Why does the government hide UFO's?

[Magical Realist]

Falsifiability is a property of a statement, a claim, a theory etc, irrespective of the truth or otherwise of that statement/claim/theory. Do you accept that? Do you accept that it doesn't matter if the statement is true, has already been proven true, that it can still be a falsifiable statement.

No..I don't accept that at all. As I said initially, statements proven to be true are unfalsifiable. Once I am measured to be 6 ft tall, the claim that I am 6 ft tall is unfalsifiable. It has become a fact, and facts aren't falsifiable. This conjecture about someone still being able to measure me and prove I'm not 6 ft tall doesn't mean the fact is falsifiable. It hinges on an entirely hypothetical situation that doesn't exist---IF I weren't 6 ft, then it could be falsified by someone else measuring. But there is no such "if" about the fact of me being 6 ft tall. That's what makes my being 6 ft tall a fact.

Not according to Popper. To him if it is not falsifiable then it is unscientific. This is not to say that it is therefore untrue, just simply that it is not science. To him the issue of falsifiability is a demarcation between science and non-science

As I have shown, anytime science makes an existential claim, say that neutrinos exist, would therefore be unfalsifiable. So science itself is guilty, by Popper's own definition, of making unscientific claims. I think it should be mentioned here that Popper didn't mean falsification to be applied to every claim literally science makes. He only presented it as guideline for honing down theories into more accurate forms:

"Most criticisms of Popper's philosophy are of the falsification, or error elimination, element in his account of problem solving. Popper presents falsifiability as both an ideal and as an important principle in a practical method of effective human problem solving; as such, the current conclusions of science are stronger than pseudo-sciences or non-sciences, insofar as they have survived this particularly vigorous selection method.

He does not argue that any such conclusions are therefore true, or that this describes the actual methods of any particular scientist.[citation needed] Rather, it is recommended as an essential principle of methodology that, if enacted by a system or community, will lead to slow but steady progress of a sort (relative to how well the system or community enacts the method). It has been suggested that Popper's ideas are often mistaken for a hard logical account of truth because of the historical co-incidence of their appearing at the same time as logical positivism, the followers of which mistook his aims for their own."----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh no..questioning falsificationism as I am doing here and presenting objections to it's claims isn't evidence of anyone's confusion.

That's true.

What is evidence of confusion evident in the initial few questions, from which it was apparent that the concept was not clearly understood. This is where it started:

Isn't unfalsifiable the definition of a true claim?

That went on for quite a few posts.

You can't hope to rewrite history. The quote feature allows us to refer back to what you actually said.

(Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yup.
1] He did not actually attack. He simply pointed out that no one else has confusion about the issue, but that you apparently do (see above). It's a valid complaint. The misunderstanding derailed the thread for a dozen posts or more.
2] The issue he addressed is the subject of debate - the (correct) concept of falsification. Your confusion about the debate issue (evident in your rebuttals) is part of the debate.


We acknowledge that your Google Fu is strong, but it is not the same as being experienced with the terms you are attempting to use.

Criticisms are not automatically ad homs.

 

[Magical Realist]

You might like to compare "Alien spacecraft are currently visiting Earth." Is there any test that would falsify this claim? If not, then it doesn't mean that alien spacecraft aren't visiting Earth. It just means that we're not doing science when we talk about alien spacecraft currently visiting Earth. This is the same as the dragon in your garage. The fact that it is unfalsifiable doesn't mean the dragon doesn't exist. It just means the dragon is not a scientific theory.

Right..but the designation of a claim as unscientific doesn't invalidate the claim either. If you claim you are thinking of a red wheelbarrow, there is no way to falsify that claim. But the claim can obviously be true and valid. Skeptical debunkers have a habit of reappropriating heuristic methods of philosophy in order to invalidate what they see as psuedoscientific claims. Occam's razor and the scientific method are examples of this. But a non-scientific claim is not necessarily a pseudoscientific claim or invalid in any sense. This is the context of this discussion, that claims by a certain psychic are unfalsifiable and therefore invalid in some sense. We can only say they are not scientific, but we cannot therefore conclude that they are untrue or even pseudoscientific. Every skeptic who uses falsificationism as a tool for debunking claims should be made of aware of this. And that's what I doing here--providing a philosophical context for using this tool as a method of debunking claims.

 

[DaveC426913]

...claims about a certain psychic are unfalsifiable and therefore invalid in some sense. We can only say they are not scientific, but we cannot therefore conclude that they are untrue or even pseudoscientific.

No one claimed they were untrue. No one claimed they were invalid. No one even claimed they were pseudoscientific.

Let's be clear, this was just a guy, on the internet purporting an experience he had.
There was no assertion of a theory of time travel, no insistence that anyone could check out his technology, or follow him back to his world.

It's not false, it's not true, it's not verified or unverified, it's not pseudo-scientific, it's not scientific.
All it is is a guy purporting an experience he had.
And, as we know, one cannot falsify a personal experience.

 

[Daecon]

No..I don't accept that at all. As I said initially, statements proven to be true are unfalsifiable. Once I am measured to be 6 ft tall, the claim that I am 6 ft tall is unfalsifiable. It has become a fact, and facts aren't falsifiable.

MR, tell us again about how you're totally not confused about what "falsifiable" means.

 

[James R]

Good to see you went and read that Wikipedia article I directed you to and so are backing off on the whole falsificationism thing. See...you can learn something afterall James.

Obviously you don't want to learn. I didn't read your wikipedia article. I didn't need to read it.

I wrote a detailed explanation of what falsificationism means, partly for your benefit. If you choose to hide your head in the sand and play the ignorant fool, as well as being an ill-mannered smart arse, that's your choice. It's a real pity you turned out to be this, Magical Realist.

 

[James R]

No..I don't accept that at all. As I said initially, statements proven to be true are unfalsifiable. .... Once I am measured to be 6 ft tall, the claim that I am 6 ft tall is unfalsifiable. It has become a fact, and facts aren't falsifiable.

I see that MR is now trying to shift the goalposts and re-write what he started off with, having read up a little on falsificationism.

Falsifiability is a concept applied in the philosophy of science, to theories, not to bare facts, as I explained previously.

Having said that, MR will be aware from his extensive reading on the philosophy of science, that "facts" are themselves often backed by a number of assumptions that we might refer to as "theories". In other words, the same facts are often subject to different interpretations in the light of particular theories. Thus, if a theory is falsified, a "fact" that relies on it might also be falsified.

Another point: It could be, for example, that MR was measured to be 6 feet tall by somebody using an incorrectly calibrated ruler. Hence, the "fact" that MR is 6 feet tall, while being accepted by the person who did the measurement, is not actually true. The theory that MR is 6 feet tall remains falsifiable. Moreover, even if one person has correctly measured MR to be 6 feet tall, it still remains true that the theory is falsifiable. Falsifiability is quiet separate from whether a theory is true or false, as I explained in detail above. MR does not understand this point.

On final thing: very few "facts" are ever entirely beyond question. What does "6 feet tall" actually mean, for example? The ruler you use to measure that has limited accuracy. MR might actually be 6.001 feet tall, or 5 feet, 11.97 inches tall. Does this mean that it is not a "fact" that MR is 6 feet tall?

As I have shown, anytime science makes an existential claim, say that neutrinos exist, would therefore be unfalsifiable.

I have written extensively on this precise matter in a previous post. MR chooses to ignore this, which is a dishonest evasion.

Right..but the designation of a claim as unscientific doesn't invalidate the claim either.

This is correct. Falsificationism is an attempt to solve the demarcation problem. It does not establish the truth or falsity of claims.

Skeptical debunkers have a habit of reappropriating heuristic methods of philosophy in order to invalidate what they see as psuedoscientific claims.

Deciding whether a claim is scientific or pseudoscientific is precisely what Popper was concerned with when he introduced the idea of falsifiability. If you think otherwise, you've missed the point.

Occam's razor and the scientific method are examples of this.

The scientific method is a very useful tool for invalidating pseudoscientific claims, I have found. Scientific claims, too!

But a non-scientific claim is not necessarily a pseudoscientific claim or invalid in any sense.

Right. A pseudoscientific claim tries to dress itself up as science when it is not. The concept of falsifiability is one way to help us spot pseudoscientific claims for what they are.

This is the context of this discussion, that claims by a certain psychic are unfalsifiable and therefore invalid in some sense. We can only say they are not scientific, but we cannot therefore conclude that they are untrue or even pseudoscientific.

The purpose of falsifiability is to address the demarcation problem. That's what it is for, nothing else. So it's a silly misunderstanding to claim that it is useless when we're trying to tell science from pseudoscience. That's what it's for.

The "paranormal" is pseudoscience, by the way.

 

[Magical Realist]

Obviously you don't want to learn. I didn't read your wikipedia article. I didn't need to read it.

I wrote a detailed explanation of what falsificationism means, partly for your benefit. If you choose to hide your head in the sand and play the ignorant fool, as well as being an ill-mannered smart arse, that's your choice. It's a real pity you turned out to be this, Magical Realist.

I don't need your long winded version of falsification when I have authoratative sources online I can consult on it. If that irks your bloated little ego, oh fuck'n well. Oh and don't insult me or I will report you.

 

[Magical Realist]

Falsifiability is a concept applied in the philosophy of science, to theories, not to bare facts, as I explained previously.

A fact is little more than a true claim. So my argument stands: all true claims are unfalsifiable.

 

[Daecon]

It's like you're deliberately refusing to understand the difference between "falsified" and the concept of falsifiability.

 

[Daecon]

It doesn't matter if a fact is true or not, the point is: IF something is false, can it be shown to be false?

The sky is blue. IF that were false, how would you tell? Answer: By looking up at the sky.

"The sky is blue." Is a falsifiable statement because IF it were false, you can show that it's false.

 

[Magical Realist]

It doesn't matter if a fact is true or not, the point is: IF something is false, can it be shown to be false?

The sky is blue. IF that were false, how would you tell? Answer: By looking up at the sky.

"The sky is blue." Is a falsifiable statement because IF it were false, you can show that it's false.

So then it is only hypothetically falsifiable, not truly falsifiable. Falsifiable only if it is false. But it isn't. It's true.

 

[Sarkus]

So then it is only hypothetically falsifiable, not truly falsifiable. Falsifiable only if it is false. But it isn't. It's true.

No, it is truly falsifiable.
In philosophy something is falsifiable if it has the capacity to be other than which it is claimed. And one can assess the capacity by simply being able to imagine any universe in which it is not as it is claimed.
Thus any fact that can be authenticated is falsifiable.

The sky is blue (for me at the moment, at least). I can authenticate it (by looking outside - and lo and behold the sky is indeed blue). I can also imagine days in which it might be red, or yellow (depending upon pollution levels, for example) and can certainly imagine alternate universes where it is green, purple and any other colour.
So "the sky is blue", even if it is true, is falsifiable, philosophically speaking.

Admittedly, in more casual parlance the term "falsifiable" is used synonymously with something like "can actually be shown to be false", in which case facts are not falsifiable.
But this is not how the term is used in philosophy, especially with regard the philosophy of science.

You may see this as a difference between what you deem "hypothetically falsifiable" and "truly falsifiable", but that is because you are not using the term as others are.

 

[Magical Realist]

The concept of falsifiability is one way to help us spot pseudoscientific claims for what they are.

You should probably then contemplate your claim that falsifiability doesn't prove some theory or claim is false. Because if you are now claiming it proves a claim to be pseudoscientific, then you implying it proves the claim to be false. That at least is the standard usage of the designation "psuedoscientific" by most sceptical debunkers such as yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should probably then contemplate your claim that falsifiability doesn't prove some theory or claim is false. Because if you are now claiming it proves a claim to be pseudoscientific, then you implying it proves the claim to be false. That at least is the standard usage of the designation "psuedoscientific" by most sceptical debunkers such as yourself.

No. That is not what he said. He did not indicate that pseudoscience = false.

Falsifiability indicates that the idea or hypothesis is not likely to yield anything useful from scientific analysis. That doesn't mean its been shown to be false, it's just that scientists prefer to study science.

Granted that's not the case for everyone. Lots of people are willing to study things that are not falsifiable, but they remain pseudo-scientists.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. That is not what he said. He did not indicate that pseudoscience = false.

Falsifiability indicates that the idea or hypothesis is not likely to yield anything useful from scientific analysis. That doesn't mean its been shown to be false, it's just that scientists prefer to study science.

Granted that's not the case for everyone. Lots of people are willing to study things that are not falsifiable, but they remain pseudo-scientists.

I see.. so a psuedoscience ISN'T bullshit afterall as all skeptics use the term. In fact it may very well be true. Is that what you're saying?

 

[DaveC426913]

I see.. so a psuedoscience ISN'T bullshit afterall as all skeptics use the term. In fact it may very well be true. Is that what you're saying?

No. Lots of things may very well be true. There might be a teapot orbiting beyond Mars. There might be life after death.
It's just not science.
Pseudoscience doesn't equal b*llsh*t. What is b*llsh*t is pseudoscience dressed up as science. That's what skeptics object to.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Lots of things may very well be true. There might be a teapot orbiting beyond Mars. There might be life after death.
It's just not science.
Pseudoscience doesn't equal b*llsh*t. What is b*llsh*t is pseudoscience dressed up as science. That's what skeptics object to.

Great. So when you call something pseudoscience, it's not really a perjorative term for bullshit. It's just something that isn't scientifically confirmed. Right? Like ethics or psychology or philosophy...

 

[DaveC426913]

Great. So when you call something pseudoscience, it's not really a perjorative term for bullshit. It's just something that isn't scientifically confirmed yet. Right? Like ethics or psychology?

Me? This isn't about me.

Judging by a large sampling of media and publicity, there is precious little pseudoscientific work being done that does not attempt to dress itself up as science.

Note that, in ethics and psychology, professionals don't tend to post their ideas as irrefutable facts and call everyone an idiot who disputes the veracity of said "facts".

If UFOologists, crystal healers, ghost hunters and after-lifers would accept that their claims are generally unfalsifiable, and stop trying to dress them up as science, there would be a lot less friction.

 

[Magical Realist]

Note that, in ethics and psychology, professionals don't tend to post their ideas as irrefutable facts and call everyone an idiot who disputes the veracity of said "facts".

So it's only when people present their ideas as facts and call doubters idiots that it becomes a pseudoscience, meaning ofcourse it's only not falsifiable. IOW, it's a behavioral issue on the part of the supporters of the theories. Not that scientists don't in fact do the very same thing.