https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/falsifiability.html
I'm not a great fan of philosophy in general. My old mathematics professor at college used to say,
"Philosophy - what do you mean by 'mean'?"
But some of the aspects of science have been usefully characterised and formalised by philosophers examining how and why science works. One of those is the notion of "falsifiability", identified by the philosopher of science, Karl Popper.
Simply put, a proposition (such as "All swans are white") is falsifiable if an observation or experiment can potentially show it is false. Note that a proposition that is falsifiable is not itself necessarily false. It just means that there is a test or tests we can make, even if just potentially, that can show that it is false, if indeed it is. Imagine that all the swans you have ever seen have been white, and that you have never even heard of the existence of black swans. You don't need to see or hear about black swans to know that "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement. It could be falsified by the existence of non-white swans, (or SOC - Swans of Colour). ;)
We gain confidence in propositions that we try to falsify, but which pass or withstand their falsifiability tests. It doesn't mean that they are absolutely proven*. Science cannot do that in any field, but it does mean that we have tried our best to prove them wrong, and we have failed.
Contrast this with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Anti-evolutionary creationism is a good example, but they are all discernible by their lack of falsifiable propositions, or by 'rationales' for avoiding all falsifiability tests. Take the "Statement of Faith" (https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/aig-statement-of-faith.html) that is required to be signed by members of the for-profit creationist outfit, "Answers in Genesis".
Simply put, a proposition (such as "All swans are white") is falsifiable if an observation or experiment can potentially show it is false. Note that a proposition that is falsifiable is not itself necessarily false. It just means that there is a test or tests we can make, even if just potentially, that can show that it is false, if indeed it is. Imagine that all the swans you have ever seen have been white, and that you have never even heard of the existence of black swans. You don't need to see or hear about black swans to know that "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement. It could be falsified by the existence of non-white swans, (or SOC - Swans of Colour). ;)
We gain confidence in propositions that we try to falsify, but which pass or withstand their falsifiability tests. It doesn't mean that they are absolutely proven*. Science cannot do that in any field, but it does mean that we have tried our best to prove them wrong, and we have failed.
Contrast this with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Anti-evolutionary creationism is a good example, but they are all discernible by their lack of falsifiable propositions, or by 'rationales' for avoiding all falsifiability tests. Take the "Statement of Faith" (https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/aig-statement-of-faith.html) that is required to be signed by members of the for-profit creationist outfit, "Answers in Genesis".
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Aside from being self-contradictory, (it was apparently written by person who believes themselves to be fallible), it has been signed by a number of people with formal scientific qualifications and a track record of scientific achievement!
This is clearly an attempt, however pathetic, to evade falsifiability tests. And such signatories, if they had any intellectual integrity, should forfeit their right to call themselves scientists.
As usual, the issues surrounding the subject are far more complex than my short summary can convey. Much more of interest can be found at the Wikipedia page on falsifiability, @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
*Proof belongs to axiomatic fields, notably mathematics. A mathematical proof is a procedure that leads to an unavoidable conclusion (a theorem, as opposed to a theory), flowing from an agreed set of axioms and rules of combination, just like saying that a bishop, in chess, can only occupy squares of the same colour it starts out on. I sometimes talk of science proving things, (https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/on-proof.html) but that is more like the legal notion that can be used to condemn, or acquit, someone being tried for murder. We condemn people on the basis of "proof beyond reasonable doubt".
https://ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-about-evolution
Someone in a Facebook discussion group asked,if something is unfalsifiable, can it be regarded as science? I answered as follows.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, scientific ideas are more and more accepted in the scientific field the more potentially falsifying experiments and observations fail to falsify it. There are hypotheses that are of interest to science, despite being (currently) unfalsifiable. The Many Worlds hypothesis, String or M theory and abiogenesis are examples. They are not given full scientific theory status because they are not currently falsifiable,but they do hold out the possibility of being tested. I think that much new science comes about this way - seeking to confirm or disprove hypothetical ideas.