Re: For New T.O. Readers - Karl Popper

Mr tiktaalik wrote:
Hi

I know that the "falsifiability" issue as a key argument vs
creationism/ID has been long debated, for the newer readers of Talk
Origins, I think this gives a useful summary of what is or is not "a
theory"

"Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a
prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted
effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions
which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly
every theory - if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky
predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in
question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with
the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.
. . . .
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific
status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or
testability. Where does Inteligent Design creationism fit in to
this?.... Nowhere.

There is something about this that does bother me, as a non-scientist. Namely, how much of a "consensus" in the scientific community is enough for non-scientists to go on?

It has come up more in legitimate scientific disputes, such as whether dinosaurs really were the ancestor of birds, whether dinosaurs really were agile and warm-blooded, etc. And it comes up more recently, with issues like alleged halocarbon-caused holes in the ozone layer or alleged human-caused global warming.

At any given time, there was a "consensus" in that a large majority of the relevant scientists accepted a particular position. But there was a minority of scientists who did not, and argued strenuously for their position. These are NOT pseudo-scientists or crackpots; these dissenters were scientists, and their dissent and debate was scientific.

Nevertheless, what should society do when public policy depends on scientific advice? Whether dinosaurs were agile and warm-blooded is going to affect a lot of Hollywood sci-fi movies; what to do about global warming or halocarbons has a lot of socio-economic implications; etc.

It seems that as long as there isn't 100% agreement from all scientists about a theory (and how often is there 100.000% agreement), society can be paralyzed waiting for scientists to "make up their minds already."

Alternatively, society can swing wildly from one extreme to another, as the scientific consensus evolves. We see that in the case of nutritional science, where controlled scientific studies on human lifestyles are frought with uncertainties. Almost every other month, there's another breathless news story about "Selenium is good for you!" Too much selenium is bad for you!" "Eat more of this!" "Eat less of that!"

As a non-scientist, I wish the scientific community would limit its recommendations to the general public to what they are *absolutely sure about*. As long as there is still a debate raging in scientific circles, can you please leave us alone? Come back when you have it all resolved!


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Katrina: For those who think state/local officials are to blame....
    ... My point was only that there is a debate and there is no consensus ... regarding global warming, the cause of global warming or the future model of ... scientists or organizations that indicated they debated ...
    (rec.music.makers.percussion)
  • Re: For New T.O. Readers - Karl Popper
    ... I know that the "falsifiability" issue as a key argument vs ... creationism/ID has been long debated, for the newer readers of Talk ... the relevant scientists accepted a particular position. ... and their dissent and debate was scientific. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: YAGWP (Yet Another Global Warming Poast)
    ... transmitting rage. ... Interesting that even the NYT will admit that scientists are ... not in lockstep on this matter and that debate isn't over... ... Plate tectonics was first proposed as "contintental drift" in 1928 ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Contest time
    ... controlling businesses and ... against the science work for the oil industry. ... my life and/or country over to a global body run by a debate club for ... You make an attempt to condemn the scientists who are compelled to ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: YAGWP (Yet Another Global Warming Poast)
    ... transmitting rage. ... Interesting that even the NYT will admit that scientists are not ... in lockstep on this matter and that debate isn't over... ... Plate tectonics was first proposed as "contintental drift" in 1928 by ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)