Falsifiable means that there is some form of evidence or some test that could be run that would show the hypothesis to be false. It doesn't have to be anything easy to do, but it has to be theoretically possible. Otherwise it falls into the category of faith, not science.
The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
Yup, that's right. So, if your statement is - all pie is apple-flavored, it is potentially falsifiable by finding/baking a pie that is not apple-flavored.
This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
I'd rather not. They'd likely see it as a weakness of science, rather than its greatest strength. Then they'd be all - so, science is not capable of letting us truly understand the world. Let's instead proclaim to just know everything and tell those who disagree with us that they are insufficiently enlightened. We can tell, because were they sufficiently enlightened, they'd agree with us.
Hypocrites, every one of them. They accept the principles of radioactive decay when it suits them, but not when it comes to carbon dating. They accept that we can breed animals and plants (and we make new ones every so often, this is an ongoing process), but don't agree with evolution because... why, exactly?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:25 pm (UTC)The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:34 pm (UTC)I gotta now.
So, saying: all Apple-flavored Pie is falsifiable?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:49 pm (UTC)sssh.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:39 pm (UTC)This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:48 pm (UTC)See, this is why I like Conuly's friends. They're smaert! :D
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:37 pm (UTC)Gravity? HERETIC! Gravity is a theory, not a fact.
I shall pray for you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:43 pm (UTC)And that's just not a fun conversation to be in.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:50 pm (UTC)Sorry, this is my rantling.