• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Critique of falsification criteria of Popper

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus, it is a positive circumstance. How such a positive fact would take away the scientific status? I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven, or General Relativity can not be disproven. Is it bad for them? God can not be disproven.

So, it should better be:
1. Science can not be falsified but confirmed.
2. False science can be falsified while running a confirmation test.

ANOTHER TOPIC

I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism. Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.

So, there is no evolution from animal to non-animal.
But there is the transition from non-living to life.

The God-induced evolution has the following stages:
1. Nothing (absence of matter and space and time),
2. Non-living nature (stars, ice, air, dust,...)
3. Living nature (cats, microbes, dogs, trees, rose,....)
4. People.
5. God. Namely: God-like saints.

ANOTHER TOPIC: Will there be money in Heaven?

I argue, that the world ruled by Love needs no money.

ANOTHER TOPICS

A. Sinning does not make one an Atheist?!
Sin is the door for any bad spirit, including the spirit of atheism.

B. The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation for any theist because knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God. The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name. Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

C. You might think: "So science is good at saving children and good at killing children depending on the subjective standard. Once we decide on which, that science can do both. It means, it is neutral. It is a neutral method."

I suggest the scientists in Hitler's countries to call "ptisers". Look: there is no single common word between God and satan. So, let Science be the Name of God, but Ptiser - name of satan.
 
Last edited:

darkskies

Active Member
The fact that something is unfalsifiable means that it is untestable speculation. It never had "scientific status".
1. To confirm, you must be able to falsify.
2. What is "false science"?

Humans are not non-animal.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus, it is a positive circumstance. How such a positive fact would take away the scientific status? I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven, or General Relativity can not be disproven. Is it bad for them? God can not be disproven.

So, it should better be:
1. Science can not be falsified but confirmed.
2. False science can be falsified while running a confirmation test.

I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism. Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.

So, there is no evolution from animal to non-animal.
But there is the transition from non-living to life.

The point is, all scientific theories can be falsified if evidence is provided to falsify the theory.

As yet, evolution has not been falsified but if you could actually provided evidence the evolution is false then you would turn science on its head and quite probably feel so smug when you accepted the Nobel prize.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The falsifiability criterion doesn't work quite that way.
This can be proven true...
2 + 2 = 4
...because it's based upon a priori assumptions.
But one could use it to make predictions that can be
tested. This offers the possibility of something in the
material world being proven untrue, ie, falsified.

General relativity is different, being a posteriori.
It can be tested, with the possibility of being falsified.
While this hasn't happened, it remains possible, in
which case it wants to be replaced by a better theory.
Ref....
<i>A priori</i> and <i>a posteriori</i>

If something cannot be falsified, this is neither good
nor bad....it's just "not even wrong", ie, not "useful".
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The point is, all scientific theories can be falsified if evidence is provided to falsify the theory.

As yet, evolution has not been falsified but if you could actually provided evidence the evolution is false then you would turn science on its head and quite probably feel so smug when you accepted the Nobel prize.

Science itself can't be falsified.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The falsifiability criterion doesn't work quite that way.
This can be proven true...
2 + 2 = 4
...because it's based upon a priori assumptions.
But one could use it to make predictions that can be
tested. This offers the possibility of something in the
material world being proven untrue, ie, falsified.

General relativity is different, being a posteriori.
It can be tested, with the possibility of being falsified.
While this hasn't happened, it remains possible, in
which case it wants to be replaced by a better theory.
Ref....
<i>A priori</i> and <i>a posteriori</i>

If something cannot be falsified, this is neither good
nor bad....it's just "not even wrong", ie, not "useful".

Well, tautologies are useful in a sense.

As for the bold, that can't be falsified as it is a taste/opinion/belief. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, tautologies are useful in a sense.

As for the bold, that can't be falsified as it is a taste/opinion/belief. :)
Have an example of something unfalsifiable
that is also useful (which in this context refers
to verifying testable predictions)?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Science is useful, but that, science is useful, is not science. I know, absurd, right? :)

It is so, because useful is a mental construct and not a material/physical/objective/observable fact.
All these mental constructs are confusing.
But "useful" is about application to observable
things in the material world.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
All these mental constructs are confusing.
But "useful" is about application to observable
things in the material world.

Confusing is a mental construct. You come from the practical applied part of STEM. I come in part from the soft part of humanity. Social and human science. I was trained differently than you and thus understand some part of the world differently.
Thus you relate to the material world by training. I relate to the soft part, the mental. I.e. the social, psychological, mental, and the soft values.
That is all. It doesn't mean that any of us are wrong. It just means that if one of us takes for granted that we can individually use our training on all of the world, it doesn't work. It goes both ways. I leave STEM to STEM.

E.g. cognitive psychology is useful to me, but it is not an observable thing in the material world. It is in the mental world.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Science itself can't be falsified.
"Science" is not a claim so of course it cannot be falsified. It is scientific ideas that can be falsified. You are attempting to falsify the wrong thing. The scientific method is just a problem solving method that is used to explain the world that we live in. It is an extremely reliable problem solving method. That is why it is so well respected. It is an earned respect. And though it is not falsifiable since it is a method and not a claim, it is possible that there is a better method to solve problems out there. But no one has found one yet.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"Science" is not a claim so of course it cannot be falsified. It is scientific ideas that can be falsified. You are attempting to falsify the wrong thing. The scientific method is just a problem solving method that is used to explain the world that we live in. It is an extremely reliable problem solving method.

So far so good.

That is why it is so well respected. It is an earned respect. And though it is not falsifiable since it is a method and not a claim, it is possible that there is a better method to solve problems out there. But no one has found one yet.

That is not science. That is for lack of a better word, a feeling, because better has not objective referent.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You can't reduce all of the world to being objective, thus science is limited.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So far so good.



That is not science. That is for lack of a better word, a feeling, because better has not objective referent.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You can't reduce all of the world to being objective, thus science is limited.
Your link does not support your claim. And I never said or implied that science is limited. In fact I implied the opposite. "The scientific method is just a problem solving method that is used to explain the world that we live in."

Your response in the second part of your post is in fact a total non sequitur to what you quoted. I pointed out that science is not perfect. I pointed out that there is no better problem solving method out there right now (and I may need to remind you that context matters). That was not "science" that was a description of science.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
I pointed out that there is no better problem solving method out there right now (and I may need to remind you that context matters). That was not "science" that was a description of science.

Better is no science, because it is not objective. It is a subjective first person evolution in you.
Better is not a physical property and it has no measurement standard in science. You can't observe or measure better.
You are subjective and don't know it.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus, it is a positive circumstance. How such a positive fact would take away the scientific status? I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven, or General Relativity can not be disproven. Is it bad for them? God can not be disproven.

So, it should better be:
1. Science can not be falsified but confirmed.
2. False science can be falsified while running a confirmation test.
Why couldn't general relativity be disproven?
1. Science can be falsified. Trying to do so is part of the scientific method. Scientific theories may be confirmed, but they're never proven.
2. ??????. Your point?
Yes, scientific theories are tested. That's how science works.
I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism. Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.
What does "in Darwinism" mean? Darwin didn't classify humans as apes, though he saw a relation.
"Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human." How's this relate to the first, 'Darwinism' premise? I don't see where you derive this from your first assertion. It's non sequitur. Explain, SVP.
1. Why is there no evolution from animal to human?
2. If humans aren't animals, what are they? Plants? Minerals? Fungi? Synthetic?
3. If humans didn't evolve, where did they come from?
So, there is no evolution from animal to non-animal.
"So?" What's your reasoning, here -- and who brought up animal to non-animal evolution? I thought we were talking about animal to human evolution.
But there is the transition from non-living to life.
You accept abiogenesis but not change over time? :confused:
ANOTHER TOPIC: Will there be money in Heaven?
I argue, that the world ruled by Love needs no money.
I heard they were trialing Bitcoin.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Better is no science, because it is not objective. It is a subjective first person evolution in you.
Better is not a physical property and it has no measurement standard in science. You can't observe or measure better.
You are subjective and don't know it.

Not necessarily. You forgot to ask what would be "better". But even if it is subjective that is not necessarily a flaw. I think that you merely wish that there was a valid competitor to the scientific method.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Better is no science, because it is not objective. It is a subjective first person evolution in you.
Better is not a physical property and it has no measurement standard in science. You can't observe or measure better.
You are subjective and don't know it.

Science works to limit individual subjectivity by spreading the ability to falsify a claim across many minds. That is what is generally meant by being objective. To reduce the influence/bias of individual minds.
The method of science is to limit the subjectivity of the individual mind, not deny it.
Psychology seems to focus on the experience of the individual mind. There is a commonality of experience but at the same time, each individual mind is different and unique.

Not arguing, just thinking at this point.
 
Top