Re: Principle of Falsifiability


Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> catshark wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It is quite true that a single contrary instance can logically "disprove" a
> > proposition while a thousand confirmations can't "prove" it. Fortunately,
> > science is not an exercise in formal logic, it is an empirical enterprise
> > in which, as in horseshoes, "close enough" counts. If we define "science"
> > by reference to how scientists *act*, then it is clear that confirmations
> > are important because *scientists* consider them so.
>
> Yes it is. Predictions are theorems derived from the underlying
> mathematical theory of the science. This is particularly true in
> physics. Modus Tollens still holds whether used in the context of
> mathematical physics or the context of pure mathematics.
>
> Confirmations, will not conclusive, are reassurances that it is proper
> to maintain the theory. A theory that makes many predictions (which are
> correct) over a broad range of processes and effects will be maintained
> simply because it is delivering the goods, to wit, correct quantitative
> predictions. Science is all about correct quantitative predictions. When
> you have those, the underlying theory is accepted as explantion.

Science runs beyond absolutely deterministic phenomena, and is allowed
to make unsuccessful predictions without necessarily being wrong. One
could say, for instance, that weather predictions as calculated are
inferior to what could be done with complete knowledge of every atom of
the Earth and its atmosphere, but even then there's the cloudiness of
quantum mechanics to consider.

As for evolution, "survival of the fittest" doesn't guarantee that the
single fittest animal or plant in a species won't be spotted by a lucky
predator, buried in a mudslide, or struck by lightning, or that the
three mutations that will turn a species into a world-conqueror will
ever come together in an individual or in the population before the
species falls extinct.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... It is actually a good example for defining the difference between science and technology. ... you can make certain predictions about what ANY ... Neither does it explain why the speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry of fundamental forces *is* a scientific theory, ... predictions of measurable phenomena, and then experiments are set up ... Science really doesn't give a damn about two models that make ... You are under the impression somehow that relativity should ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry by saying that it is by nature unobservable, ... realm of religious faith and not science any longer. ... of the exotic predictions or difficult questions of existing theories. ... (and therefore without the expected level of energy input). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... A comment on the knowledge you display of science. ... link to papers providing an answer to your question. ... What changes to existing species? ... accurate predictions if the variables are constrained. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... In science, competing ... predictions of measurable phenomena, and then experiments are set up ... You are under the impression somehow that relativity should ... in which fundamental forces never tire or wear out, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)