Expanded Science

[jedaisoul]

Nope !

All reference to reality is object od "Extended Science"

So, are you claiming that geocentrism IS literally true?

[jocaxx]

 

Popper delimited science by adding the following criteria to it:

 

1-No scientific theory can be proved true.

2-A scientific theory can only be proved false.

3-A theory which cannot be refuted is not a scientific theory.

 

I would suggest that is not a definition of what "scientific" means.

 

 

No, this is the current definition of science where most of scientists agree.

This is the definition that most scientists agree.

This definition was developed by Popper, not me.

 

 

You have assumed a definition of "scienctific" that conflicts with these rules.

 

Of course, because I proved that this rules are contradictories.

 

 

I have given a definition that accords with these rules.

 

I Think you are being contradictory because you said :

"...I would suggest that is not a definition of what "scientific" means. ... " <-> "...I have given a definition that accords with these rules. ... "

 

 

 

if you insist on treating them as a definition of "scientific", it is clear that, by this definition, the denial of a scientific theory cannot itself be a scientific theory.

 

Not me.

The most of cientific comunity. Did you have heard about "falsificacionism" in science?

But it not matter , the important is the new definition. Not the old one.

 

 

 

 

So your insistence that the denial of a scientific theory is itself a scientific theory is irrelevant, as it rests on a different definition of "scientific". You cannot prove one definition to be faulty by using a different definition. You have to show an internal flaw, or shortcoming, in it.

 

I dont konw if I understand this paragraph.

I have show the internal flaw, did not?

But I agree with you that it is not necessary show some flow to have a new and broader theory.

 

 

 

 

Nope !

All reference to reality is object od "Extended Science"

 

So, are you claiming that geocentrism IS literally true?

 

You do not understand.

I do not saying that this theory is correct !

I is a theory to be examined and subsequently "rejected" or not by ES.

 

See the IMP example in the text:

 

"

We will take, as an illustrative example, the "Green Imp Theory" (GIT): "There is always a 'green devil' hovering over each person’s shoulder, but whenever someone tries to look at it, or makes any attempt to detect it or record it somehow, it will get invisible and undetectable. " This example proposes a theory that does not go against any scientific postulate and is not inherently inconsistent, what could be enough reason to reject it, but nevertheless, we are unable to test this theory. So what do we do?

 

...

 

1-No scientific theory can be proved true.

2-A scientific theory can only be proved false.

3-A theory which cannot be refuted is not a scientific theory.

 

Thus, with this new set of postulates, Popper introduced the 'falsifiability' (or ‘refutability’) as the main criterion of distinction between scientific and unscientific theories. The ‘refutability’ of a theory means that, in principle, the theory is liable to be distorted and thus be or not refuted (Modus-Tollens would be a way to refute a theory). For example, when analyzing the case of our ‘Green Imp Theory (GIT) above, we now realize it is not a scientific theory, since it is a theory that cannot be distorted neither directly or indirectly; therefore, it is not refutable and cannot be a scientific theory.

"

[jedaisoul]

I Think you are being contradictory because you said :

"...I would suggest that is not a definition of what "scientific" means. ... " <-> "...I have given a definition that accords with these rules. ... "

I withdraw this point as it is valid, but unnecessary.

 

I dont konw if I understand this paragraph.

I have show the internal flaw, did not?

No. You have not shown an internal flaw. You have shown that Popper's argument is inconsistent with YOUR definition of "scientific". That is very different from showing that it is inconsistent with itself. Let me explain the difference. You said:

 

the postulates introduced by Popper are actually inconsistent. And the internal inconsistency in science is simply fatal. In order to prove that, we will consider the first two criteria proposed by Popper to demarcate a scientific theory:

 

i) No scientific theory can be proved true (confirmed).

ii) A scientific theory can only be proved false.

 

Taking the basic postulate that science seeks truth and not necessarily the usefulness in the theories, even because the "usefulness" of a theory is subjective, we should take the postulate (i) not as a condition for a theory to be scientific, but as an impossibility of proving it true.

See? You have interpreted Popper's statement "No scientific theory can be proved true" as "not as a condition for a theory to be scientific". That is nonsense. Popper clearly states that no scientific theory can be proved true. Logically it follows that "any theory that can be proven true is not scientific". Hence statement i) IS a condition for a theory to be scientific.

 

You then say:

If we interpreted the postulate (i) as a condition for a theory to be scientific, many theories that could be proved true would be considered anti-scientific in spite of science seeking the truth! That would be a complete nonsense.

Can you give an example of a scientific theory (according to Popper's definition of a scientific theory) that can be proven to be true?

 

Let us now change focus and show the inconsistency of the criteria (i) and (ii):

 

Consider the following theory: "This shoe box contains a frog."

This theory is not very useful but, for now, we are not concerned about the usefulness of theories, we are concerned about its veracity. If we open the shoes box and find a frog, what can we say? Can we consider the theory true? Would that refute Popper’s postulate (i)? These matters are not trivial, since it is possible to say that what we see is not a frog but a toad, or that it could be an optical illusion or even a dream and therefore, we cannot claim that the box contains a frog or that the box exists. Indeed, these philosophical claims can keep the criterion (i) unharmed; however it contradicts the rule (ii) "A scientific theory can only be proved false”.

You have not shown Popper's axioms to be inconsistent. You have merely shown that, by Popper's definition, "This shoe box contains a frog" is NOT a scientific theory. You are asserting that it is a scientific theory, because it is true. But THAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Not Poppers.

 

It follows from Popper's definition that:

a) Not all true statements are (necessarily) scientific. And:

B) Not all scientific statements are (necessarily) true.

 

You seem to be assuming:

c) "All true statements are scientific". Hence:

d) "All untrue statements are not scientific".

 

You are equating "science" with "truth". On what basis do you make this claim? Certainly, Popper does not claim such a thing, neither does science in general. You have simply assumed it to be so. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. You are arguing that there is an internal inconsistency in Popper's axioms, when all you have shown is that they are inconsistent with YOUR assumption as to the nature of science.

[Rade]

Jocaxx,

 

First, please look up the simple English dictionary definition of the word "science". It is from Latin, and it means (1) to divide (2) to know. Thus, all modern scientists define "science" as the seeking of "uncertain knowledge".

 

Second, as I and others have tried to explain to you, you have a false understanding of Popper philosophy of 'science'--so here, read what Popper had to say in 1963 on the topic:

 

"Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements — whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific. Years later — it must have been in 1928 or 1929 — I called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation." The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations." Karl Popper, 1963 (Conjectures and Refutations).

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but whatever philosophy your Expanded Science idea falls under, it has nothing to do with Karl Popper nor his understanding of Science.

[jocaxx]

You have interpreted Popper's statement "No scientific theory can be proved true" as "not as a condition for a theory to be scientific". That is nonsense. Popper clearly states that no scientific theory can be proved true. Logically it follows that "any theory that can be proven true is not scientific". Hence statement i) IS a condition for a theory to be scientific.

 

I Disagree because:

 

1- Its true that "No scientific theory can be proved true" because the "PUP"

2- Of course science do not seek the false statements , science seek the trues one.

If theory have some evidence showing it is false then the theory is "refuted", it show clearly that science seek the truth not the false.

If you think science does not matter with the truth then, there is no reason to falsificate theories !

 

 

Beyond this , see the text:

" ...If we interpreted the postulate (i) as a condition for a theory to be scientific, many theories that could be proved true would be considered anti-scientific in spite of science seeking the truth! That would be a complete nonsense.... "

 

 

if we interpreted the postulate (i)

as a condition for a theory to be scientific,

many theories that could be proved true would be considered anti-scientific in spite

of science seeking the truth! That would be a complete nonsense.

 

Can you give an example of a scientific theory (according to Popper's definition of a scientific theory)

that can be proven to be true?

 

According with "PUP" no theory can be proved true.

Accordig with Popper no theory can be proved true.

My point is the theory can NOT be proved true because "PUP" not because the theory is true.

 

Supose "Heisemberg Uncertainy Princpiple" (HUP) is an Universal Truth. Ok?

If contition (i) no theory can be proved true and if HUP is proved true than

this truth can not be a scientific proposition ! it is an absurd.

 

Do you really agree that universal truth theories are anti-scientific?

If Yes, it is a nonsense.

 

 

You have not shown Popper's axioms to be inconsistent. You have merely shown that, by Popper's definition, "This shoe box contains a frog" is NOT a scientific theory.

 

I disagree because it is a simple logic question.

If scientific theory "A" is proved false of course B="Not A" is proved True.

Then you are saying that "B" theory is not scientific because was provced true!?!

Dont you think it ts absurd because science seek the truth and not the false?

 

Science can not just throw out the theories that have proved true, to save only the dubious or false! That would be totally absurd.

 

The science should rather throw away the false and keep the real and promising.

 

It follows from Popper's definition that:

a) Not all true statements are (necessarily) scientific. And:

:hihi: Not all scientific statements are (necessarily) true.

 

It true, but its not matter in our discussion.

 

 

 

You seem to be assuming:

c) "All true statements are scientific". Hence:

d) "All untrue statements are not scientific".

 

We have to be veryyyyyyyyy carefull between false-scientific-theories and non-scientific-theories.

 

We have to distinguish at this point, between propositions and theories.

A scientific theory can be when it can be studied and analyzed by science.

In this case, a false theory, like the geocentric, is a scientific theory: A theory-scientific-false.

 

But there are propositions that are not scientific : when they can not be embraced by science.

For example when the theory tell about the non-reality like angels etc..

 

If we are talking about reality then :

In the Expanded Science "ES" :

c) "All 'true' statements are scientific" OK! ( Indeed we can not know if is true!)

d) "All untrue statements are scientific-false-theory ".

 

Did you see the diference:

"All untrue statements are not scientific". <-> "All untrue statements are scientific-false-theory "

 

 

 

 

You are equating "science" with "truth". On what basis do you make this claim?

 

No !

The science look for true theories not false theories!

Do you agree?

Because this I said Science seek for truth. (True theories)

 

All science are interested in the truth, interested in non-false theories.

If the science was not interested in the truth theories, did not matter refutability criteria!

 

You are arguing that there is an internal inconsistency in Popper's axioms, when all you have shown is that they are inconsistent with YOUR assumption as to the nature of science.

 

Do you disagree the popper criterea are:

i) No scientific theory can be proved true (confirmed).

ii) A scientific theory can only be proved false.

 

I show you, above, it is a logic consequence these acertions.

If something can be proved false, the negative is proved true.

 

 

We can sumarize my point with this example:

 

Do you agree that theory is a scientific theory A-1 :

 

A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria" ?

 

Of course it is a scientific theoru by Popper Science (PS) and by Expanded Science (ES).

 

Of course , from "A-1" , we can logically derive A-2 :

 

A2= "The disease X is not caused by virus"

 

If this scientific theory is falsified ( proved false )

its negative is proved true, then we have proved a true theory A-3= "Not A-2":

 

A-3= "The disease X is caused by virus"

 

Now ,

by popperian criterium , we prove that A-3 theory is not scientific because we proved it true !?!?!

Its an absurd !

Of course "Aids is caused by virus" is a scientific theory !

 

 

-------------------

 

 

Thus, all modern scientists define "science" as the seeking of "uncertain knowledge".

 

Then the Popper falsification criterea does not matter

because if you prove some theory False then it ceases to be uncertain!!

With this definition, You are falsification the current scientific criterion.

 

 

Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability

was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability.

It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements,

or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements — whether they

are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific.

Years later — it must have been in 1928 or 1929 —

I called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation." The criterion of falsifiability

is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements,

in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable,

observations.

 

The example above show there is serius implication with this criterium:

 

 

We can sumarize my point with this example:

 

Do you agree that theory is a scientific theory A-1 :

 

A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria" ?

 

Of course it is a scientific theoru by Popper Science (PS) and by Expanded Science (ES).

 

Of course , from "A-1" , we can logically derive A-2 :

 

A2= "The disease X is not caused by virus"

 

If this scientific theory is falsified ( proved false ) we have that

its negative is proved true, then we have proved a true theory A-3= "Not A-2":

 

A-3= "The disease X is caused by virus"

 

Now ,

by popperian criterium , we prove that A-3 theory is not scientific theory because we proved it is true !?!?!

Its an absurd !

Of course "Aids is caused by virus" is a scientific theory !

 

Did you get?

[jedaisoul]

jocaxx

 

When I point out that you have not identified an internal inconsistency in Popper's axioms, and I give the reasons why, simply repeating your claims is not an adequate response. You have not refuted the points made by me and others. Furthermore, your replies give no indication that you have actually understood the points made against your claims.

 

No offense intended, but I feel that it is pointless discussing the matter further.

[Qfwfq]

by popperian criterium , we prove that A-3 theory is not scientific theory because we proved it is true !?!?!

That simply isn't how it works.

[jocaxx]

When I point out that you have not identified an internal inconsistency in Popper's axioms, and I give the reasons why, simply repeating your claims is not an adequate response. You have not refuted the points made by me and others. Furthermore, your replies give no indication that you have actually understood the points made against your claims.

 

 

I showed that there is incompatibility between the falsification and the impossibility to show that a theory can be proved true. I did not understand what you disagree.

 

But actually, it does not matter because the poperianism not cover all the aspects of reality, is too narrow to falsification, while the expanded science does that.. and it is important.

[jedaisoul]

I showed that there is incompatibility between the falsification and the impossibility to show that a theory can be proved true. I did not understand what you disagree.

I disagree that you have shown an incompatibility, for the reasons I've already given. Unfortunately, I can not help you understand this. I, and others, have explained it repeatedly.

 

But actually, it does not matter because the poperianism not cover all the aspects of reality, is too narrow to falsification, while the expanded science does that.. and it is important.

It does matter. If you do not understand what people are telling you, how can you claim to know whether it is important?

[jocaxx]

I disagree that you have shown an incompatibility, for the reasons I've already given. Unfortunately, I can not help you understand this. I, and others, have explained it repeatedly.

 

I will again refute you in what you said you refute me:

 

You said:

 

 

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

That is that you have assumed that Popper would define the denial of a scientific theory as a scientific

theory in its own right. I.e.

That "all swans are white" and "not all swans are white" are both scientific theories.

I think that is wrong.

The reason is that we may define a scientific theory as

"a general statement about physical reality which, if true, allows us to make specific statements about specific examples that are true".

 

I refute you with this example and I think you do not understand:

 

Theory A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria"

 

Do you agree this statement is a scientific theory? ( I think no problem here )

 

If this Scientific theory is true, we can logicaly derivate the theory A2:

 

Theory A2 = "The disease X is not caused by virus"

 

Then we can see that : A1 => A2 ( Theory "A1" implies Therory "A2" )

 

Of course if A1 is true then A2 is true too and

if A2 is false then A1 is false too ( because the logic implicartion )

 

If we prove that A2 is false, that is, if we make experiments and we prove that the disease X

is caused by virus then Theory A2 is refuted :

 

Theory A2 is proved false => Not (Theory A2) is proved True

 

Because the logical Tautology : (A or Not A)

 

If A is false then Not A is true

 

The we can derivate the true theory A3 = Not A2 = "The disease X is caused by virus"

 

So The Scientific theory A3 ="The disease X is caused by virus" was proved true !!

 

But by popperianism no scientific theory can be proved true !

This example show that falsificacionism IMPLIES truth theories

and refute the popper criterium that the theory can ONLY be proved false !!

 

Then when you said :

 

Hence the denial of a scientific theory is NOT a scientific theory.

 

You are WRONG because

if the scientific theory A2="The disease X is not caused by virus" is falsified

then its NEGATIVE: A3="The disease X is caused by virus" is true and A3 IS SCIENTIFIC too.

 

 

 

 

You said:

1. What definition of "scientific" was Popper using?

 

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

 

If "Theory A" is falsifiable => it is scientific.

 

I show that it is an absurd because the example I gave:

 

A3="The disease X is caused by virus" could not be scientific because it was proved true !

and can not be falsified because it is true now, therefore it is not falsifiable.

But the theory A1="The disease X is caused by bacteria" is Scientific !

There is a contradiction here, both are almost the same theory (changing the words virus and bacteria).

 

If you assume yours, then his claims are patently invalid.

 

I did not assume mine.

See the wiki: Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

You have NOT shown that Popper's argument is flawed (i.e. internally inconsistent), you have merely shown that it is not compatible with YOUR definition of "scientific".

 

Nope, see the example above.

By popper :

Theory A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria" is scientific

and

Theory A3 ="The disease X is caused by virus" is NOT scientific

 

It is contradictory.

 

 

So I refute your refutation :-)

[jedaisoul]

I will again refute you in what you said you refute me:

 

I refute you with this example and I think you do not understand:

 

Theory A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria"

 

Do you agree this statement is a scientific theory? ( I think no problem here )

Then you think wrong. No, it is not a scientific theory. Why? Because it is not a "general statement that, if true, allows us to say specific things about specific examples that are true". It is a specific claim that tells us nothing about the causes of other diseases. Hence it is capable of being proven true. So it is NOT a scientific theory, AS DEFINED BY POPPER.

 

Do you now have an inkling of what I'm talking about? You have been talking about what TO YOU is a scientific theory. I've been talking about what (I interpret) TO POPPER was a scientific theory.

 

Now, you might be able to make a case that Popper's definition of a scientific theory was too narrow. You might even suggest that ANY single definition of a scientific theory will not match reality. But that does not justify claiming that Popper's theory is internally inconsistent. It isn't. It just does not match YOUR definition of a scientific theory.

[Rade]

Theory A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria"

 

Do you agree this statement [Theory A1] is a scientific theory? (I think no problem here).If this Scientific theory is true, we can logically derive the theory A2:

Theory A2 = "The disease X is not caused by virus"

No, this is not true logically. The way you came to accept Theory A1 as a "truth statement" is that you have information from observation and/or experiment that you can falsify the null hypothesis---H0: disease X is not cause by bacteria. You never conducted any observation or experiment to falsify that disease X is not caused by virus. For all you know disease X has multiple causes. It may be true that disease X is only caused by bacteria, but you do not reach this scientific conclusion by logical derivation, only by observation and experimentation of many different possible causes for disease X.

 

OK, let us assume you do conduct experiments and you can never falsify the null hypothesis H0: disease X is not caused by virus. (that is, you never find any example of disease X and virus correlated). So, if such experiments were conducted you would never come to this conclusion:

 

So The Scientific theory A3 ="The disease X is caused by virus" was proved true !!

Impossible conclusion. It was never "proven true" because you never made any attempt to falsify the correct null hypothesis. Do you not see that your argument is based on a false premise that the "scientific method" demands that Theory A2 derives logically without observation or experiment from Theory A1--it does not--this is not science--it is nonsense.

 

==

 

Consider this nonsense conclusion reached by application of Expanded Science logic:

 

Theory A1: Growth of Plant X is caused by water I give it

(compare to: Disease X is caused by bacteria)

 

Thus, we logically derive::)

 

Theory A2: Growth of Plant X is not caused by sunlight I give it.

(compare to: Disease X is not caused by virus)

 

==

 

Jocaxx, I have a question. What does Expanded Science thinking have to say about the truth of theory of Intelligent Design ?

[lawcat]

 

1- The objective of Science

 

Science has truth as its only objective. .

 

 

100% correct.

 

 

The Truth in science can be defined as “all information compatible with reality”. The term “compatible with reality”, in our definition of truth, must be understood as “according to the facts”, never in contradiction to them. This way, “compatibility with the facts” provides the empirical feature of science, as it links the scientific truth to the reality of the facts.

I agree completely.

 

2.2 – The Universe is Logical

 

This is where you lose me. The Universe is whatever it is. Logic is in your head. Logically, two sets can occupy same place at the same time. In the Universe, not so much. Universe is not always logical, and logic is sometimes fictional. I would be more inclined to agree that the universe is mathematical.

 

The set of rules with which science seeks knowledge (information considered ‘true’ or highly reliable) is what we usually call “Scientific Method”.

 

Here you are going into obfuscation from your original point, imo. I would simply stick to the original premise: Scientists seek truth. Truth is a statement consistent with evidence. Such statements are knowledge, whether rules, or sets of rules, or any other statements.

 

I found little interest in the rest of your post.

[Rade]

The objective of science is truth -- definition of Jocaxx

 

100% correct.

So, seeking the truth about the existence of angels and demons, gods and the devil, why beauty is found in colors and music, are examples of the 'objective of science' :)

 

I am very confused why you agree with the broad definition of science presented by Jocaxx philosophy. Could you please explain.

[jocaxx]

Theory A1= "The disease X is caused by bacteria"

 

Do you agree this statement is a scientific theory? ( I think no problem here )

 

Then you think wrong. No, it is not a scientific theory. Why?

Because it is not a "general statement that, if true, allows us to say specific things about specific examples that are true".

 

Then its *YOUR* definition of science.

By popper, science have a different definition:

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

 

and if we show that "The disease X is caused by bacteria" is false

for example showing it is caused by virus , the theory is falsified.

 

 

So it is NOT a scientific theory, AS DEFINED BY POPPER.

 

I know popper was wrong , it is waht I am try to say all the time !!!

 

 

Do you now have an inkling of what I'm talking about? You have been talking about what TO YOU is a scientific theory.

 

No.

I am trying to show a new concept of science AND showing popper was wrong.

Of course we can discute my new concept of science that is based in ocans razzor.

 

 

But that does not justify claiming that Popper's theory is internally inconsistent.

 

No, I proved it.

 

-------------------------

 

 

No, this is not true logically. The way you came to accept Theory A1 as a "truth statement" is that you have information from observation and/or experiment that you can falsify the null hypothesis---H0: disease X is not cause by bacteria. You never conducted any observation or experiment to falsify that disease X is not caused by virus. For all you know disease X has multiple causes.

 

No , it is false.

I said that:

 

"If this Scientific theory ('"The disease X is caused by bacteria"') is true,

we can logically derive the theory A2: Theory A2 = "The disease X is not caused by virus""

 

Its is logicaly true because virus is not a bacteria !

IF X is caused by bacteria OF COURSE the 'IF' implies we are suposing the theory is true.

 

If you have problem here we can change a little and say without change the prove that :

Theory A1 = "X is cased ONLY by bacteria" then if A1 is true

A2 = "X is not caused by virus" and

if A2 is falsified then A3 = (not A2) is true and we can say that

A3= "X is caused by virus" was proved true , by popper its not a scientific theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you not see that your argument is based on a false premise that the "scientific method" demands that Theory A2 derives logically without observation or experiment from Theory A1--it does not--this is not science--it is nonsense.

 

You are wrong !

See the text:

"

"The Hypothetical Deductive Method"

 

One of the most important rules of the scientific method, "The Hypothetical-Deductive Method" is based on the logical tautology known as "Modus Tollens" [7]:

 

H => D (If "H" implies "D")

~ D (and "D" does not happen, i.e. D is false)

=> H ~ (We can conclude that "H" did not happen)

 

And it can be summarized in the following formula:

 

((H => D) ^ (~ D)) => ~ H

 

(If "H" implies "D" and "D" did not happen, we can conclude that "H" did not happen).

 

Which can be interpreted as follows: "If 'H' implies 'D', and 'D' is false, we can conclude that 'H' is false."

As an example: If "all geese are white", it implies that my aunt’s goose should be white, but, in fact, my aunt has a red goose, so I can conclude that 'all geese are white' is a false theory.

 

Thus, in order to investigate a theory "H" under the conditions in which this theory implies the consequence "D" ,

if this consequence is not verified, that is, if the conditions where H is true the consequence "D" is not true,

we can conclude, logically, that the theory "H" is not true (it is refuted).

This is an important result since it becomes unnecessary to investigate directly theory "H";

investigating its consequences ("D") to conclude about "H" should be enough. Of course, if "D" is observed we cannot conclude that "H" is correct, but "H" will be “stronger”, that is, with a higher degree of reliability, having passed the test.

"

 

 

Consider this nonsense conclusion reached by application of Expanded Science logic:

 

Theory A1: Growth of Plant X is caused by water I give it

(compare to: Disease X is caused by bacteria)

 

Thus, we logically derive:

 

Theory A2: Growth of Plant X is not caused by sunlight I give it.

(compare to: Disease X is not caused by virus)

 

We can add the word "ONLY" in the theory A1 and the result is the same :-)

A1 = "X is cased ONLY by bacteria" then if A1 is true etc...........

 

 

Jocaxx, I have a question. What does Expanded Science thinking have to say about the truth of theory of Intelligent Design ?

 

By ES if its talk about reality then it is object of analise by ES.

Of course we do not have evidence about the creator of DI, and natural evolution is simpler,

so, applying occans razor we can say the DI must be considered less probable than evolution of matter.

 

-------------------

 

This is where you lose me. The Universe is whatever it is. Logic is in your head.

 

See the text:

"Likewise, we must also take the fact that our universe is logical as a scientific postulate.

That is, the universe – defined as the set of all that exists – does not present logical contradictions between its element

and laws. It must, therefore, follow the classical logic (aristotelic).

Such an assumption is important because no illogical events have ever been verified in the universe. Secondly, if contradiction was allowed, science would be “trivialized”, "

 

Logically, two sets can occupy same place at the same time.

 

It is not illogical. Phisics is not the same than logic.

 

 

 

I would be more inclined to agree that the universe is mathematical.

 

Mathematic follow strictly the logic !

 

 

Here you are going into obfuscation from your original point, imo.

 

I think the science methods is important to get knowledge.

[jedaisoul]

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

No. Popper claimed that all scientific theories are falsifiable. That is not the same as claiming that all falsifiable theories are scientific.

 

Furthermore, your interpretation "if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific" IS a definition of "scientific". But it is not necessary to interpret "all scientific theories are falsifiable" as being a definition of "scientific". It is describing a property of scientific theories. Not necessarily what makes them scientific in the first place.

[jocaxx]

Originally Posted by jocaxx View Post

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

 

No. Popper claimed that all scientific theories are falsifiable. That is not the same as claiming that all falsifiable theories are scientific.

 

 

I wrote it from Wikipedia:

 

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable.

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements; "

 

 

your interpretation "if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific" IS a definition of "scientific".

 

It is not my definition, it is popper definition.

I do not agree with popper !!

Seethe text:

"...We can observe that there is no longer the criterion of distortion, precisely because, strictly speaking, we cannot prove anything in terms of absolute truth (that is implicit in the criterion (ii)), and of course, we cannot even prove that something is false. ...

...

The Popperian criterion (i) "No scientific theory can be proved true" was kept,

and is embedded in the criterion (ii) of “The Expanded Science "(ES),

as this only refers to the degree of proximity to reality.

The "Falsifiability" is clearly disposed in item (i) of the ES, since all propositions related to reality are addressed, not only those that can be falsifiable.