Message 107 of 116 (703319)
07-18-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Skulb
07-17-2013 4:37 PM
Falsification and Replacement
But science has been a pretty dodgy affair all along I think, which is sometimes forgotten.
Nope, never forgotten.
In fact, it's written down in history of science books all over the world to help new scientists not repeat the mistakes of past generations.
|A century ago it was considered established fact that races had different values...|
Yes, things change.
But, if you don't like science... don't you think you should bring up your issues with the scientific method? Because that's what science is.
The rest is all just political drama about people who also happen to do science.
Like religion. There's lots of political drama over priests who do inappropriate things with young boys. Do you think "religion" should be judged by this drama caused by the people who also happen to do religion? Or should we judge religion by the religious method?
|My point is that scientists have always been holier than thou with their theories, and sometimes they turn out to be wrong.|
Who figured out they were wrong? Was it other people using the religious method? Or other people using the scientific method?
I'll give you a hint... no one has made any technological progress using the religious method for over 2000 years now.
So, we're back to the same point. If you have an issue with science, you should identify your issue with the scientific method.
However, if you simply have a political drama issue with some people who happen to do science... then most will likely agree there's something wrong with those people... but you won't convince anyone that there's anything wrong with science if you go this route.
|A natural part of talking about the theory of evolution is what would falsify the theory. That`s science right?|
|And what would falsify it would be to prove ID, not that I personally can see how that would be possible, but you get my point.|
Actually, no. Proving ID would not falsify evolution.
There are actually two different things to discuss here.
1. Falsifying a theory
Falsification of a theory has nothing to do with proving another one as true.
If ID was shown to be true, evolution would still also be true. They may meld together into some sort of strange Intelligent Evolution theory at some point, but nothing about the theory of evolution would go away... it would simply be added onto with the new knowledge of ID.
Falsifying a theory involves showing that the specific theory in question is actually wrong.
It means to take a prediction of the theory, and show that the result is something else.
Evolution predicts that a cat will never give birth to a snake or anything other than a slightly different cat.
If you could show that a cat gives birth to a snake... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
Evolution predicts that organisms change over time.
If you could show that sharks today are exactly the same as sharks 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
If you could show that birch trees today are exactly the same as birch trees 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
If you could show that bacteria today is exactly the same as bacteria 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
The point is, in order to falsify a theory you need to show that the predictions of that theory are incorrect.
Just because a theory gets falsified doesn't even mean it's automatically replaced... which leads us into our next topic:
2. Replacing a theory with another one
A theory is only ever replaced with another one if the following is true:
The new theory is able to explain all the information available better than the old theory.
Nothing to do with falsification or truthiness or popularity.
("Better" in this context is two fold - being able to actually explain the information as well as doing it in the simplest way.)
("Explain" in this context is scientifically-related, the explanation has to be useful... it has to make predictions that can be tested and verified).
Falsification can be a part of replacing a theory, but it isn't necessary and doesn't actually mean anything will happen.
The following is an example about how theories are falsified and replaced
Let's say I see a lot of robins in spring and summer and fall.
I come up with a theory that robins only live during the spring and summer and fall.
Prediction of the theory: you will never find a robin alive in the winter.
Now, someone else comes up with a competing theory. They call it Intrinsic Death.
They say that robins aren't even alive in the spring or summer or fall. They are always undergoing Intrinsic Death which lasts for 9 months that makes it look like they're alive. But then they return to normal death during the winter.
Prediction of the theory: you will never find a robin alive in the winter.
Let's say a 3rd group has another theory. They call it Create-A-Robin.
They say that robins are created every spring by the Egg-God.
They don't have any predictions, just a book that says robins are created every spring by an Egg-God.
Which theory scientifically explains all the information available in a better way?
Well, the one with no predictions isn't scientific at all, so we just ignore it.
The other two make the same prediction, so they are both validated equally by the testing.
One uses the states of nature we know about from all other animals (alive and dead).
The other introduces a new state of nature (Intrinsic Death) that is mysterious, has no explanation and sounds a bit fishy.
Which, then, is simpler?
Obviously, we go with the natural theory.
Now, we have our accepted scientific theory that robins only live during the spring and summer and fall, and die in the winter.
We also have our "other scientific theory" of Intrinsic Death that some folk just keep insisting is correct.
We also have something else that some people call a theory even though it's not scientific (Create-A-Robin), and they also insist that it is correct.
Then we get some more information.
People from further south give us a phone call and say "hey, robins live in the winter... they come down here!"
We take a trip to see for ourselves, tag a few robins to track them, and understand that yes... robins do not die every winter... they just fly south.
Our accepted theory is falsified.
Does that mean Intrinsic Death becomes the accepted scientific theory? No, it's also falsified.
Does that mean Create-A-Robin becomes the accepted scientific theory? No, it still doesn't make any predictions so it still isn't science.
Well, since our old accepted-theory still scientifically explains all the information better than the others... it's still the accepted theory!
We still know that robins live in spring, summer and fall. This part of the theory still works great, so we keep it.
But we now know that robins don't die in the winter... they just fly south.
What happens is we adjust our theory to account for this new information.
The theory becomes "robins live year round, but they fly south for the winter."
Intrinsic Death can adjust their theory... but they still include an additional, mysterious, unnecessary aspect which makes the natural theory better.
Create-A-Robin didn't become the accepted theory just because the other two were shown to be wrong... because it never explained the information in any way at all. It's just based on a book with pictures of eggs and bearded chefs.
As long as Create-A-Robin stays the same, it'll never be used in the scientific world. There's no predictions, no usefulness, no science.
As long as Intrinsic Death keeps it's additional, mysterious, unnecessary ideas, it'll never be used in the scientific world.
The theory that is always used in the scientific world is the one that explains all the information better than the others.
This is generally developed by changing our theories to account for new information as our knowledge grows.
If you don't like a theory, you need to show some information that it cannot account for... and then identify a new theory that does account for it, but also accounts for all the old information as well. This will make it better, and then it will replace the old theory.
If you don't like the method of science... then you're free to think up a better method.
The method of science, however, does have a pretty good track record. Not much advancement in human technology until science came around... then BOOM! Computers! Cell-phones! Space Exploration!!
It seems to be doing pretty good so far.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 100 by Skulb, posted 07-17-2013 4:37 PM|| ||Skulb has not yet responded|