The war on falsifiability in science continues
| February 16, 2015 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Science |
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!
53 Responses to The war on falsifiability in science continues
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A fascinating post, Denyse, especially in its concluding predictions. They seem all together too plausible, when one reflects how the most improbable, intellectual lunacy is often arrived at in an insidious, gradual fashion.
News, we need empirical grounded-ness, and that includes that significant implications of our theories should be testable. In the meanwhile, we may accept provisionally well-tested empirically reliable findings as just that, with a degree of confidence proportioned to the degree of tested-ness. But, we must ever bear in mind the fate of Newtonian dynamics. KF
Neo-Darwinism doesn’t seem very falsifiable either (“random” is a gratuitous, vague addon that can’t be tested as usually stated)?.
Welcome to the post-theistic Age of the Narrative, where the purpose of science is not to find truth, but to serve the agenda. That’s what happens when you decouple science from the theistic principles that created it.
May the real enemies of science stand up and be counted.
@4 That’s what happens when you decouple science from the theistic principles that created it.
Or perhaps that’s what happens when parasites swarm around anything of value.
I believe the first shot in the war on falsifiability was fired in 1934, and nobody who has seriously studied the history or philosophy of science believes it any more. It has, in fact, been falsified.
Almost all historical science struggles with the problem of falsifiability. This is part of Darwin’s legacy. He popularized the idea that you don’t have to test your ideas; all you need is a just so story or a plausible sounding explanation(otherwise called an ad hoc explanation) to count as evidence/science. Cosmology is WAY out there when it comes to falsifiability. Even the consensus – standard model – suffers from this problem.
This is why there is such a huge difference between historical science and experimental science where you can test and either verify or falsify your hypothesis. This is why it is improper to criticize creationists for questioning historical science while standing behind experimental science.
Evolutionists are well known to use this equivocation to try and make their opponents look stupid and anti-science. Hopefully more and more people are learning this difference and are able to see through their ploy.
Unfortunately I think their war on evidence is already won. Materialists defend their pet theories the same way they defend their empty philosophy – by begging the question. (Because materialism is true) Science will eventually discover the answers that solve all their problems and vindicate their ideas over and against all of the insurmountable obstacles. The fact that this thinking has been smuggled into science to the point where it’s openly paraded around as scientific thinking makes me worry that evidence hasn’t mattered for a long time.
Bob O”H, as to 7:
let me get this straight. Are you really trying to say that materialists/atheists do not believes in falsifiability anymore because falsifiability has been falsified? Just how is that possible?
I suspect most scientists fighting against falsifiability do so to protect pet theories. Science
without falsification tends toward religion.
ba77 – I’m sure some materialists/atheists do think falsification is valid, but anyone who’s looked at the philosophy of science is well aware of its shortcomings, and a lot of scientific theories have been ‘falsified’ before becoming accepted. For example:
(Chalmers, 1999, What is This Thing Called Science?, 3rd ed.)
Science does need testability and unguided evolution doesn’t even have that.
Bob, so falsifiability was falsified by the fact that someone falsified what was thought to be a falsification? 🙂
But would that not make the criteria of empirical falsification, i.e. testability, stronger and not weaker since a ‘supposed’ falsification (a claim) was in fact falsified (tested against) by stronger empirical observation?
That is why Quantum Theory and General Relativity are both tested to greater and greater levels of accuracy. Looking to see if there are any holes whatsoever in either theory. i.e. trying the ‘FALSIFY’ them. (no holes so far in either theory)
In other words, Falsification is alive and well in empirical science.
Whereas in materialistic pseudo-science, falsification is not present. In fact, materialistic/atheistic theories such as multiverse(s) and Darwinian evolution simply have no criteria for falsification. i.e. No rigid claim to test against. As Berlinski put the situation with Darwinism:
Popper is also rather clear on the priority of falsification so as to delineate whether something is truly science or not:
And whereas there is no rigid criteria to test against in neo-Darwinism (i.e. to try to ‘falsify’ Darwinism) to see if Darwinism is true, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassment and invites attempts to falsify its claim:
bornagain77: That is why Quantum Theory and General Relativity are both tested to greater and greater levels of accuracy. Looking to see if there are any holes whatsoever in either theory. i.e. trying the ‘FALSIFY’ them. (no holes so far in either theory)
Quantum Theory and Relativity are incompatible, so obviously one or both are wrong in some aspect.
Zachriel as to, “Quantum Theory and Relativity are incompatible, so obviously one or both are wrong in some aspect.”
They are not as incompatible as you think,
and when agent causality is rightly let into the picture, (instead of the ‘blind’ causality of atheists), then unification between the two is achieved in the resurrection of Christ from death:
of note: seeing that Christianity, and Christianity alone, gave birth to modern science, it should not be so surprising that Christianity also offers an empirically backed ‘completion’ of modern science with the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:
bornagain77: They are not as incompatible as you think
Meaning they are not entirely compatible, hence one or both are wrong in some aspects.
Incompatibility doesn’t mean one or both are wrong in some aspects.
Err, no. A lot of theories fail tests but aren’t rejected. So there has to be something more than that.
I’m not sure if Quantum Theory and General Relativity per se are tested nowadays, rather specific predictions from them (e.g. the search for the Higgs boson was a test of some predictions from the standard model). As far as I’m aware (and I’m not a physicist), the cores of both theories are taken as being correct, and the testing of theories takes place at the edges. So if problems are found, the core theories aren’t rejected. Either they’re modified, or the blame is shifted onto subsidiary hypotheses.
once again, saying falsification has been falsified is a self refuting claim. That I would have to point that out to anybody over the age of 12 (or even younger) is sad.
as to this claim of yours:
“I’m not sure if Quantum Theory and General Relativity per se are tested nowadays,,,, the testing of (those) theories takes place at the edges.”
Those are some edges being tested when the headlines denote “surviving’ a test:
This bombshell from 2007 hardly gives the impression of an edge being tested. It gives me the impression of a wall being smashed:
of related interest:
It’s called irony.
The headlines of the examples you quote look rather hyperbolic, and the descriptions of the work discuss particular parts of quantum theory. Do the papers they’re reporting on describe themselves as tests of the whole of quantum theory?
It is not irony. It is called the law of non-contradiction.
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. I call it being in denial of what is obvious. i.e. your position is absurd and the emperor has no clothes!
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics survived falsification in the tests. If the tests were to have been different than the predictions from the theories, they would have been found to be falsified as a accurate description of reality. That is how science works. For decades both theories have survived greater and greater challenges to their claims and have been extended to greater levels of accuracy as a result.
The multiverse and Neo-Darwinism have nothing of the sort that we can test against to try to falsify their claims. In fact neo-Darwinism is infamous for ‘predicting’ contradictory results:
Of note on the inflation multiverse:
Of note: The same problem extends to any multiverse scenario that tries to explain fine tuning.
Verse & Music
corrected link:
Good Fight – Unspoken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYMuVxdiFbU
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, 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:
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, 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:
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’.
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-t.....tosis.html
I guess Physorg forgot that experimental falsification was falsified.
“There are no coincidences in God’s world”
AA saying
*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 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/F.....ent_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=LQ8D5Ihe4hg
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. Box
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.
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: ‘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.
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.
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!
#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.
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/answersi.....fwrong.htm
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?
Piotr, Unguided evolution isn’t useful and cannot be modeled.
To reiterate what bornagain77 posted:
That is falsification.
Zachriel:
Or just incomplete.
Falsifiability will absolutely survive. Without it you can inject any supernatural magical claim into any gap.
Falsifiability will absolutely survive. Without it you can inject any magical natural-sounding claim into any gap.
Joe:
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…
That was a pretty horrible attempt at a jab. The natural is by definition testable, falsifiable and subject to constant certain variables
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.
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.
CH:
The intelligent design is natural.
Joe:
The intelligent design is natural.
Some is, are you saying that the fine tuning of nature laws is caused by natural law?
‘….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?
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.
Ah, just “some preexisting philosophical prejudices“, eh?
Well, I suppose a dogmatic naturalism would be the first of those to discard.
Oh, wait! …