1. 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!

Featured Critique of falsification criteria of Popper

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Mar 10, 2021.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
    #1 questfortruth, Mar 10, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  2. darkskies

    darkskies Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2021
    Messages:
    550
    Ratings:
    +449
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    37,807
    Ratings:
    +33,787
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,443
    Ratings:
    +70,307
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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".
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Science itself can't be falsified.
     
  6. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, tautologies are useful in a sense.

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

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,443
    Ratings:
    +70,307
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Have an example of something unfalsifiable
    that is also useful (which in this context refers
    to verifying testable predictions)?
     
  8. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    No, but this context is not useful for all of the world.
    Further for useful and science in general:
    https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

    That useful has no objective referent and is thus not science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,443
    Ratings:
    +70,307
    Religion:
    Atheist
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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.
     
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,443
    Ratings:
    +70,307
    Religion:
    Atheist
    All these mental constructs are confusing.
    But "useful" is about application to observable
    things in the material world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,965
    Ratings:
    +27,849
    Religion:
    Atheist
    "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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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.
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,965
    Ratings:
    +27,849
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  16. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    7,233
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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.
     
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,443
    Ratings:
    +70,307
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It seems that my problem is a lack of mental constructs.
     
  18. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    27,730
    Ratings:
    +14,328
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    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.
    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?" What's your reasoning, here -- and who brought up animal to non-animal evolution? I thought we were talking about animal to human evolution.
    You accept abiogenesis but not change over time? :confused:
    I heard they were trialing Bitcoin.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    45,965
    Ratings:
    +27,849
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  20. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    18,734
    Ratings:
    +9,023
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...