Falsification

[Moonwood the Hare]

An issue that comes up on this site quite a lot is falsification. It always strikes me that the whole idea which derives as I keep reminding people from Karl Popper has been misunderstood, and I mean misunderstood at a fundamental level way before we get to the question of whether Popper's description of the scientific method matches what scientists have done in the past and do today. So here are some false claims about what Popper said that I feel I have to repeatedly correct.

Popper did not say: No theory can be verified but only falsified. If I have a theory that there is a mouse in my house and I put down a trap and catch a mouse then my theory has been verified. Popper was not talking about claims on the lines that this may be a newly arrived mouse, or may be be a very small man in a mouse suit or a robot from another dimension. He says very clearly that if there is an x at point p that is a claim that could be both verified or falsified. He also says if I just say there is an x, for example if I say there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe then that cannot be falsified because I can't search everywhere but can be verified by finding that life. The kind of claim he says can be falsified but not verified is a claim involving the idea 'all' as in 'all planets have elliptical orbits'. If I say all swans are white this can be falsified by finding a black swan. If I say there is a black swan this can be verified by finding it. It's that simple and that elegent and has nothing to do with the kind of redundant scepticism that says you can't prove anything.

Popper did not say: We should only accept ideas that can be falsified Because of course the claim that we should only accept ideas that can be falsified cannot be falsified and therefore refutes itself. What Popper did say was that falsifiability was the mark of science. A theory was scientific if it could be empirically falsified and was not scientific if it could not. That was all.

Popper did not say: if any idea can't be falsified, it can't be verified therefore it's worthless. This is a nonsensical claim made by one prominent atheist apologist and just indicates a lack of coherent thinking.

Hence when people try to bring the idea of falsifiability as an argument against religious claims they meed to take this into account. Popper himself was very clear that the claim that there is a God who created the world like the claim that all scientific claims must be falsifiable was a metaphysical claim not a scientific one and had no need to be falsifiable

[MESkeptic]

"Popper did not say: if any idea can't be falsified, it can't be verified therefore it's worthless. This is a nonsensical claim made by one prominent atheist apologist and just indicates a lack of coherent thinking."

New to your discussions am I, so know the context I do not.

Having admitted that, I have to say I haven't seen atheists in other fora use the lack of falsifiability as proof that there are no gods. I've only seen it used to explain why creationism is not science, and I hope that you can agree that creationism is *not* science.

What I've seen skeptics and atheists object to is faith-based attempts to play both sides of the fence. William Lane Craig, for instance, quotes scientists out of context in attempts to lend evidential legitimacy to his philosophy. To hedge his bets, however, he freely admits that the evidence is unimportant compared to his ungrounded feelings that a god must exist. The ease with which he does this makes me wonder how often he knowingly lies to his listeners.

You're correct that just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it can't be true. Are you suggesting, however, that evolution is not falsifiable, and is therefore philosophy?

[VickiRW]

I'm not up on my Popper, so I won't debate what he did and did not say. Clearly, he's fallible, so if something is wrong - I don't know whether it is him or you.

Popper did not say: No theory can be verified but only falsified. ... He says very clearly that if there is an x at point p that is a claim that could be both verified or falsified. He also says if I just say there is an x, ... that cannot be falsified. The kind of claim he says can be falsified but not verified is a claim involving the idea 'all'.

This seems to reflect a common misunderstanding about what a theory is. I have no problem with your supporting paragraph, but you seem to not see that a theory (I'm using the term as scientists use it.) is by definition an "all" claim as you put it. An observation is a single point of data. A Law is a mathematical description of how all such observations go. A hypothesis tries to explain why these things are observed. A hypothesis graduates to theory when it is accepted as working in all* cases. (*subject to possible bounds outlined in the theory itself.)

Popper did not say: We should only accept ideas that can be falsified

Yep - we are just talking about theories here.

Popper did not say: if any idea can't be falsified, it can't be verified therefore it's worthless.This is a nonsensical claim made by one prominent atheist apologist and just indicates a lack of coherent thinking.

Are you sure we aren't talking about theories here? Because sub out idea for theory and that's spot on. Idea is too general because there are ideas that aren't theories. Also, are you maybe getting tripped up by "worthless?" Anyone saying that of a theory is saying they can't make predictions or guide further investigations based on it. Intelligent design is a good example here. You can't make predictions about what will happen in the future based on that. It doesn't help you understand how our immune system interacts with bacterial cells. You could still say - "oh, but it inspires me!" and I suppose that is a type of worth, but not what they are talking about here. I'm not sure who this prominent atheist is, nor do I know the context, but I suspect their thinking is more coherent than you realize.

[Moonwood the Hare]

"Popper did not say: if any idea can't be falsified, it can't be verified therefore it's worthless. This is a nonsensical claim made by one prominent atheist apologist and just indicates a lack of coherent thinking."

New to your discussions am I, so know the context I do not.

Having admitted that, I have to say I haven't seen atheists in other fora use the lack of falsifiability as proof that there are no gods. I've only seen it used to explain why creationism is not science, and I hope that you can agree that creationism is *not* science.

I think most people do realise that lack of falsifiability does not prove that something cannot be the case; it's more that people say lack of falsifiability makes a claim invalid. I think there are problems with regarding creationism as science but they are not simply because of lack of falsifiability. Many creationist claims are falsifiable and some have been falsified and most creationists seem to accept that some have been falsified. For example you will not find many creationists currently claiming that the speed of light has changed over time. The real issues arise when a creationist claim seems to have been falsified and creationist use a whole host of methods forbidden by Popperian falsificationism such as ad hoc hypotheses. The problem then is that most of the methods Popper forbids have also been used by such acknowledged giants as Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Bohr.

What I've seen skeptics and atheists object to is faith-based attempts to play both sides of the fence. William Lane Craig, for instance, quotes scientists out of context in attempts to lend evidential legitimacy to his philosophy. To hedge his bets, however, he freely admits that the evidence is unimportant compared to his ungrounded feelings that a god must exist. The ease with which he does this makes me wonder how often he knowingly lies to his listeners.

I would not use the word feeling in this context and I am surprised Craig does. But let me take a parallel example. We all know that 1+1=2. We don't need an argument or proof in order to know this. That does not mean this cannot be proved, and Whitehead and Russell offer a proof which they say can be occasionally useful in their Principia - I've seen it and I don't understand it myself but competent logicians seem to agree that it is valid. Now since Russell and Whitehead already know by means of what philosophers would call intuition that 1+1=2 will you suspect them of dishonesty or cooking the books because they also present a proof. Hence if Craig is claiming that his real grounds for believing in God are an intuition of self evidency rather than the arguments he presents I think he is justified in saying that and not at all dishonest. If we say we know 1+1=2 because we feel it must we are not talking about feeling in an emotional sense or describing an act of valuing.

You're correct that just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it can't be true. Are you suggesting, however, that evolution is not falsifiable, and is therefore philosophy?

Well, Popper thought the theory of evolution, which he certainly accepted, should be seen as a metaphysical research program rather than a theory in his sense (he may have changed his mind towards the end of his life) and it is true that the theory cannot make novel predictions about the future in they way some theories can. But I take the view that we should not try to impose philosophical prescriptions about method on science. Any demarcation between science and philosophy will be largely a matter of convention; certainly it will depend on philosophical argument.

[MESkeptic]

MESkeptic: William Lane Craig, for instance, quotes scientists out of context in attempts to lend evidential legitimacy to his philosophy. To hedge his bets, however, he freely admits that the evidence is unimportant compared to his ungrounded feelings that a god must exist. The ease with which he does this makes me wonder how often he knowingly lies to his listeners.

Moonwood: I would not use the word feeling in this context and I am surprised Craig does...

To clarify, WLC's actual words referred to the 'witness of the holy spirit.' Since the witness is associated only with feelings of certainty or confidence, and not actual information, I think it's fair to say that it's an ungrounded feeling that some Christians take as reassurance that one version or another of Christianity is factually correct.



You said: "Now since Russell and Whitehead already know by ...intuition that 1+1=2 will you suspect them of dishonesty or cooking the books because they also present a proof(?)"

I'm not educated or well-read in philosophy, so it's possible that I underestimate its value with regard to discussing tangible realities. I'm not sure why it would be valuable to prove philosophically that one plus one equals two, for instance. To answer your question, though, if such a philosophical argument is possible, then the fact that it's philosophically arguable does not call into question that 1+1 =2.

What Christians like Craig do is something different. They approach reality only as a source of proof that they are right in their beliefs. When evidence or logic inevitably disagrees with their beliefs, then the beliefs take precedence. Knowing this about Craig, because has said so himself, makes him completely untrustworthy. It doesn't make him a liar. It doesn't even make what he says necessarily untrue; it just makes him worthless as an arbiter of factual truth.


You said: "...and it is true that the theory cannot make novel predictions about the future in they way some theories can..."

Actually, evolutionary theory has made hundreds of accurate predictions, which one of two leading reasons it is not just a hypothesis any more. Biologists have been able to predict that the fossils of animals with specific, and previously unseen, transitional features would be found at sedimentary levels indicating specific geological eras. Biologists have also been able to predict that inactivated DNA for abandoned features would be found in the DNA sequences of modern animals. An example would include inactivated DNA for full coats of body hair in human beings. Similarly, vestigial features like leg bones in whales can be fully explained through evolution and confirmed through DNA. Meanwhile, no fossil has ever been found that disproved evolution as an explanation of the development of the species. These are not instances where they conformed what they found to suit the needs of the theory, as happens with religion. They said ahead of time that we should find previously-unseen X a location C, and C is where X was later found.

Meanwhile, faith-based reasoning constantly has to back-track to cover its dismal record at explaining how the world actually works.


"But I take the view that we should not try to impose philosophical prescriptions about method on science. Any demarcation between science and philosophy will be largely a matter of convention; certainly it will depend on philosophical argument."

I don't understand what you mean here. The demarcation between science and philosophy is evidence and falsifiability. Philosophy may be influenced the evidence-based world, but it seldom, if ever, increases actual knowledge.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I'm not up on my Popper, so I won't debate what he did and did not say. Clearly, he's fallible, so if something is wrong - I don't know whether it is him or you.

He's falible, the methodology of falsification was classically stated by Popper but his may not be the best version. I do think any valid theory of falsification will begin from his work. Problems with language may be down to me rather than him

Popper did not say: No theory can be verified but only falsified. ... He says very clearly that if there is an x at point p that is a claim that could be both verified or falsified. He also says if I just say there is an x, ... that cannot be falsified. The kind of claim he says can be falsified but not verified is a claim involving the idea 'all'.

This seems to reflect a common misunderstanding about what a theory is. I have no problem with your supporting paragraph, but you seem to not see that a theory (I'm using the term as scientists use it.) is by definition an "all" claim as you put it. An observation is a single point of data. A Law is a mathematical description of how all such observations go. A hypothesis tries to explain why these things are observed. A hypothesis graduates to theory when it is accepted as working in all* cases. (*subject to possible bounds outlined in the theory itself.)

I don't think this is correct. Of course it's an argument about usage and can never be settled definitively but it seems to me we use the word theory for singular instances and also for statistical claims neither are all claims. For example many people would say it was once a theory that there was a planet beyond Neptune. Until it was observed Pluto was not a point of data. Was it perhaps a hypothesis or a theory. A theory which makes statistical predictions such as QED is not an all theory. But if you want to limmit the status of scienctific theories to 'all' theories I can see no reason not to introduce that convention.

Popper did not say: We should only accept ideas that can be falsified

Yep - we are just talking about theories here.

Many people on the site have suggested that the claim God exists is theoretical because it is an attempt to explain unsuccessfully certain facts about the world. In a similar way Richard Dawkins has argued that God is a scientific hypothesis. I take it you would disagree.

Popper did not say: if any idea can't be falsified, it can't be verified therefore it's worthless.This is a nonsensical claim made by one prominent atheist apologist and just indicates a lack of coherent thinking.

Are you sure we aren't talking about theories here? Because sub out idea for theory and that's spot on. Idea is too general because there are ideas that aren't theories. Also, are you maybe getting tripped up by "worthless?" Anyone saying that of a theory is saying they can't make predictions or guide further investigations based on it. Intelligent design is a good example here. You can't make predictions about what will happen in the future based on that. It doesn't help you understand how our immune system interacts with bacterial cells. You could still say - "oh, but it inspires me!" and I suppose that is a type of worth, but not what they are talking about here. I'm not sure who this prominent atheist is, nor do I know the context, but I suspect their thinking is more coherent than you realize.

I think that's a fair criticism of intelligent design and it is borne out in practice by the lack of research programs. The point about a theory in your sense of the word is that it can never be verified and is not held to be valid because it can be verified.

[Moonwood the Hare]

MESkeptic: William Lane Craig, for instance, quotes scientists out of context in attempts to lend evidential legitimacy to his philosophy. To hedge his bets, however, he freely admits that the evidence is unimportant compared to his ungrounded feelings that a god must exist. The ease with which he does this makes me wonder how often he knowingly lies to his listeners.

Moonwood: I would not use the word feeling in this context and I am surprised Craig does...

To clarify, WLC's actual words referred to the 'witness of the holy spirit.' Since the witness is associated only with feelings of certainty or confidence, and not actual information, I think it's fair to say that it's an ungrounded feeling that some Christians take as reassurance that one version or another of Christianity is factually correct.

As long as we are clear that feeling does not refer to an emotion or act of valuing I would accept it's usage. I would however prefer the term intuition which I hope is less ambivalent.

You said: "Now since Russell and Whitehead already know by ...intuition that 1+1=2 will you suspect them of dishonesty or cooking the books because they also present a proof(?)"

I'm not educated or well-read in philosophy, so it's possible that I underestimate its value with regard to discussing tangible realities. I'm not sure why it would be valuable to prove philosophically that one plus one equals two, for instance. To answer your question, though, if such a philosophical argument is possible, then the fact that it's philosophically arguable does not call into question that 1+1 =2.

But why would you not need to prove 1+1 = 2. I would suggest that you already know this by other means that are more persuasive to you than proof or argument which is what I think Craig is saying of his experience of the spirit. Of course he may be mistaken but he is not mistaken in thinking it is possible to know in that way or else we would definitely need to prove or at least argue that 1+1=2 before we knew it.

What Christians like Craig do is something different. They approach reality only as a source of proof that they are right in their beliefs. When evidence or logic inevitably disagrees with their beliefs, then the beliefs take precedence. Knowing this about Craig, because has said so himself, makes him completely untrustworthy. It doesn't make him a liar. It doesn't even make what he says necessarily untrue; it just makes him worthless as an arbiter of factual truth.

Well it seems to me you are saying that if someone does not believe evidence and proof are the only ways of knowing you could not trust them. I think you are mistaken as the fact that we know 1+1=2 demonstrates.

You said: "...and it is true that the theory cannot make novel predictions about the future in they way some theories can..."

Actually, evolutionary theory has made hundreds of accurate predictions, which one of two leading reasons it is not just a hypothesis any more. Biologists have been able to predict that the fossils of animals with specific, and previously unseen, transitional features would be found at sedimentary levels indicating specific geological eras. Biologists have also been able to predict that inactivated DNA for abandoned features would be found in the DNA sequences of modern animals. An example would include inactivated DNA for full coats of body hair in human beings. Similarly, vestigial features like leg bones in whales can be fully explained through evolution and confirmed through DNA. Meanwhile, no fossil has ever been found that disproved evolution as an explanation of the development of the species. These are not instances where they conformed what they found to suit the needs of the theory, as happens with religion. They said ahead of time that we should find previously-unseen X a location C, and C is where X was later found.

I don't disagree with any of these as confirmations of evolutionary theory but there are different senses in which a theory can predict. Something like Newton's laws of motions can say under given conditions if you do this then this will happen. The theory of evolution cannot do that. You cannot say if you put these chemicals on a planet of this kind life must follow. That was Popper's point. I think he was mistaken in restriction the criteria for valid theories in that way. I think we have to look at theories more concretely as being different things in different contexts, so a theory in biology does not need to have the same properties as a theory in physics.

Meanwhile, faith-based reasoning constantly has to back-track to cover its dismal record at explaining how the world actually works.

Not too sure what this means. Are you saying those with religious faith had a special kind of reasoning that did not work?

"But I take the view that we should not try to impose philosophical prescriptions about method on science. Any demarcation between science and philosophy will be largely a matter of convention; certainly it will depend on philosophical argument."

I don't understand what you mean here. The demarcation between science and philosophy is evidence and falsifiability. Philosophy may be influenced the evidence-based world, but it seldom, if ever, increases actual knowledge.

This The demarcation between science and philosophy is evidence and falsifiability. is a philosophical theory about science not a scientific theory. If it is meant to be a description of science then to falsify it it would only be necessary to find theories in science which were not falsifiable or theories which when falsified were not abandoned. This can be easily done. If it is a prescriptive theory about what scientists should do it is thoroughly philosophical and can never be falsified.

[MESkeptic]

Moonwood said: " I would suggest that you already know this (1+1=2) by other means that are more persuasive to you than proof or argument which is what I think Craig is saying of his experience of the spirit."

There are multiple layers of thought behind your comment here, and I appreciate your tone. I'm not sure the math equation makes a good illustration, but I'll agree that no one reaches all of the conclusions they make because of proof and evidence, including me. Human beings tend to jump to conclusions and then fit the evidence around what we already think is true. Since we all do it, the important questions seem to be "why do we do it?" and "how should we react to evidence contradicting our beliefs?


"Well it seems to me you are saying that if someone does not believe evidence and proof are the only ways of knowing you could not trust them. I think you are mistaken..."

My problem is not when someone believes something without evidence, because we all do it from time to time. What makes someone untrustworthy is when they make clear that their beliefs will remain unchanged no matter what the evidence says. Since Craig openly states this, he is not trustworthy as an arbiter of truth. Again, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar, and it doesn't even necessarily make him wrong, but he isn't someone anyone should look to for reliable factual statements.

Similarly, we wouldn't accept a check from someone who told us that they would "know in their heart" that there was money in their bank account, even if their checkbook and their bank statements said otherwise.


"...there are different senses in which a theory can predict...You cannot say if you put these chemicals on a planet of this kind life must follow..."

You probably know this, but evolutionary theory doesn't address the origins of life: only the origins of the species. We may someday be able to prove in a lab that certain chemicals combined under certain conditions will result in life, but you're correct in the sense that even when that happens in a lab, we won't be able to retroactively prove that life on earth started that way. It's also true that we can't replicate the evolution of the species to prove that they developed as the theory states, but the theory does make valid scientific predictions that reliably take it outside the realm of mere philosophy.


MESkeptic: "Meanwhile, faith-based reasoning constantly has to back-track to cover its dismal record at explaining how the world actually works."
Moonwood: "Not too sure what this means. Are you saying those with religious faith had a special kind of reasoning that did not work?"

I suppose I am, though I wouldn't have put it that way. Faith-based reasoning relies on assumptions that are perceived as divine revelation. Religious revelation has a dismal track record when it comes to factual accuracy. For instance, religion and intuition told us for thousands of years that the world was flat. When the evidence started disproving the flat earth hypothesis, theists tried to silence those who'd seen the evidence. Why? Because like Dr. Craig, they knew in their hearts that the world was flat, and that mattered more to them than any evidence.

In your final paragraph, I think you're saying that science itself is a philosophical theory. I hadn't thought about it that way, but maybe so, technically. And yet this philosophy has proven better than any religion at adding to accurate, evidence-based knowledge of the world. Could we find an approach that leads to even more accurate discoveries than science? Possibly. For now, it's the best we've got.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Moonwood said: " I would suggest that you already know this (1+1=2) by other means that are more persuasive to you than proof or argument which is what I think Craig is saying of his experience of the spirit."

There are multiple layers of thought behind your comment here, and I appreciate your tone. I'm not sure the math equation makes a good illustration, but I'll agree that no one reaches all of the conclusions they make because of proof and evidence, including me. Human beings tend to jump to conclusions and then fit the evidence around what we already think is true. Since we all do it, the important questions seem to be "why do we do it?" and "how should we react to evidence contradicting our beliefs?

I think there are two questions. The first is what do people do when trying to know or find out and the second is what are people justified in doing. People are not justified in jumping to conclusions and fitting the evidence around it, they are justified in having basic beliefs which are not reached through evidence or argument. If some piece of evidence contradicts a basic belief then I may be justified in ignoring or reinterpreting the evidence. For example if I watch two raindrops join and make one should I abandon my basic belief that 1+1=2 or should I interpret what I have seen in a way that is consistent with that belief?

"Well it seems to me you are saying that if someone does not believe evidence and proof are the only ways of knowing you could not trust them. I think you are mistaken..."

My problem is not when someone believes something without evidence, because we all do it from time to time. What makes someone untrustworthy is when they make clear that their beliefs will remain unchanged no matter what the evidence says. Since Craig openly states this, he is not trustworthy as an arbiter of truth. Again, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar, and it doesn't even necessarily make him wrong, but he isn't someone anyone should look to for reliable factual statements.

Well, there are basic beliefs I would be very slow to change and I don't think that is wrong. It is not for example that I have never doubted my own existence but it would take more than mere argument and evidence to convince me that this was the case. I would view my belief in God as a basic belief. This does not mean I am untrustworthy on factual matters though I may be when I have not done my homework properly.

Similarly, we wouldn't accept a check from someone who told us that they would "know in their heart" that there was money in their bank account, even if their checkbook and their bank statements said otherwise.

No I would not trust someone under those circumstances nor do I think you should believe in God because someone else says that they believe that in their heart. My point here would be that different types of things can be known in different ways. If I had very good reason for believing someone was honest and they asked me to trust them over a financial matter even without evidence I might do so.

"...there are different senses in which a theory can predict...You cannot say if you put these chemicals on a planet of this kind life must follow..."

You probably know this, but evolutionary theory doesn't address the origins of life: only the origins of the species. We may someday be able to prove in a lab that certain chemicals combined under certain conditions will result in life, but you're correct in the sense that even when that happens in a lab, we won't be able to retroactively prove that life on earth started that way. It's also true that we can't replicate the evolution of the species to prove that they developed as the theory states, but the theory does make valid scientific predictions that reliably take it outside the realm of mere philosophy.

Yes I do know that but I had not thought of it in relation to what Popper was saying. Popper reduces the theory of evolution to a tautology saying it says only that what survives, survives. (Douglas Adams copied this by beginnning a novel with the words 'What happens, happens") But of course the theory does not just say that, it explains the mechanisms of survival and that does produce things that can be tested. It's kind of interesting to look at Popper's struggles to relate evolution to his theory about what science is; he really does not follow the maxim that if the evidence does not fit your theory you should change your theory.

MESkeptic: "Meanwhile, faith-based reasoning constantly has to back-track to cover its dismal record at explaining how the world actually works."
Moonwood: "Not too sure what this means. Are you saying those with religious faith had a special kind of reasoning that did not work?"

I suppose I am, though I wouldn't have put it that way. Faith-based reasoning relies on assumptions that are perceived as divine revelation. Religious revelation has a dismal track record when it comes to factual accuracy. For instance, religion and intuition told us for thousands of years that the world was flat. When the evidence started disproving the flat earth hypothesis, theists tried to silence those who'd seen the evidence. Why? Because like Dr. Craig, they knew in their hearts that the world was flat, and that mattered more to them than any evidence.

No, really no. That's just a piece of anit-Christian propaganda from the late nineteenth century. Here are a few links where you can chech the facts:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth One point that none of these not is that C. S. Lewis who was a medieval scholar pointed this out in several essays published in the forties and fifties of the last century. The Bible verse which seems to come closest to saying the earth is flat is I think Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Some people see this as describing a flat circular earth. Others have suggested that the word translated circle is properly translated sphere and that this shows that the people of old testament times knew the earth was spherical or had this revealed from God. I think both are wrong. The verse is using a poetic metaphor. It describes the view from a mountain top where one can see the circle of the land (Hebrew word for earth and land is the same) reaching to the horizons and the tiny people below. The second half of the verse uses a different metaphor descring God as a tent dweller. Bizarly Hugh Ross sees this as describing the big bang!

In your final paragraph, I think you're saying that science itself is a philosophical theory. I hadn't thought about it that way, but maybe so, technically. And yet this philosophy has proven better than any religion at adding to accurate, evidence-based knowledge of the world. Could we find an approach that leads to even more accurate discoveries than science? Possibly. For now, it's the best we've got.

No, I don't think science is a philosophical theory I think any attempt to say what science is and how it works is a philosophical theory. If you imagine everyhting that is science as being in a big box and then you have an explanation of what everything in the box has in common. That explanation has to be outside the box not in it. Hence Popper knows that the theory that science must be falsifiable is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

[MESkeptic]

Moonwood,

I understand your point about not surrendering beliefs every time something *seems* to contradict them, and I don't disagree with it. It would be a short trip to insanity to change our beliefs completely with every new piece of evidence. Nor do I dismiss all believers just for believing, which is why I said that I don't dismiss every person who believes something without immediately available evidence. As I said, that isn't what I object to, because everyone does it to some degree. Apparently I gave you an example of my own such mistake, when I got confused about which evidence-based theory that the church persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for in the middle ages. It was the Bible writers who believed the world was flat (several references, including the hilltop Jesus went to where Satan showed him all the nations of the world). By the middle ages, it appears that the world was round, but still the undisputable center of the universe.

The problem now is that a huge percentage of Americans, almost all of them evangelical Christians don't just believe without evidence, they actively hate the evidence itself, arguing by implication that anyone and anything that disagrees with the Bible is of Satan and must be destroyed. They want creationism taught as if it were science, and they don't want climate science taught at all. They've reached the point that they will politically and personally attack teachers and scientists, simply for bringing forward the evidence. For instance, they actually find it credible to believe that the world's thousands of climate scientists, from all political persuasions, religions, and nationalities, are engaging in a conspiracy to bring back communism.

It has become an endemic problem that this segment of the population will not question their own assumptions, no matter how ridiculous. All you need to do is watch the despicable behavior of the audiences at the Republican debates.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Moonwood,

I understand your point about not surrendering beliefs every time something *seems* to contradict them, and I don't disagree with it. It would be a short trip to insanity to change our beliefs completely with every new piece of evidence. Nor do I dismiss all believers just for believing, which is why I said that I don't dismiss every person who believes something without immediately available evidence. As I said, that isn't what I object to, because everyone does it to some degree. Apparently I gave you an example of my own such mistake, when I got confused about which evidence-based theory that the church persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for in the middle ages. It was the Bible writers who believed the world was flat (several references, including the hilltop Jesus went to where Satan showed him all the nations of the world). By the middle ages, it appears that the world was round, but still the undisputable center of the universe.

The Church didn't persecute Copernicus. Galileo wanted to promulgate as truth a theory that was poorly evidenced, had been dismissed as unscientific centuries before, that contradicted established theories using research that had not been peer reviewed. The Church said okay teach the theory pragmatically, as a means of astronomic calculation but don't call it true and he refused. Because of Ossiander's preface it at least appeared that Copernicus did not see his theory as descriptive truth but as a means of making calculations. a lot of medieval astronomy worked like that; no one thought all those epicycles were literally there in space. The reason for accepting the Ptolemaic theory was not because the Bible said so but because it looked like the best theory to many people. The idea that advocates of geocentricity were precursors of modern day creationism is a very unhistorical notion.
It's difficult to determine what the Biblical writers believed about the shape of the earth; I don't think it is something they were very interested in just as most people today would not have beliefs about the shape of the universe.

The problem now is that a huge percentage of Americans, almost all of them evangelical Christians don't just believe without evidence, they actively hate the evidence itself, arguing by implication that anyone and anything that disagrees with the Bible is of Satan and must be destroyed. They want creationism taught as if it were science, and they don't want climate science taught at all. They've reached the point that they will politically and personally attack teachers and scientists, simply for bringing forward the evidence. For instance, they actually find it credible to believe that the world's thousands of climate scientists, from all political persuasions, religions, and nationalities, are engaging in a conspiracy to bring back communism.

It has become an endemic problem that this segment of the population will not question their own assumptions, no matter how ridiculous. All you need to do is watch the despicable behavior of the audiences at the Republican debates.

I agree that's a problem but I would think the answer was in sound science education, good discussion and the promotion of free exercise of belief of any kind. You Yanks have it all in your constitution why don't you learn to live it?

[VickiRW]

Wait, wait, wait. Moonwood, did you seriously just defend the church's treatment of Galileo?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Wait, wait, wait. Moonwood, did you seriously just defend the church's treatment of Galileo?

I defended the Church's approach to the science. The social aspect is more complex. It comes down to the question of whether science should self regulating or whether other social agences such as Church or state should be involved. I've been reading Paul Feyarabend.

[Keep The Reason]

I defended the Church's approach to the science. The social aspect is more complex. It comes down to the question of whether science should self regulating or whether other social agences such as Church or state should be involved. I've been reading Paul Feyarabend.

Science itself should be unfettered and free to explore whatever comes down the pipeline. Responsible social agencies should be involved in how the discoveries should be implemented. What defines "responsible" is, of course, a point of discussion but whatever else I would insist that the agency be tasked to support its contentions in some clearly demonstrable way before its impact could be taken seriously.

For instance, "Late term abortion = killing a viable baby, hence immoral to human survival" is demonstrable, but "Late term abortion = your soul going to Hell" is not.

[MESkeptic]

I agree that's a problem but I would think the answer was in sound science education, good discussion and the promotion of free exercise of belief of any kind. You Yanks have it all in your constitution why don't you learn to live it?

As I said, your American brethren are hostile to science, evidence, and facts, and since they control just about everything, reality is less important than what they "know in their hearts." like the Bible, most of them have never read the constitution, either, though they claim to interpret it literally.