Re: A better word for "falsifiable"?

In article <1ic9aex.wte3jfi1c6rsN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Stephan Schulz <schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <5u4cm3F1fq6grU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, SeppoP wrote:
LT wrote:
On Jan 3, 5:58 am, nos...@xxxxxxxxxx (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
"Falsifiable" is an unfortunate word; I have had honest, secular people
ask, "Why would you want to make a falsefiable claim?"
[...]
I don't think either "verifiable" or "testable" cut it.

I've had success with explaining "falsifiable" as "makes testable
predictions".

That's not explaining,
that is giving the word a completely different meaning
that conflicts with the original and generally accepted one.

Absolutely not. Its exactly synonymous. To falsify a theory you take
one of its predictions and test if it holds. If it does not, the
theory is falsified. If it does, you try again. If you've tries a lot
of different predictions, you gain confidence in the theory.

How else would you falsify a theory?

A theory that does not make predictions is obviously useless.

Explaining (or even just categorizing)
what is know is already sufficient,
and may be quite useful.
For example, Mendeleev's periodic system
would also have been a major achievement
if there had been no new elements left to predict.

Huh? The periodic system makes all kinds of useful predictions. What
it does not is predict new elements. But it does predict if NaCl
exists, so will KaCl and NaFl and KaCl, and that H20 make Na20 very
likely.

Likewise a theory that merely retrodicts the standard model
would be a major achievement.

I not sure that I exactly understand what you are saying. But a theory
that derives the standard model from more basic assumption will be
just as falsifiable as the standard model. Every observation that
breaks the standard model will also break your hypothetical more basic
theory.

A theory whose predictions are not testable is unscientific.

String theorists don't agree.

String theorists at the moment are mathematicians rather than
physicists. If their models ever reach a useful state, they will be
falsifiable. Usefulness implies predictive power. Useful predictions
can be tested.


Stephan

--
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as schulz@xxxxxxxxxxx (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
    ... "There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding ... predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it. ... How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your ... left some unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... > Mercury's orbit was never in question. ... > overthrow classical physics nor does it falsify the theory of ... >> makes some actual testable predictions. ... GR is a theory of gravitation thus is can not prove gravitation incorrect. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
    ... proposed measurements by which his proposal could be checked -- ... chiefly to *falsify* it. ... that range of data or experiments where they have common predictions. ... Hank is hand-choosing his experiments where he believes BaTh makes the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... > of other tests that agree with GR and disagree with Newton. ... Mercury's orbit was never in question. ... overthrow classical physics nor does it falsify the theory of ... What predictions about the existence of Godhave ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A better word for "falsifiable"?
    ... I've had success with explaining "falsifiable" as "makes testable ... That's the science of Newton, Maxwell, ... 'retrodictive' theory makes predictions for quantitative data already ... For real physical theories falsifiability rarely is an issue. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading