What is a Theory?

quote:

---

I think such a theory would definitely be possible, in which case we would have a falsifiable theory that would reflect the ultimate truth and would therefore never be falsified in practice.

---

Not one theory in the current body of science claims this.What's more, Gdel's second incompleteness theory, which is supported by formal proof, says that a (sufficiently complex, in terms of Gdel) theory that makes statements concerning its own consistency (truth), is necessarily inconsistent (false).A (sufficiently complex, in terms of Gdel) theory can therefore not claim its own truth. In addition to that, any sufficiently complex theory is falsifiable by an infinite number of future statements, and is therefore eternally unproven.In those circumstances, how could anybody ever claim the ultimate truth of such theory?There are true theories, however.A theory falsifiable by a finite number of facts, can be completely true, and will be proven after observing the last fact. A theory falsifiable by 10 facts and not falsified by any of them, is true. The same for 9,8,7,6,5,...,2,1 facts. What about zero facts?The principle of continuity demands that a theory falsifiable by zero facts and (obviously) not falsified by them, is true. Therefore, unfalsifiable theories must be considered: true.The ultimate truth can therefore not be a theory falsifiable by an infinite number of future facts, by its own rules unable to claim its own truth (science), but rather a correctly stated (that is, by enforcing its unfalsifiability) unfalsifiable theory.A true theory can therefore only consist of (necessarily past) facts and unfalsifiable claims (religion).Edited by erikp, : Add conclusionEdited by erikp, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, it isn't. For if everything we know is false i.e. it does not comply with reality, then how can we ever do anything?

---

The value of knowledge does not reside in its truth, but in the fact that it is very hard to prove that it is false.Therefore, we only keep using these false claims (knowledge), as long as nobody manages to prove their falsehood. As soon as someone proves the falsehood of any such claim, however, we discontinue its use. There is no other way around it, than doing exactly that.

Of course not, because there's no way to tell if this is the case. Further, it was a hypothetical situation, showing that your logic is wrong. No theory claims itself to be true, simply because we can never know if it IS true, that doesn't mean that it reflects all observation until that point perfectly, and can thus be considered true. Yes, that does not mean it is not true though. Nobody does. But all theories fit all observation up until now. But we will never know if they are. But we can't observe every fact, not ever. Yes, such theories do not exist however. They don't exist either. Yet, such a theory does not exist. Wrong. They must be considered unscientific. In fact, they mustn't be considered theories at all. Wrong. Unfalsifiable statements aren't theories. They should also be considered unscientific. Wrong, theories are NEVER unfalsifiable.

---

I hunt for the truth

I am not speaking of a theory in the current body of science. I am talking about the logical possibility of a hypothetical theory that's spot on with regard to an aspect of nature. Where did I say that the theory makes claims about its own consistency? You have a strange idea of falsifiability. It doesn't matter whether we can claim that our theory is absolutely true. We may not even know it. But it's possible that it is. That's all I'm saying. Again, what a strange concept of falsifiability you have. In the scientific community 'falsifiability' means that it is possible to state at least one observation that would invalidate ('falsify') the theory. If you cannot do so your theory is considered unscientific. That's what scientists mean by falsifiability.Here's an example of a falsifiable theory: black swans do not exist. If no one has ever seen a black swan, we don't know if the theory is true or not, but we know it is falsifiable because we can think of an observation that would falsify it: if we see a black swan anywhere, we will know the theory is false.Now for an example of an unfalsifiable theory, solipsism. It goes something like this: "I alone exist and everything I see around me is a figment of my imagination." There is no observation anyone can point to that would falsify it, because I could always say that it's just another figment of my imagination, as is the person arguing it.Obviously, unfalsifiable theories must not be considered true. They might be true, or they might be false, but we'll never know and because of that, they're useless. They are simply not viable as theories. Utter bollocks.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

But we can't observe every fact, not ever.

---

It is absolutely possible to phrase theories that can only be falsified by a finite number of facts. For example, "it will rain tomorrow". This theory can only be falsified by one fact."It will rain tomorrow and next week on Monday." This theory can only be falsified by two facts."It has rained yesterday and the day before and also the day before that" can only be falsified by three (already known/knowable) facts.Therefore, theories that can only be falsified by a finite number of facts, do exist. This kind of theories is the only kind that can be proven. This kind of theories can also be completely true.Zero facts is also a finite number of facts. I therefore maintain that the principle of continuity demands that these theories are treated as being true, in accordance with the stated definitions for "true" and "false".Edited by erikp, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Obviously, unfalsifiable theories must not be considered true. They might be true, or they might be false, but we'll never know and because of that, they're useless. They are simply not viable as theories.

---

The same holds true for theories that can be falsified by an infinite number of facts: we will never know if they are true. (in fact, they are almost certainly false). That in itself does not make them useless or unviable as theories.Infinitely falsifiable theories are problematic, but not useless. Idem dito, for unfalsifiable theories.

When you reach conclusions at odds with reality, the necessary conclusion is that you've somehow reasoned improperly. But no one can force this conclusion on you, so go ahead and continue arguing irrationally if you're so determinedThis discussion really can't make any progress while you're ignoring the feedback, like that you've misconstrued falsifiability, misdefined incomplete, erroneously asserted that scientific theories assert their own truth, and misapplied the principle of continuity.Naturally you disagree, but instead of addressing this feedback and making clear the nature of your disagreement, you're instead ignoring it while restating your position, sort of the discussion board equivalent of going "la-la-la-la" while sticking your fingers in your ears.--Percy

These aren't scientific theories. One is predictions with no data. The other is data with no predictions.The road to truth does not begin with false propositions, but for some reason you've decided that doesn't apply to you.--Percy

quote:

---

...erroneously asserted that scientific theories assert their own truth

---

Why don't you quote my words, instead of making up things I would have said? If I asserted something, it should be possible for you to quote it, don't you think so?Your intellectually dishonest approach may somehow work in a spoken conversation, but it is very stupid to try this kind of tricks when there are written records available.

quote:

---

The value of knowledge does not reside in its truth, but in the fact that it is very hard to prove that it is false.

---

That is just hideously wrong. Especially in science, which we are discussing. A theory that makes useful and accurate predictions is valuable. A theory that does not is of relatively little value.Pointless speculation is not valuable knowledge, no matter how difficult it would be to disprove.

As Percy pointed out, none of those are theories. So again, you show your logic is false.Show me a theory that has a fixed number of observations that can be made, or retract your statements (like that will ever happen, judging by the way you post).I suggest you very carefully read this article, before posting again, to avoid embarrassing yourself some more with your faulty logic.Scientific theory - Wikipedia

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi, Erik.I only have enough of an understanding of formal logic to do ecological research, so I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion. Still, I'd like something clarified. How do you tell the difference if you haven't made, and indeed, cannot make, all possible observations? Why would we want to discuss scientific ideas in terms of something we'll never obtain?Even if you're right, your idea doesn't have any actual merit outside of semantics: it's just a toy for wordsmiths.So, why make this distinction at all? Rather, why not instead distinguish ideas as either (a) useful on a practical basis, or (b) not useful on a practical basis?There's a reason scientists avoid the word "true." There is an equally good reason why we don't avoid the word "false."----- What a curious concept.The logical extension of this is that there is only one "true" theory: one that explains all physical phenomena with one fell swoop. So, there can be no such thing as "local" truth: a theory that is not universal is completely false.So, e.g., gravity can never be true, so long as it doesn't explain heredity.Wouldn't you also have to conclude that any religion with more than one tenet is false?Again, what benefit does science stand to gain from using this philosophy?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Is there some reason why incomplete would not be NULL or unknown?

quote:

---

Show me a theory that has a fixed number of observations that can be made, or retract your statement

---

"It will rain tomorrow." is a theory, and it has just 1 observation that can be made to falsify it.

This is from your Message 61 after you cite Gdel: That's your argument against theories that claim their own truth, which scientific theories do not do. Lying at the core of this discussion are the principles of tentativity and falsifiability, and naturally any theories with these properties could never claim their own truth. Please don't try to distract attention from the weaknesses, problems and contradictions in your arguments. I already noted that you're ignoring rebuttals, and you're doing so again by lashing out at me. Please keep your focus on the topic and address what people are saying. Thanks.--Percy