Why does the government hide UFO's?

[DaveC426913]

Why is the discussion about John Titor? I thought that nonsense died out a decade ago.
But to the point: Do you believe your wife or child when they say they love you? Are you claiming that you don't believe in anything that is unfalsifiable?

I'd have thought it went without saying that we were staying within the realm of science.

 

[Daecon]

A "true" claim is one that hasn't been falsified, not one that can't be.

 

[Magical Realist]

A "true" claim is one that hasn't been falsified, not one that can't be.

So a true claim MAY one day be falsified, but not yet. That's seems a very shakey definition of truth to me.

I posted this sentence at 4:25 on July 18, 2016. How may this statement one day be falsified?

 

[DaveC426913]

So because I question your holy positivist philosopher, I have no credibility? That doesn't follow at all..

Falsifiability is at the very core of the Scientific Method. It is what separates scientific conjecture from nonscience conjecture.

Here it is, mentioend in a flowchart. Not the best exmaple, but an example nonetheless.

It is critical to understand it. Frankly, I'm not sure why it's not taught in grade school.

I would imagine part of IS's irritation is that any science-minded person ought to know this like they know 2+2=4.

Only false statements have the possibility of being falsified or refuted.

To be given credibility, a claim must first be falsifiable and then fail to be falsified.


Special Relativity is falsifiable. It makes predictions that we can test. Predictions that - if shown wrong - will falsify it.
When we test them, we find out that its predictions were accurate.
It failed to be falsified. This makes it a contender for a good theory.

Aether theory is also falsifiable. It too makes predictions that we can test. Predictions that - if shown wrong - will falsify it.
When we test them, we find out that its predictions were erroneous.
The tests (lots of them) can and do falsify the assertion. This makes it a poor contender for a good theory.

Another:

Multiple parallel universes are not falsifiable.
This does not mean they are true or false.
What it means is that there is no test we can do - even in principle - that would rule them out as existing.
That means we can invent all sorts of funny ideas about what happens there, without the slightest shadow of being "wrong". How would anyone ever prove it?
We can even wrap the funny ideas up in complex formulae and graphs and terminology, building a whole universe out of whole cloth (and we note that the interet is chock full of them) - without ever having to face the whether or not it just isn't so.
Which is fun - but it's not science.

Here's another, simplistic example:
That unicorns have an affinity to virgins is an unfalsifiable assertion (because we can't find a unicorn to do the test on).
I could very well say unicorns' hooves are made of gold, and no one can devise a test that will show my reasoning is unscientific.

Now - I can make the claim that horses hooves are made of keratin. That is a falsifiable claim. You can do a test that will determine of I am full of hogwash. And when your test fails to falsify the assertion that horses hooves are made of ketarin, then and only then, can that claim be considered to be a scientifically valid hypothesis.

 

[Magical Realist]

Falsifiability is at the very core of the Scientific Method. It is what separates scientific conjecture from nonscience conjecture.

Falsificationism is philosophy, not science. It has no place being pushed in the name of science anymore than some infallible scientific method does. These are both historical artifacts of a bygone age.

To be given credibility, a claim must first be falsifiable and then fail to be falsified.

But if the claim is falsifiable why is not then falsified? Surely by asserting a claim is falsifiable we mean just that---that it IS falsified. If otoh it isn't falsified, then there is no sense in still claiming it is falsifiable. It is true then in the sense that it has not and never will be falsified.

Multiple parallel universes are not falsifiable. This does not mean they are true or false.

All true statements are unfalsifiable. But not all unfalsifiable statements are true. The former is a subset of the latter.

 

[DaveC426913]

Falsificationism is philosophy, not science. It has no place being pushed in the name of science anymore than some infallible scientific method does. These are both historical artifacts of a bygone age.

I'm afraid this is quite untrue. It is at the very core of the Scientific Method.

See my examples in the previous post.

SR is falsifiable. It has failed to be falsified by every test we've thrown at it.

(I'm not sure why you're making assertions about sometinng you're only just beginning to learn about.)

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm afraid this is quite untrue. It is at the very core of the Scientific Method.

The scientific method is philosophy too, and very bad philosophy at that. It prescribes a rote methodology for arriving at the truth. This is a myth. Science doesn't rely on any one method to reach the truth. Do you know who invented the scientific method? A lawyer!

 

[DaveC426913]

The scientific method is philosophy too, and very bad philosophy at that. It prescribes a rote methodology for arriving at the truth. This is a myth. Science doesn't rely on any one method to reach the truth.

This is not the Overthrow Science forum.

Do you know who invented the scientific method? A lawyer!

Perfect. No one better.

BTW, that is a fallacy of Bulverism. Or Genetic fallacy. Either one.

Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.

Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Problems with Falsificationism

From Chalmers (1999):

• Problems stemming from the logical situation
  • "When observation and experiment provide evidence that conflicts with the predictions of some law or theory, it may be the evidence which is at fault rather than the law or theory."
  • "A realistic scientific theory will consist of a complex of universal statements rather than a single statement like “All swans are white”. Further, if a theory is to be experimentally tested, then more will be involved than those statements that constitute the theory under test. The theory will need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions, such as laws and theories governing the use of any instruments used, for instance. In addition, in order to deduce some prediction the validity of which is to be experimentally tested, it will be necessary to add initial conditions such as a description of the experimental set-up."
• Falsification inadequate on historical grounds
  • "In the early years of its life, Newton’s gravitational theory was falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit"
  • "A second example concerns Bohr’s theory of the atom, and is due to Lakatos (1970, pp. 140-54)."
  • "A third example concerns the kinetic theory and has the advantage that the falsification of that theory at birth was explicitly acknowledged by its originator."
  • "A fourth example, the Copernican Revolution, will be outlined in more detail in the following section."

From Ladyman (2002):

1. Some legitimate parts of science seem not to be falsifiable
   1. Probabilistic statements
   2. Existential statements "Although Popper is right that a universal generalization can be falsified by just one negative instance, many statements in science are not of this form. For example, scientific theories assert the existence of things like black holes, atoms, viruses, DNA and so on. Statements that assert the existence of something cannot be falsified by one’s failure to find them."
   3. Unfalsifiable scientific principles "the principle of conservation of energy", "the second law of thermodynamics", there is no ‘action at a distance’ e.g. "Newton’s theory of gravity, the superiority of simple and unifying theories
   4. Hypothesis of natural selection
2. Falsificationism is not itself falsifiable
3. The notion of degree of falsifiability is problematic
4. Popper cannot account for our expectations about the future
5. Scientists sometimes ignore falsification

From O'Hear (1989):

• "First, many empirically provable statements, which we would intuitively think of as scientific, become unscientific. Thus, ‘There is at least one planet’, ‘There are electrons’, and ‘Bacteria exist‘, are all unscientific, because unfalsifiable. We cannot disprove them by observation, in other words."
• "The second immediate problem concerns probability, which plays an increasingly important role in science. A probability statement is one which says that a particular proportion of events will be of such and such a character, but without specifying which ones. Thus, we can say that a certain coin has a 1 in 2 probability of coming down heads (p(h) = 0.5). The problem with such a statement is that it cannot be falsified if no limit is put on the possible number of coin tosses. 10,000 tails in succession would not strictly refute p(h) = 0.5, because over a very long run of tosses 10,000 tails might be balanced out by a large population of heads, and this could be said of any deviation at all from any predicted probability."
• "A key feature of the objectivity of science is the repeatability of observations and experiments. Insisting on repeatability guards against observer bias and inaccuracy, to say nothing of dishonesty, and against freak results due to chance or unusual factors interfering with a particular observation. As such it is a crucial aspect of the objectivity and openness of science, but it means that theories are falsified not by single observations or experiments, but by what is in effect another general hypothesis to the effect that such and such an observation is repeatable."
• "There is always an implicit assumption in any test situation that there is no factor interfering with the observed result so as materially to affect the result.

Conclusion
Popper's 'scientific method' requires an infinite number of hypotheses, yet is not robust, fails with existential statements, fails with probabilistic statements and fails in practice anyway due to the necessity of auxiliary assumptions. How has Popper's falsification performed in practice? Newton's gravitational theory, Bohr's theory of the atom, kinetic theory, the Copernican Revolution and the theory of evolution were all falsified, despite being excellent examples of science. Popper's falsification fails in both theory and practice."===http://science.martinsewell.com/falsification.html

 

[DaveC426913]

Yup. Which is why - as you said yourself - we don't rely on any one method - and certanly don't rely on any one assertion or experiment.
We test and test and test. And check and verify methods and results.
What we are doing here in this thread is drastically simplifiyng the process.

But, when it comes down to a century or more of looking at hypotheses, such as SR, Newton, Aether theory and multiverses:
SR is falsifiable and has - so far - failed to be falsified.
Newton's prediction are also falsifiable, and, in the light of SR and GR, have been falsified (under certain condtions).
Aether theory is falsifiable, and while the test continue, it has generally been falsified.
Multiple universes are unfalsifiable. We can say whatever we want about them.

Bohr's theory of the atom, kinetic theory, the Copernican Revolution and the theory of evolution were all falsified, despite being excellent examples of science.

This conclusion overreaches its premise.

They certianly are good examples of science being done. But they are - ultimately going to have to fall by the wayside as we expand our knowledge.

We cannot send a probe to Mercury using Newton's Laws alone. It would miss.
We cannot split the atom with Bohr's model (we can't even have solid-state computers).

Would you prefer that those theories were not falsified, in time?

Science is not a prize, sitting static at the end of a journey, as the conclusion seems to suggest. It is a process. Ongoing.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yup. Which is why - as you said yourself - we don't rely on any one method - and certanly don't rely on any one assertion or experiment.
We test and test and test. And check and verify methods and results.
What we are doing here in this thread is drastically simplifiyng the process.

You now sound more like a verificationist--one who believes theories can be verified. That contradicts Popper's other claim--that theories cannot be verified to be true, but can only be falsified. So which is it?

You also claim SR is falsifiable. How can you be so sure? What would suddenly make all that theory and math false?

A great deal of science consists of existential statements as well. Neutrinos exist. Dark matter exists. Antioxidants exist. How are such statements falsifiable? How would observation iow ever falsify the statement that something exists?

 

[DaveC426913]

You now sound more like a verificationist--one who believes theories can be verified.

How about we don't apply labels to people?

That contradicts Popper's other claim--that theories cannot be verified to be true, but can only be falsified. So which is it?

You put words in my mouth, then require me to choose? OK, I choose that theories cannot be verified to be true. (some can, but in general, theories are models. You can never state that a model is the reality.)

But to the point: verified and true are not the same thing. Not sure when we started talking about "truth". That is not a word I have used. I reject it in this context.


SR has been verified many times. That does not make the model true. It will never be true.
And it will likely one day be subsumed by a more complete theory.

You also claim SR is falsifiable. How can you be so sure?

Because it makes predictions that can be tested. Any one of the tests could result in answers that don't match the theory. If the tests fail, then it has been (at least, in principle) falsified.

Contrast with multiverse. That idea doesn't make nay predictions that can be tested. There's no way for the theory to explain anything better than magical pixie dust might.

 

[Magical Realist]

Because it makes predictions that can be tested. Any one of the tests could reslt in answer that don;t match the theory. If the tests fail, then it has been (at least, in principle) falsified.

Making testable predictions doesn't make it true. Making predictions that are verified makes it true. If one test turns out to not match the theory's predictions while other tests turn out to match those predictions, how do you know it's false? Maybe we miscalculated the prediction. Can a theory that has been so verified ever be falsified?

 

[DaveC426913]

Making testable predictions doesn't make it true.

Absolutely agree. (never suggested otherwise)

Making predictions that are verified makes it true.

Depends what you mean by "it". The theory? No.
SR is not "true".

If one test turns out to not match the theory's predictions while other tests turn out to match those predictions, how do you know it's false?

By continuing to test it until it fails. (It will. It already does. It fails at the centre of black holes, and at the creation of the universe).

SR is not the end of our search.

Maybe we miscalculated the prediction. Can a theory that has been so verified ever be falsified?

Happens all the time. See your list above: Bohr's atom, Newton's Laws, etc.
They were all excellent working models until we started exploring high-energy, high-velocity scenarios. Then we saw that they were inaccurate descriptions or our universe.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Falsificationism is philosophy, not science. It has no place being pushed in the name of science anymore than some infallible scientific method does. These are both historical artifacts of a bygone age.

Falsificationism is, as you say, part of the philosophy of science. That is, it is concerned with looking at why certain claims are regarded as scientific while others are not.

Clearly, even from your own posts, this is a live debate, not an historical artifact of a bygone age.

But if the claim is falsifiable why is not then falsified? Surely by asserting a claim is falsifiable we mean just that---that it IS falsified. If otoh it isn't falsified, then there is no sense in still claiming it is falsifiable. It is true then in the sense that it has not and never will be falsified.
....

All true statements are unfalsifiable. But not all unfalsifiable statements are true. The former is a subset of the latter.

You don't understand the concept properly, even though it has now been explained to you a number of times.

Suppose I have the following hypothesis: Magical Realist is 8 feet tall.

That claim can, in principle, be tested. All we would need is for somebody to get a measuring tape and measure Magical Realist's height. As I write this hypothesis, however, I personally have not tested the claim, nor am I able to directly test it right now. Thus, right now, for me, it is an unverified hypothesis.

The hypothesis that Magical Realist is 8 feet tall is a falsifiable claim, precisely because, in principle, it could be proven false by an appropriate test. It doesn't matter that the test hasn't been done yet. And, crucially, it also wouldn't matter if Magical Realist actually turned out to be 8 feet tall when the test was done. The claim would still accurately be described as falsifiable.

There is a clear difference between a claim being falsified (i.e. proven false) and it being falsifiable (i.e. able to be tested to check whether it is false). This is the important point to understand.

Suppose, for example, that you are actually 6 feet tall. Then the hypothesis "Magical Realist is 6 feet tall" would be true. But, it would still be falsifiable. Clearly, there is a means by which the claim could be tested. Any such test could, in principle, show that the claim was false (even though, by assumption here, we know that it isn't false).

You can think of falsifiability as a kind of "danger factor" that puts any given hypothesis "at risk" of being proven false.

The point is, a hypothesis that takes no risks (i.e. cannot in principle be proven to be false) is unfalsifiable. Popper suggested that such hypotheses should not be regarded as scientific.

A good example is the invisible dragon in the garage. That dragon is constructed in such a way that no conceivable test can show that the dragon isn't there. Therefore, as science, the hypothesis that there's a dragon in the garage is useless - even if there is, in fact, an invisible dragon in the garage.

Note that falsifiability doesn't determine what is true and what is not true. What it determines is what is scientific and what is not.

Examples of unfalsifiable claims:
1. Aliens are visiting Earth right now.
2. Ghosts exist.
3. God exists.
4. Some human beings have extrasensory perception.
5. Fairies exist.
6. Santa Claus exists.
7. Bigfoot exists.

Examples of falsifiable claims:
1. This particular fuzzy photo shows an alien spaceship visiting Earth.
2. This particular audio recording has the voice of a ghost on it.
3. These particular two people can communicate telepathically under controlled laboratory conditions.
4. Fairies left Easter eggs in the garden.
5. Santa Claus delivers presents to the children of the world on Christmas eve each year.
6. This particular film shows a "bigfoot" walking through the forest.

 

[Magical Realist]

More unfalsifiable claims:

1. Neutrinos exist
2. Zebras exist
3. Black holes exist
4. Pine trees exist
5. Quarks exist

ETC ETC ETC

In other words, any existential statement whatsoever is unfalsifiable because no amount of observation would ever falsify that statement. That pretty much makes much of science's claims entirely unfalsifiable.

Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)

 

[Sarkus]

Examples of falsifiable claims:
1. This particular fuzzy photo shows an alien spaceship visiting Earth.
2. This particular audio recording has the voice of a ghost on it.
3. These particular two people can communicate telepathically under controlled laboratory conditions.
4. Fairies left Easter eggs in the garden.
5. Santa Claus delivers presents to the children of the world on Christmas eve each year.
6. This particular film shows a "bigfoot" walking through the forest.

Out of curiosity, James R, perhaps you can detail why you think these are falsifiable?
Some I think are more obvious than others... number 2 I see as particularly tricky, unless you know how the voice of a ghost is supposed to sound?

 

[Magical Realist]

Suppose, for example, that you are actually 6 feet tall. Then the hypothesis "Magical Realist is 6 feet tall" would be true. But, it would still be falsifiable. Clearly, there is a means by which the claim could be tested. Any such test could, in principle, show that the claim was false (even though, by assumption here, we know that it isn't false).

I don't understand why we are still calling the claim falsifiable even after it has been verified as true. After you prove I am 6 ft tall, you have established that as a fact. So the claim is no longer falsifiable. It has become a verified fact. I AM 6 ft tall. No amount of testing could ever falsify this fact. Aren't verfified claims and theories unfalsifiable?

I think alot of confusion here comes from using the term falsifiable for testable. Testable I agree with, though I don't agree that all untestable claims are necessarily unscientific. Saying the Big Bang occurred 12.5 billion yrs ago is not a testable claim, and certainly not falsifiable. Still, it is a scientific claim based on evidence. Many claims of science are of this nature. The evolution of man from apes isn't testable, yet it is still scientific.

A good example is the invisible dragon in the garage. That dragon is constructed in such a way that no conceivable test can show that the dragon isn't there. Therefore, as science, the hypothesis that there's a dragon in the garage is useless - even if there is, in fact, an invisible dragon in the garage.

We could as easily say there is an invisible form of matter called dark matter in the garage. That too is unfalsifiable, even though it may be totally true. Does this mean unscientific statements are inadequate in articulating the state of reality? That ontology is best left in the hands of philosophers?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't understand why we are still calling the claim falsifiable even after it has been verified as true.

Because measuring your height is a trivial example.

Go back to SR as an example.

It will always be falsifiable, even as we do further tests on it. It is never possible - even in principle - to state that SR is the "correct" model of relative motion. Any new observation (or, more appropriately, a preponderance of new observations) could call it into question.

The fact that we keep testing it and it keeps failing to be falsified is a very good sign that it is an accurate model of relative motion as we currently understand it.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't understand why we are still calling the claim falsifiable even after it has been verified as true. After you prove I am 6 ft tall, you have established that as a fact. So the claim is no longer falsifiable. It has become a verified fact. I AM 6 ft tall. No amount of testing could ever falsify this fact. Aren't verfified claims and theories unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability isn't a function of the actual veracity of the claim / theory, but of the theory capable of being shown to be false if it were false. So it is more a case of "IF the theory / claim is false then there must be a test that is able to demonstrate this."
Thus true claims can still be falsifiable in this regard.
If the claim is that you are 6-feet tall then IF the claim is false then there exists a test that could falsify the claim. The fact that such tests might actually verify the claim adds to the strength of the claim.

I think alot of confusion here comes from using the term falsifiable for testable.

They are different concepts, and there is no confusion (other than in perhaps your understanding, alas).
As you have noted, some existential claims are unfalsifiable - but they are certainly testable. For example, examine the claim "Zebras exists". This is testable because one occurrence of a zebra proves the theory. But if zebras didn't happen to exist then there is no test that can prove the theory wrong - it is unfalsifiable.

Testable is to test the assertion of the theory. But a theory (per Popper) should be able to be tested to establish that it is false, i.e. falsifiability.