Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The war on falsifiability in science continues

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

War on science? Well, we hear about it more often than we see it. People—particularly naturalist atheists involved with progressive causes, who are flogging up some unverifiable thesis—are prone to claiming that their opponents are creationists (whether they are or not, in any meaningful sense), or else some other type of warriors against science.

There is, as it happens, an assault on the science concept of falsifiability as explained at PBS:

Does Science Need Falsifiablity?

Meanwhile, cosmologists have found themselves at a similar impasse. We live in a universe that is, by some estimations, too good to be true. The fundamental constants of nature and the cosmological constant, which drives the accelerating expansion of the universe, seem “fine-tuned” to allow galaxies and stars to form. As Anil Ananthaswamy wrote elsewhere on this blog, “Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless.”

Why do these numbers, which are essential features of the universe and cannot be derived from more fundamental quantities, appear to conspire for our comfort?

In fact, you can reason your way to the “multiverse” in at least four different ways, according to MIT physicist Max Tegmark’s accounting. The tricky part is testing the idea. You can’t send or receive messages from neighboring universes, and most formulations of multiverse theory don’t make any testable predictions. Yet the theory provides a neat solution to the fine-tuning problem. Must we throw it out because it fails the falsifiability test?

“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

“I think falsifiability is not a perfect criterion, but it’s much less pernicious than what’s being served up by the ‘post-empirical’ faction,” says Frank Wilczek, a physicist at MIT. “Falsifiability is too impatient, in some sense,” putting immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. “It’s an important discipline, but if it is applied too rigorously and too early, it can be stifling.”

Some don’t believe testability is needed either.

Prediction: To the extent that science is dominated by naturalist atheists, falsifiability will not survive as a criterion. Whatever speculation supports the multiverse will count for far more than any failure of evidence.

And the next war will be against the idea of evidence. What evidence counts for will depend on who is presenting it and what causes it would support. That is what post-empiricism must necessarily mean in the current environment.

See also: Cosmologist Sean Carroll would retire falsifiability as a science idea. Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci defends it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Ah, just "some preexisting philosophical prejudices", eh? Well, I suppose a dogmatic naturalism would be the first of those to discard. Oh, wait! ...ScuzzaMan
February 16, 2016
February
02
Feb
16
16
2016
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Joe, if ID is to be considered purely natural then it doesn't answer anything. It only moves the question of the origin of life and intelligence elsewhere. Of course, ID has yet to move on from hypothesis so that's jumping the gun. Axel, no I mean the past 60 years of organic chemistry studying the origin of everything from purine bases to ribonucleotides.CHartsil
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
'....abiogenetic study?' What's to study? You mean 'speculation as to the possibility of discovering a natural phenomenon such as to give meaning to the term, "abiogenesis"', don't you?Axel
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Joe: The intelligent design is natural. Some is, are you saying that the fine tuning of nature laws is caused by natural law?velikovskys
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
CH:
The natural is by definition testable, falsifiable and subject to constant certain variables
The intelligent design is natural.Joe
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Abiogenesis is just superstitious crap in the "not even wrong" category. It is trying to prove what it assumes. True science works the opposite way: it looks for a way or ways to disprove what it assumes. Science 101.Mapou
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Some pseudoscientific magic? I think you're mistaking abiogenetic study for ID creationism. We actually have hypotheses that account for the origin of organic compounds with known, natural mechanisms.CHartsil
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
That was a pretty horrible attempt at a jab. The natural is by definition testable, falsifiable and subject to constant certain variablesCHartsil
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Joe:
Falsifiability will absolutely survive. Without it you can inject any magical natural-sounding claim into any gap.
LOL. It is amazing and hilarious that materialists are guilty of precisely the same sin they impute to ID proponents. A clear case of pot, kettle and black. By some pseudoscientific magic that will remain forever unknown, life arose from matter all by itself. Therefore there was no need for a creator. Are those know-it-alls working to falsify that hypothesis as they would be required to do if they were true scientists? Of course not. Religions are exempt. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Mapou
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Falsifiability will absolutely survive. Without it you can inject any magical natural-sounding claim into any gap.Joe
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Falsifiability will absolutely survive. Without it you can inject any supernatural magical claim into any gap.CHartsil
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
As they are incompatible, one or both is wrong is some aspect or other.
Or just incomplete.Joe
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
To reiterate what bornagain77 posted:
In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.- Richard Feynman
That is falsification.Joe
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Piotr, Unguided evolution isn't useful and cannot be modeled.Joe
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
bornagain77: Well I guess I have nothing left to do ... but answer a couple of basic questions about your position. The anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury ‘falsified’ Newton’s Theory. Does that mean Newton's Theory should have been discarded? You do realize Newton’s Theory is still taught?Zachriel
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
bornagain77: any other answer than the Bohr model was ultimately empirically falsified as a accurate description of reality is wrong. The Bohr model is better than previous models of the atom, but not as good as modern models. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea-logo.png The Relativity of Wrong http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htmZachriel
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
#31 And nobody will discard a useful model only because it isn't universally applicable. No model ever is. Any competing model has to be demonstrably more useful. In other words, to replace a hypothesis falsified by a set of empirical observations (let's call it X) you need a new hypothesis which not only accounts for everything covered by the old one, but can be tested against X and passes the test better.Piotr
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Oh goody Bob, you now have Zach defending your insanity. ,,, Well I guess I have nothing left to do than resign the thread and admit defeat at such precise reasoning as is being displayed by you two. Believe what you guys want. I'm done pointing out the obvious!bornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
So Bob O'H do you now accept the Bohr model is an accurate description of reality? If not why not? I'll give you a clue, any other answer than the Bohr model was ultimately empirically falsified as a accurate description of reality is wrong.bornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
bornagain77: ‘now falsified as to being an accurate description of reality.’ The anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury 'falsified' Newton's Theory. Does that mean the theory should have been discarded? You do realize Newton's Theory is still taught? bornagain77: show me exactly where Quantum Mechanics and/or General Relativity have been empirically falsified as to being accurate descriptions of reality. As they are incompatible, one or both is wrong is some aspect or other.Zachriel
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Zach, try reading for comprehension, i.e. 'now falsified as to being an accurate description of reality.' You quote that 'All models are wrong'. Okie dokie, show me exactly where Quantum Mechanics and/or General Relativity have been empirically falsified as to being accurate descriptions of reality.bornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Bob, it is complete idiocy that you would appeal to questionable empirical evidence in those instances to say that falsification is empirically falsified
In the Bohr example, the 'falsifying' observation was that atoms exist for longer than 10ns. I'm not sure that really counts as "questionable empirical evidence": I think the evidence that they last for longer is fairly solid.Bob O'H
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
bornagain77: it is complete idiocy You don't seem to be addressing the point. Newton's Theory was known to have anomalies, that is, naïve falsifications; yet, scientists didn't discard the theory. All models are wrong, but some are useful. — George E. P. BoxZachriel
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Bob as to: "But under the falsificationist account of science, Newton and Bohr should have discarded their theories, not hang on to them." Bob, it is complete idiocy that you would appeal to questionable empirical evidence in those instances to say that falsification is empirically falsified. i.e. You yourself are trying to use faulty empirical evidence to falsify the principle of falsification. Does this slight of hand really need to be pointed out to you! I guess you just can't teach common sense! You also ask: "How would you decide when any observation that appears to falsify a theory actually is a falsification, i.e. the theory it falsifies should be discarded, and when do you decide to keep the theory and wait for the apparent falsification to be falsified?" The fairly recent claim that the speed of light was violated at the CERN lab is a prime example of inaccurate measurement giving the appearance of falsification. Although the issue was resolved in fairly short order and found to be due to measurement errors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly#Measurement_errors ,,, I can guarantee you that if the speed of light were claimed to have been falsified, and that the measurement error would not have been found in short order, that there would have been no shortage of attempts to 'falsify the falsification'. Only after many years of rigorous confirmation of the falsification would the falsification have been formally accepted across the board. p.s. dissing Alanis Morissette is no excuse for you blatantly violating the law of non-contradiction as you have done and trying to call it mere 'irony'. Alanis Morissette - Hand In My Pocket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8D5Ihe4hgbornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Bob O’H, as already pointed out, those examples prove my point on falsification exactly. Greater measurement accuracy falsified what were falsely thought to be falsifications.
*sigh* But under the falsificationist account of science, Newton and Bohr should have discarded their theories, not hang on to them. How would you decide when any observation that appears to falsify a theory actually is a falsification, i.e. the theory it falsifies should be discarded, and when do you decide to keep the theory and wait for the apparent falsification to be falsified? BTW, saying something is ironic, and citing Alanis Morissette is generally a pretty good indication that you don't know what irony is. Unless, of course, you were being ironic.Bob O'H
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Bob, speaking about ironic, check out this headline on a article that was just 'coincidentally' loaded on Physorg an hour ago: New measures call theories about endocytosis into question - Feb. 19, 2015 http://phys.org/news/2015-02-theories-endocytosis.html I guess Physorg forgot that experimental falsification was falsified. "There are no coincidences in God's world" AA sayingbornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, as already pointed out, those examples prove my point on falsification exactly. Greater measurement accuracy falsified what were falsely thought to be falsifications. Moreover, Newton's theory of gravity, due to more accurate experimentation that verified Einstein's General Relativity, is now falsified as to being an accurate description of reality. As well, Bohr’s model of the atom is now also experimentally falsified as to being an accurate description of the atom and has now been superseded:
History of the Atom - timeline image http://wsc11sci.wikispaces.com/file/view/atom_history.png/297878088/640x480/atom_history.png The Bohr model is a relatively primitive model of the hydrogen atom, compared to the valence shell atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics or energy level diagrams before moving on to the more accurate, but more complex, valence shell atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model Experimental and Theoretical Shortcomings of the Bohr model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Shortcomings
It is not good Bob O"H that two of your examples of theories that you gave to try to say experimental falsification in science is now falsified have now in fact been experimentally falsified as accurate descriptions of reality. Now that is what is truly 'ironic'.
Alanis Morissette - Ironic (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc
bornagain77
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Bob O’H, Falsification is how science proceeds. Elsewise any explanation would suffice. I challenge you to empirically prove that empirical falsification is falsified. i.e. exactly what repeatable empirical result that contradicted a theory did not falsify that theory?
I've already done that. If you want more, read Chapter 7 of Chalmers' book (naughty pdf link). Gravitation and Bohr's theory of the atom are two examples he gives: the moon's orbit falsified Newton's gravity, and the existence of atoms for more than 10^-8 s falsified Bohr's theory.Bob O'H
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, Falsification is how science proceeds. Elsewise any explanation would suffice. I challenge you to empirically prove that empirical falsification is falsified. i.e. exactly what repeatable empirical result that contradicted a theory did not falsify that theory? I will get my popcorn as this ought to be hugely entertaining. Meanwhile in the real world:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Falsification cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Yet you apparently find such insanity of direct contradiction to be ‘irony’ instead of being patently false as it is.
Of course falsification exists - if it didn't, this blog post couldn't exist. The problem is whether it is a good explanation of how science proceeds. It isn't, for a host of reasons (empirical and theoretical).Bob O'H
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply