

Auxiliary hypotheses are required to increase a theories testability/falsifiability, and not bandage it, ie., undermine it with subjective and less testable stuff.

I have reservations regarding the terms 'foreseeable future', however. I could argue that Psychic Powers will find wider scientific acceptance as a result of further research into consciousness before 2024. Would this be unreasonable on this same basis?

Yes, Popper's methodolgy is critical to this thread! Does anyone have a problem with this?

I have one nitpick here. Falsification, as opposed to Falsifiability, actually relates to the process of falsifying a theory, as contradictory results also need to be reproducible.

Are you sure there are not other potential explanations for this?


The bad :wink:

I don't see how to be honest. #-o I'm just not very optimistic about a strong case being raised in favour of them being falsifiable.


And the Ugly

Get real, Cougar, you know what I meant, and in case it wasn't clear, I later clarified it. I think most people can understand problems with modeling galaxies, even woo-woos like me... :roll:

Hmmm. Is this really relevant? Xbalanque followed with:
Conspiracy theories don't cut it.

DM and DE have certainly not been dismissed out of hand. The question is, are they falsifiable?

Even if a successful case is raised against them in this respect, they may still be considered scientific in some other respects, but it would nonetheless be a serious blow for them.

In line with Popper's methodology, AHs are good where they extend/improve/add to a theory, but bad where 'patch' it with stuff that is not testable, or reduces the testability of a theory. I went on about this above. My fear is that DM/DE were originally hypothesized to 'cover leaks'.

I see no problems with paradigm shifts when and if they happen, as I don't think they necessarily contradict Fal'.

I anticipated this approach. Are you saying that DM and DE are now theories in thier own right?

I trust you accept that they were 'patches' originally?

I accept that the BBT is not solely reliant on them, but suspect that they are a side-effect of seeing things through the 'Distorted Window of The Big Bang', to borrow a phrase from Jerry Jensen.

Soupdragon2, im not sure what your point is.

You kinda split my post up into two parts when it was all one point. The point being that after 11 pages of discussion it turns out that the last post on page one showed how DM meets all your perameters for falsifiability.

I also have no idea where this fits in with my post:

I didnt use foreseeable future in my posts so im alittle confused.


And i would comment to this:

Are you admiting that you havent made a successful case against them? And, do you think anyone has argued against this in this thread?

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto