Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:57:49 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<cb7641b9-be4d-4a05-8904-2b15fe7470ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:18:20 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<d1c84026-d730-4983-88cf-44285a845...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
competent scientist would laugh them out of court.

What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
uses and range of scientific investigation.

Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of falsifiable. Which scientific
theories are not?

Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the term absolutely
falsifiable. Many very useful scientific hypotheses and theories are
not absolutely falsifiable.

I asked you to name examples. You ducked. As for adding 'absolute' that
is like complaining that science doesn't 'prove' things. The critique is
meaningless because science does not claim to prove things, though it's
generally fairly good at disproving them.

Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?

Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.

Medicine is poorly managed because it seldom has proper double-blind
studies. I have no idea how you would do a double-blind study on the
efficacy of surgery for lower-back pain.

Double-blinded studies do not usually have the power to *absolutely*
falsify the null hypothesis.

Again, so what?

They have the power to make the null
hypothesis unlikely, but not to falsify it to 100% certainty. Richard
suggests that all true scientific hypotheses must have the potential
to be absolutely falsified. In reality, most scientific hypotheses
cannot be absolutely falsified, but only falsified by a certain degree
of pre-determined statistical "significance". That is why concepts
like p-values come into play in many forms of scientific
investigation.

Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... Few scientists see any point in further piling on ... You still have not explained how one can falsify "luck". ... That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... scientists only need to use rulers, clocks, and other ... science assumes that empiricism is reliable. ... there would be no basis to falsify and test anything. ... testability/falsifiability in science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed. ... supported scientific fact by nearly all scientists by the time of Newton's ... This nested hierarchy even applies to embryos. ... scientific test which would be able to falsify this notion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ID-only hypothesis - Again
    ... at least human level intelligence, creativity, and production. ... intelligence - not omnipotence. ... All that has to be done to falsify my position is to show ... anthropologists, forensic scientists, and even SETI scientists are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection
    ...  Tens of thousands of working scientists use it ... How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your ... The Bryce Jacobs cargo cult non-hypothesis is not falsifiable. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast