What is a Theory?

Not by your own reasoning, because a TOE, by your reasoning in this thread, would be false, and therefore would not falsify your statement. A theory isn't a fact, anyway. By everything you've been saying on this thread, a ToE, which would presumably have an infinite number of facts that could falsify it, would be false, and therefore your statement about a perfect theory being impossible is unfalsifiable by your own arguments (not by anyone elses). Message 44You seem to be equating "unproven" with "false". Unproven doesn't mean false in English. Again, by your reasoning (or more acurately, according to your special personal language) your statement about a perfect theory is false.Apart from apparently abusing our language, most of what you seem to be claiming on this thread seems paradoxical.Could you please try to clarify whatever point it is you're wanting to make?

I haven't read the thread any further than this, so sorry if I'm running behind. But I'd like to address this line of reasoning because you're running exactly into the problem of the "necessarilly limited scope" as I expressed it.When you state the "theory" "It will rain tomorrow and next week on Monday.", it might afterwards turn out to be "true" for you (your location). But what will also likely happen afterwards is that somebody will say "This is false, because I was in New York and it didn't rain!" So you'll be forced to add a qualifyer like "It will rain in Berlin tomorrow and next week on Monday." to "save" your theory by limiting the scope.The point is that there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether such additional qualifyer will be necessary at some point or not, and what kind of qualifyer it will be. Maybe one or more additional qualifyers will be necessary, maybe not. But it does indicate that (scientific) theories that can be falsified by a limited number of facts, are an illusion. You will never be sure that you've covered all the facts because you'll never be sure your initial "scope" was broad enough.For this reason it makes no sense to hypothesise (scientific,useful) theories that can be falsified by only a limited number of observations.

To be fair there are other conditions needed for ... ... to be generally true, after all water at 100C under 150 kPa of pressure in a pressure cooker won't boil. Just like for using E=MC² correctly you don't just need any old speed of light but the speed of light in a vacuum.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

My point, that Petro took up, was about language.Saying that "water boils at 100C" is not the same as saying "water will only boil at 100C" or, related to your point, "water will always boil at 100C". It's not really important to the thread in itself, and a trivial point, but when we're having philosophical discussions about whether theories or statements are true or false, it's important that we try to state our examples clearly, IMO.You probably remember other attempts to argue against science based on weird use of language, and much more important than the water boiling is our friend's definition of "false" and "true". At one point, he claims that unfalsifiable theories are true, if I remember rightly, and I haven't started on that one yet. What it'll be leading up to, of course, is that unfalsifiable religious beliefs are true. So, both the Koran and the Bible are the word of God, and millions of other mutually exclusive "theories" must be "true".

You just shot down any basis for religion as well here..Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

bluegenes,Not to beat on you, but let me point something out.At sea level there are 14.2 invisible pink unicorns per square inch. These pink unicorns attack water and make it so that at sea level the water will boil at 100C.Now at 12,000 ft above sea level there are only 7.1 invisible pink unicorns per square inch and they cannot stop the water from boiling so it boils at a much lower temperature.Suppose this is both your and my understanding of why water boils at different temperatures at different altitudes.Now suppose some fool shows up who says all explanations(theories) are false.Does it make any difference to what we observe?No!The explanation(theory) has nothing to do with the truth of what we see.It appears to me, and this is just my opinion, that a person on this thread is trying to get people to think that if an explanation/theory is wrong then all the observed data is wrong.You and I both know this is incorrect. It has not been stated outright but I wonder why anyone cares if this argument does not go back to the truthful observation.OK, let's look at it this way.All scientific theories are False.So who cares? It has not changed a single thing we can see. The world works the same way. So some explanation we had wasn't exactly correct. It makes no practical difference to us.Maybe we should ask ourselves what would be a person's interest in having us confuse an explanation/theory for the actual facts. It looks to me like someone is trying to get people to buy that because a science explanation/theory is not completely correct....all science and observations are also false.What do you think?

quote:

---

You seem to be equating "unproven" with "false".

---

You did not read the thread. Why would I repeat the same things over and over again, because someone joins the debate at the end of the thread without reading its first part?

quote:

---

You probably remember other attempts to argue against science based on weird use of language

---

Who argues against science? I come to exactly the same conclusions as Gdel, using another way.By the way, Gdel's theorem may also constitute some "weird use of language".But then again, it is not because you think it is weird, that there is something wrong with it. It just means that you are unfit to read that kind of theorems.

quote:

---

You just shot down any basis for religion as well here..

---

Religion does not attempt to phrase infinitely forward looking future statements that need to assimilate every possible fact, that may occur at any point in the future.Science is simply too ambitious as a method to work as advertised.Notwithstanding the spectacular success of science as a practical instrument, we simply have to realize that there are fundamental limitations built into its core. The Theory of Everything is unattainable.In contrast to science, religion is not a complex instrument meant to help predicting future facts. Religion uses its core initial axiom concerning the beginning of the universe, in order to phrase rules about what is right and wrong.To that extent, religion is seriously less ambitious than science, and it certainly does not need to build a Theory of Everything at all.

quote:

---

So give me one "infinitely falsifiable" theory?

---

"Water boils at 100C" is a theory falsifiable by an infinite number of facts. It is an infinitely forward-looking statement, which needs to assimilate an infinite number of future events in order to be true. That is the reason why it is presumably false.

quote:

---

If your "infinitely falsifiable" is a theory, then by your own definition the infinitely falsifiable idea is false

---

My theory covers theories. And indeed, it is not allowed to be "infinitely falsifiable" either. There is only one way to solve that problem: The number of possible theories is finite and not infinite.And indeed, that is why I claim that scientific theories can only be replaced by more complex scientific theories (which cover more facts) for so long, after which the process will stop. In other words, science cannot progress forever.Edited by erikp, : typo

Except that it is not false. At 1 atmosphere water boils at 100^oC. Therefore at one point the idea is not false.Edited by bluescat48, : superscriptEdited by bluescat48, : No reason given.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Can you prove that there exist an infinite number of facts that exist in the real world that would falsify this theory? For example, I get some water, I heat it to 100C - I could argue that only one fact would falsify the theory at this point - it is not boiling.Why are there an infinite number? Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of temperatures that water could in fact be measured at? If so then this assumes, surely, that the universe is analogue - why do you think that? Water boils at 100C
Water boils at 101C
Water boils at 102C
Water boils at 103C
...
Water boils nCAre you sure that there aren't an infinite number of numbers one could theorize that water boils at? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't find Gdel's language weird at all. He knows the difference between "incomplete" and "false". Tell me, can you think of any tools that science uses that are not used in maths and logic, and if so, can you think of ways in which those tools might make a difference to the ways that Gdel's theorems might apply to science as compared to maths and logic?

Religion always resolves to "Trust me!""Trust me!" is the ultimate basis for scripture and revelation. And the "faithful" are urged or required to believe, and to accept its claims on faith, without questioning them.A talking snake? "Trust me!"A global flood? "Trust me!"A burning bush? "Trust me!"Eternal life? "Trust me! I can provide that, but you need to tithe 10% of your earnings."
 
 

The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

 

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Except that it is not false. At 1 atmosphere water boils at 100oC. Therefore at one point the idea is not false.

---

It is a question of definition. When is a theory "true" and when is it "false"?True: the theory is true, if it is not contradicted by any past, present, or future fact (observation).False: The theory is false, if at least one past, present, or future fact contradicts it.According to these definition the theory "Water boils at 100C" is false.Feel free to propose other definitions for "true" and "false", if you feel that these definitions are not appropriate. But then again, be careful about the surprising results such alternative definitions may yield.Even the definitions proposed above, produce counter-intuitive results in their extremities. But then again, strange/counter-intuitive results is exactly what we can expect in the extremities/borderline cases of any theory.For example: What if there are simply no observations (facts) possible for a theory? Then the theory as well as its anti-thesis are both true. Can a thesis and an anti-thesis be true at the same time? Only in the extremities of things. Outside the extremities, this is impossible.Edited by erikp, : typo