Expanded Science

[jedaisoul]

I wrote it from Wikipedia:

 

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

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

That is the risk of quoting Wikipedia. Some articles are not as accurate as others. What Popper actually said (taken from Stanford - Pseudo-Science) was:

Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962, 39).

 

Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and “all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific” (Popper 1962, 39; cf. Popper 1974, 981)

Which may be loosely paraphrased as:

 

Popper claimed that all scientific theories are falsifiable. That is not the same as claiming that all falsifiable theories are scientific.

[lawcat]

 

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' :)

.

 

Science is about truth. It is certainly not about peddling lies. This needs no proof. It 100% correct.

 

Yes, science can concern itself about angels and demons. Science can concern itself about anything and everything. As long as the objective is the truth, conclusions consistent with evidence. As far as angels and demons, the inquiry ends quickly.

[lawcat]

 

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

 

 

Logic is definitional. In logic, it is possible to create perfectly logical fiction. As you quoted above, Brothers Grimm would be scientists if science was all about logic. Movies, a lot of religious writings, stories, are very logical. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong, even though they were logical. When you can create proofs based on definitions, anything is possible. Universe does not work like that. It is what it is. Logic is only in your head.

[Rade]

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

 

Theory A2 = "X is not caused by virus" and

 

if A2 is falsified then Theory 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.

 

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

 

OK, I see you added the word ONLY in attempt to save your argument, but, you only dig a deeper problem because by adding the constraint ONLY, your Theory A1 no longer is a scientific theory that can be applied to Popper logic. Your new format of Theory A1 is not a proposition to be falsified via science, it is given as a commandment.

 

When you add the word ONLY you now make a claim that you have certain knowledge (100% perfect knowledge) of relationship between disease X and bacteria. No true scientist makes a claim of having certain knowledge of anything.

 

In conclusion, adding the word ONLY to Theory A1 does nothing at all to help your argument. Neither your first "proof" against Popper (Theory A1 without ONLY), nor your second "proof" (Theory A1 with ONLY) has anything to do with study of True Science, thus your Expanded "Science" hypothesis is falsified--for the simple reason that you begin your argument against Popper from a false premise--that Science has as primary objective the search for "truth". It does not, it has as primary objective search for "knowledge of material universe".

[Rade]

Science can concern itself about anything and everything.

Well, I think it is not just a given that science "should" concern itself about anything and everything. See this:

 

Demarcation problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As long as the objective is the truth, conclusions consistent with evidence. As far as angels and demons, the inquiry ends quickly

It is not that I disagree that science does have as a "secondary" objective "truth"--clearly it must. However, I see the primary objective of science to be concerned with obtaining "knowledge of the facts of the material universe". So, for me, "truth" is NOT limited to gaining knowledge of facts of the material universe, one can also attempt to reach truth by gaining knowledge of the facts of the non-material universe (for example, one can read the bible to gain knowledge about the facts of heaven, to learn the truth about heaven that is consistent with the evidence presented).

 

Now, having said this, gaining knowledge is not the same as gaining understanding, and perhaps this is how truth enters "science", via understanding. That is, we want True Science to be = "knowledge gained about the facts of the material universe that leads to true understanding of the material universe".

 

I think it important to consider, that, while science is defined as dealing with gaining "knowledge" in dictionary, gaining knowledge is not the same as gaining "understanding". Thus, True Science must link the two via truth:

 

knowledge <----- truth of material universe------> understanding

 

But, this is not the philosophy of Jocaxx. His Expanded Science has as primary objective seeking truth of "reality" (both material and non-material universe). That is, Jocaxx considers it a valid role of science to study facts about heaven, given that those facts are consistent with the real evidence presented in the bible. For Jocaxx, the bible is real, part of reality of universe, thus anything and everything in the bible is open to scientific falsification, including all questions about heaven (such as, what is the magnitude of heaven ?, does it move with the material universe ? is heaven outside the material universe or inside ? does General Theory of Relativity hold true within heaven ?). The list of good science questions consistent with the real evidence presented within the bible for Jocaxx seems to be without limit...Heavenology 101 (the Scientific Study of Laws of Heaven).

 

I do not agree with this expanded role for True Science that Jocaxx presents--his Expanded Science concept.

 

I see a difference in saying one is concerned with (#1) study of truth of non-material universe and (#2) study of truth of material universe. Science is limited, imo, to questions about truth of material universe.

 

Lawcat, I think it possible we agree but talk past each other concerning the role of truth in science ? Maybe not.

[lawcat]

It is possible that our disgreement is a matter of semantics, and I suspect it largely is. But I disagree on one particular point, and that is the issue of science being about material universe.

 

I believe that social sciences can be called sciences. To that end, a study of scriptures can be a science as long as we understand that the evidence comes from a book and not nature. It is no different than studying works of Remarque or Camus. Or if we were to treat scriptures as historical accounts, then we first must establish that it is a historical account. And so on. AS long as it is about truth, which knwoledge based on evidence, it is a science. It can be economy or anything else.

[jedaisoul]

AS long as it is about truth, which knwoledge based on evidence, it is a science. It can be economy or anything else.

I think that defining truth as "knowledge based on evidence", is inappropriate. That may not be what you intended to suggest, but it highlights the fact that truth is very different from knowledge, and is not fundamentally defined by evidence.

 

For example:

It may be true that this universe is part of a multiverse. But it is in the nature of a multiverse that there is not, and cannot be, any evidence from within one universe that it is actually part of a multiverse. Yet it is still either true or false that this universe is part of a multiverse.

 

Knowledge and truth are different things:

- The truth can be unknown, and even unknowable. But it is still true (or false).

- Knowledge is constrained by evidence, truth isn't.

 

Hence, as Rade has already pointed out, science is not primarily about truth. It's too open a concept. What science is about is what knowledge of the physical universe can be gained from empirical evidence.

 

That, in my opinion rightly, excludes "social science", "cognitive science", "bible science" and all the other endeavors that seek to represent themselves as a science by appending the word "science" to their name. Not that I mean to denigrate such fields of study. They can, and do, provide valuable insights into the nature of man. But what they are not is science.

 

So the claim "any endeavor that studies the truth in a systematic way is science", which seems to underlie what you and jocaxx are saying, is inappropriate.

[jedaisoul]

On reflection, I think this disagreement is not about truth but about what science is. Is science just a methodology that can be applied to anything? If so, bible science, tiddlywinks science etc. are potentially legitimate, if conducted in a scientific manner.

 

The immediate problem with that approach is the question of whether the theories are falsifiable. This rests on the recognition that no amount of confirmation of a general statement can prove it it to be true in all cases, but one exception can prove a theory to be false.

 

However, does falsifiability alone define what is scientific? Falsifiability rests on the validity of the evidence against a theory. That brings us back to methodology. A falsification claim needs to be amenable to empiric experiment the evidence from which is recordable and repeatable by other experimenters. I.e. Falsification claims need to be verifiable.

 

So Popper's requirement of falsifiability is not an alternative to verifiability, it is in addition to it. The one requires the other. Also, because verifiability requires repeatability a scientific theory must be a general statement that applies to a number of specific examples.

 

Hence the statement "this box contains a frog" is not a scientific theory because it is a specific statement about one box, not boxes in general. Hence it is not repeatable. I.e. Whether other boxes do, or do not, contain frogs has no bearing on whether this box contains one.

 

Then there is the question of whether being "scientific" justifies the title "science". I think that is a matter of consensus. I.e. If the body of scientists accept that a specific topic is science then it is. Whereas, if they do not accept it a science, then it isn't. That is why string theory is science, even though it is presently unproven and potentially unprovable. Of course, future discoveries might discredit string theory. In which case the consensus could change, and it would cease to be science.

[lawcat]

Knowledge and truth are different things:

- The truth can be unknown, and even unknowable. But it is still true (or false).

- Knowledge is constrained by evidence, truth isn't.

 

To me it seems preposterous to assert something as true without any evidence or knowledge. Unknown or unknowable imo is speculation, which is neither true nor false.

[jedaisoul]

To me it seems preposterous to assert something as true without any evidence or knowledge. Unknown or unknowable imo is speculation, which is neither true nor false.

Preposterous or not, an assertion is either true or false, irrespective of whether there is evidence to enable us to KNOW which.

 

For example the assertion "there is intelligent life on other planets" is true or false, even though there is no evidence of intelligent life except on the Earth. It remains so even if we are never able to detect intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

 

The truth of an assertion is not dependent on whether we do, or can, know it to be true or false.

[jocaxx]

“statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific,

must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962, 39).

 

I think you do not used corretly the logic:

 

Popper said : "in order to be ranked as cientific the theory must be falsiable"

 

What does that mean?

 

Its mean that If the theory is falsiable it is scientific !!!

It is simple logic.

 

Popper claimed that all scientific theories are falsifiable. That is not the same as claiming that all falsifiable theories are scientific.

 

No, what popper said is more general:

 

"statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific,

must be falsiable”

 

Then falsiable theories are scientific and scientifics theories are falseable too.

 

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

 

 

 

As you quoted above, Brothers Grimm would be scientists if science was all about logic.

 

Lawcat you did not understand what I said.

 

you have said:

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

In the Universe, not so much.

 

Even if eventually we found 2 sets ocopping the same place in the universe (in some future observation)

it not violate the logic because the logic does not care about physics.

Of course "Expanded Science" do not remain in the logic domain but also about the universe!

If we never see the same set occupying the same place in the space we must consider

it very strong theory !

 

Many scientific theories have been proven wrong, even though they were logical.

 

I agree with you!

Science do not remain in the logic domain, the interface with reality is crucial.

See the text:

"2.1- Compatibility with the Facts

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."

 

and after :

 

"...However, the popperian "rebuttable evidence” still has a high level of relevance in the ES, precisely because it obliges the theories to put unlikely propositions - thus contradicting the Occam’s Razor - in order to be coherent with the observed facts. ..."

 

Logic is only in your head.

 

I do not agree. The Maths is based on logic and Physics is based in mathematics, so

physics is based on logic.

 

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

 

 

 

I see you added the word ONLY in attempt to save your argument, but, you only dig a deeper problem because by adding the constraint ONLY, your Theory A1 no longer is a scientific theory that can be applied to Popper logic.

 

I do not agree with you because by popper A1 is falseable !

If some one discover X is caused by Virus ( and not by bacteria ) the theory A1 is false !

 

 

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

 

So the claim "any endeavor that studies the truth in a systematic way is science", which seems to underlie what you and jocaxx are saying, is inappropriate.

 

Not in any "systematic Way". In order to belongs to ES the model must follow the crirerion of ES:

 

(i)-Only the propositions directly or indirectly linked to reality are objects of analysis for the Expanded Science .

(ii)-The propositions that most fit the "Occam’s Razor" should be considered closer to reality than the others.

 

 

 

This rests on the recognition that no amount of confirmation of a general statement can prove it it to be true in all cases,

but one exception can prove a theory to be false.

 

No , I have proved if you prove some theory is false then its negative is true !

But no tyheory can be proved true ! See the Philosophical Uncertainty principle:

Genismo

 

 

 

Hence the statement "this box contains a frog" is not a scientific theory because it is a specific statement about one box, not boxes in general.

 

I do not agree !

Science does NOT have some postulate to avoit theory about a single element !

in the other words:

Science does not have a theory postulated by preventing a need to encompass a large set of elements. Even as this is totally subjective!

 

If you idea was true the single big-bang theory can not be stidied by science !

[jedaisoul]

I think you do not used corretly the logic:

Popper said : "in order to be ranked as cientific the theory must be falsiable"

What does that mean? Its mean that If the theory is falsiable it is scientific !!!

It is simple logic.

I quoted him verbatim. He said "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962, 39). You are either interpreting what he said to fit your preconceived ideas, or are quoting another passage. If the latter, please give the reference to substantiate your claim.

 

No, what popper said is more general:

"statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific,

must be falsiable” Then falsiable theories are scientific and scientifics theories are falseable too.

 

Saying "in order to be ranked as scientific (the theory) must be falsifiable" is NOT the same as saying "falsifiable theories are scientific". The phrase "in order to be ranked as" can be a precondition. A precondition does not, of itself, guarantee membership of a group. For example:

 

1. To be ranked as a bird, a creature must have wings.

2. Bats have wings.

C. Therefore bats are birds.

 

Both 1 and 2 are true, but the conclusion is false because not only birds have wings. Hence the statement "in order to be scientific (the theory) must be falsifiable" does NOT support the conclusion "falsifiable theories are scientific".

 

No , I have proved if you prove some theory is false then its negative is true !

But no tyheory can be proved true ! See the Philosophical Uncertainty principle:

Genismo

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You are say that you have proven a negative statement is true, whilst also asserting that this is impossible?

 

I do not agree ! Science does NOT have some postulate to avoit theory about a single element !

in the other words:

Science does not have a theory postulated by preventing a need to encompass a large set of elements. Even as this is totally subjective!

Science does not exclude statements about specific circumstances. However, Popper's argument related to general statements which apply to multiple examples. Therefore a "scientific theory" (as defined by Popper) does not encompass specific statements about individual circumstances. You may disagree with that definition, but that does not change the context in which Popper's argument was put, and in which it is to be understood.

 

If you idea was true the single big-bang theory can not be stidied by science !

What can, and cannot, be studied as science is a different question. I've commented on that in the last paragraph of #43. So I won't repeat that here...

[jedaisoul]

jocaxx

 

I found this in the Wikipedia article you referred to, and I thought you might find it interesting:

Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.

The first are statements of observations, such as "this is a white swan". Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing...

 

The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as "all swans are white". Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type.

It suggests that your analysis is inappropriate on two counts:

 

1. You have assumed that Popper's analysis relates to "singular existential statements". E.g. "There is a frog in this box". It doesn't.

 

2. You have assumed that Popper's analysis relates to statements that categorize SOME instances of something. E.g. "Not all swans are white". It doesn't.

[lawcat]

I find it amusing that we all speak about truth yet disagree.

[jocaxx]

I quoted him verbatim. He said "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962, 39).

 

Of course : "must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations"

 

It is exactly be falsifiable.

 

If something is falsifiable it meas it is capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations !

 

Of course, by popper, if some theory "be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations" we can

conclude it is ranked as scientific !

 

You are either interpreting what he said to fit your preconceived ideas, or are quoting another passage. If the latter, please give the reference to substantiate your claim.

 

I am only trying you to understand popper said.

 

when he said :

"statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations”

mean exactly :

"statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be falsifiable"

 

 

Saying "in order to be ranked as scientific (the theory) must be falsifiable" is NOT the same as saying "falsifiable theories are scientific".

The phrase "in order to be ranked as" can be a precondition. A precondition does not, of itself, guarantee membership of a group. For example:

 

But popper do not put another conditions to be ranked Scientific.

I would Agree with you if popper have said ANOTHER conditions to be scientific like "be general theory and not specific", for example.

But he did not said nothing about another conditions.

See the Wiki:

"Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.

It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific:

a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. "

"

Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Did you see the word "if and only if"?

This means that falsiability is the unique conditions popper put to be scientific.

 

Therefore, if some theory is falsifiable (="be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations ")

it is enought to be ranked as scientifc theory.

 

But if do not agree with this , and if you have found ANOTHER CONDITION popper said to be scientific, please, put it here.

 

 

No , I have proved if you prove some theory is false then its negative is true !

But no tyheory can be proved true ! See the Philosophical Uncertainty principle:

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You are say that you have proven a negative statement is true, whilst also asserting that this is impossible?

 

You did not understand.

By popper the falsifiable it is possible, not by Expanded Science.

So if ( by popper ) the theory is proved false of couse (by logic) its negative was proved true.

But, by "Expanded Science" (ES) it do not occur, because its is not possible falseable any theory !

 

 

Popper's argument related to general statements which apply to multiple examples. Therefore a "scientific theory" (as defined by Popper) does not encompass specific statements about individual circumstances.

 

Do you have some text or link where popper said that specific statemens or specific theories CA NOT BE scientific?

It is very hard to agree just because "general statements" is very relative, for some one, disease about humans beings is

very restrict from so big universe therefore medicine could not be scientific because it is not very general.

Because this science must not concern about the numbers of set elements the theory embrace. It is

 

If you idea was true the single big-bang theory can not be stidied by science !

 

What can, and cannot, be studied as science is a different question.

I've commented on that in the last paragraph of #43. So I won't repeat that here...

 

I am saiyng is contradictory say Big-Bang is a scientific theory and "a frog in the box" is not a scientific theory

if both have few elements !!

Because this I said I think is hard think popper said something like this.

The number of elements thath some theory embrace (how general is it) must not be a condition to rank it as scientific or not.

 

 

 

 

 

It suggests that your analysis is inappropriate on two counts:

 

1. You have assumed that Popper's analysis relates to "singular existential statements". E.g. "There is a frog in this box". It doesn't.

 

2. You have assumed that Popper's analysis relates to statements that categorize SOME instances of something. E.g. "Not all swans are white". It doesn't.

 

 

I think you are confunding restrict condition to be scientific and desirable conditions.

 

See the text you mark:

 

"Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists."

 

Of course general statemnts or theories have more value than particular ones.

But popper DO NOT SAY that the condition to be scientific must be general, just because it is relative.

Like I said before medicine for humans being is to restrict in comparison to the imensity of universe.

The theory of big-bang is too much restict because if do not exist anymore and occur a single time

then by this criterion Big-Bang theory coud not be scientific.

[Rade]

~Question asked: "What does Expanded Science have to say about Theory of Intelligent Design vs Theory of Evolution to explain how humans came to be on earth" ?

 

..By Expanded Science, if we talk about reality then it is object of analysis by Expanded Science. Of course we do not have evidence about the creator of designed intelligence, and natural evolution is simpler,so, applying Occam's Razor we can say the Intelligent Design must be considered less probable than evolution of matter.

 

Jocaxx, I think this answer you gave explains clearly how your Expanded Science philosophy differs from the thinking of Popper and the majority of folks that consider themselves to be scientists.

 

The issue at hand is how you decide the difference between "science" and "non-science" statements--the demarcation problem that lead Popper to suggest the criteria that True Science uses the ability to falsify statements as the criterion to determine "truth" about the material universe.

 

Here is my argument against Expanded Science using your answer to the question above:

 

First, your philosophy of Expanded Science allows Intelligent Design to be classified as a topic that can be analyzed using the methods of science, Popper thinking does not allow for this. That is, you claim that Natural Evolution is more probable that Intelligent Design. I claim that Intelligent Design is a mechanism that is outside of science, and, even if it is true, there is no way to verify the claim using science.

 

Second, you claim that you use Expanded Science logic to conclude "we do not have evidence about creator of designed intelligence". But this is clearly a false conclusion. There is much "real" evidence of possible creator in books such as the Hebrew Bible, and since the Bible is part of reality, it is open to analysis by Expanded Science.

 

Third, you use Expanded Science thinking to conclude, without explanation, that the mechanism of "Natural Evolution is simpler" than the mechanism of Intelligent Design. However, the evidence available for Intelligent Design indicates that the exact opposite is true. Take for example the Intelligent Design mechanism for creation of human species (in Genesis chapter of Bible). It took the intelligent creator two steps to make a full human male: (1) collect dust of earth, and (2) add breath of creator = human male (called Adam). I mean, how can any scientific mechanism be more simple than that--two steps and a full functioning human male appears ? Natural Evolution of humans is much, much more complex a mechanism.

 

The thinking of Expanded Science requires a convoluted set of statements and claims to reach the final conclusion that "it is less probable" that Intelligent Design is a true mechanism to explain humans. However, Popper thinking requires a single logical step of reason---I.e., Intelligent Design mechanism (take dust of earth and add breath of creator) is outside of science because it cannot be falsified. Thus, by application of Occam's Razor we see that Expanded Science thinking must be logically rejected in favor of Popper approach.

 

Forth, Expanded Science allows for some low probability (<1.0% ?) that Intelligent Design is a "true scientific explanation" for how humans came to be on earth. In contrast, Popper thinking assigns (0.0 %) probability that Intelligent Design theory represents a "true scientific explanation" for how humans came to be on earth. Why ? Because Popper claims that it is not possible to falsify the mechanism "take dust of earth and add breath of creator". According to Popper----"Statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations (Popper 1962, 39)". The statement "take dust of earth and add breath of creator" is NOT ranked as being scientific because "IT IS NOT A CAPABLE STATEMENT". However, the thinking of Expanded Science leads to the conclusion that "take dust of earth and add breath of creator" is a CAPABLE statement, it is just not very probable. I side with Popper on the issue.

[jedaisoul]

I am only trying you to understand popper said.

Thank you, I do understand what Popper said. I also understand the difference between what Popper SAID, and what it may be interpreted as MEANING. You said:

Popper said : "in order to be ranked as cientific the theory must be falsiable"

What does that mean? Its mean that If the theory is falsiable it is scientific !!! It is simple logic.

I objected to this on two counts:

 

1. That it was not a literal quote from Popper. Which you have now acknowledged.

 

2. Saying "in order to be ranked as scientific the theory must be falsifiable" does not justify the claim "If the theory is falsifiable it is scientific". This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent, which is of the form:

 

If A then B

B

Therefore A

 

The requirement that "ALL scientific statements are falsifiable" is not the same as "ONLY scientific statements are falsifiable" or, to put it another way, "If the theory is falsifiable it is scientific". Popper did not say that, and it does not follow logically from what Popper DID say. Hence it is spurious to suggest that he MEANT that.

 

Now do you understand?

 

But popper do not put another conditions to be ranked Scientific.

I would Agree with you if popper have said ANOTHER conditions to be scientific like "be general theory and not specific", for example.

See #48.