What Is "falsifiable"?

[Moronium]

No, I am talking about your remarkable claims that follow, such as the speed of light is not measured at the speed of light in a moving frame.

  Did you just get an Acme Straw Man Kit for your birthday, or something, Six?  I never said any such thing.

[Moronium]

Here, refresh your memory http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-6

  Heh, nothing there.  Figures, sho nuff.

 

I do see where you said I said this:

 

Posted 24 April 2018 - 07:58 PM

Well, you are saying things like the speed of light is not constant in every frame of reference and as I have told you... 

 

 

But that isn't what you now claim I said, which was:

 

 

 

No, I am talking about your remarkable claims that follow, such as the speed of light is not measured at the speed of light in a moving frame.

 

 

You have repeatedly proved, as you do once again here, that you are utterly incapable of comprehending that there can be a distinction between what something is measured to be and what it is.

 

Every fool and his brother knows that an observer in an inertial claim will "measure" the speed to be c, and I've certainly never denied that, as you falsely claim.

 

Elaboration can be found here (post 116)  

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-7?do=findComment&comment=356100

Edited April 29, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

''measured to be and what is'' means what exactly and how does that have anything to do with your ridiculous claims?

 

See the link in my last post, Six.  This is not the appropriate thread for discussion of these issues.  If you want to ridicule the simple facts I state there, then do it in that thread, eh?

[JMJones0424]

I affirm the claim that "All Swans are white,"

 

I deny the claim that "Some swans are not white" and/or that "There exists a swan that is not white."

 

Same claims. Same criterion for falsifiabilty, to wit:

 

Observe a swan that is not white.

This is the key to our misunderstanding, I think.  I replied so many times saying the same thing in different ways, that I started to confuse myself and likely made incorrect replies.

 

Fundamentally, the claim that "All swans are white" is different than "There does not exist a swan that is not white."

 

Perhaps we are getting too far into the weeds and a new approach is advised.

 

Why is falsifiability even a thing?  Pre-science philosophy concerned itself with that which can be proved to be true.  Pythagorus's theorem is true because it can be shown to be true regardless of one's standard of measure, as long as the measurement standard is conserved.  The theorem's veracity can be deduced from the framework that it exists in. For a very long time, it was assumed that truth can only be found in similar statements of deduction.  Science as we know it came about because we abandoned this strict definition of knowledge.  Falsifiability came about because of the problem of induction, because while lacking omniscience,  we cannot show that some claims are true, but we can show that these claims are useful for describing reality.  So, since we have abandoned deductive truth, how should we determine what claims are worthwhile and what claims should be ignored?  Falsifiability is how we do this.  We can make statements that can be shown to be false, even though we lack omniscience.  For this reason, "all swans are white" is functionally different than "there are no not-white swans", because as soon as we find a swan that isn't white, then the claim that all swans are white is falsified, however, the claim that there are no not-white swans would require observation of all swans to show it to be false.

 

Falsifiability is a way of constraining scientific claims to that which can be tested, since lacking omniscience, we cannot know that our claims regardless of past veracity will hold true in the future.  Science is decidedly not the pursuit of truth.  Science is the pursuit of conditional explanations of observations that we make.  If a statement cannot be shown to be false, then it is unfalsifiable.

 

Edit: Let's say every swan you've ever observed was white, and every record of every swan ever observed was that the swan was white.  In this case, while the claim, "All swans are white" is useful for describing your observations, it cannot be taken as a true statement because you don't know the color of all possible swans.  However, the claim is falsifiable because all it takes is the observation of one non-white swan to show it to be false.  The claim "There are no non-white swans" seems on its face to be a similar claim.  However, in order to show it to be false, you must observe that every single swan in existence is white.  This is why the claim is unfalsifiable.  The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

Edited May 1, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Fundamentally, the claim that "All swans are white" is different than "There does not exist a swan that is not white."

 

.

 

"all swans are white" is functionally different than "there are no not-white swans", because as soon as we find a swan that isn't white, then the claim that all swans are white is falsified, however, the claim that there are no not-white swans would require observation of all swans to show it to be false.

 

 "There are no non-white swans" seems on its face to be a similar claim.  However, in order to show it to be false, you must observe that every single swan in existence is white.  This is why the claim is unfalsifiable.  The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

 

  Well, JM, yes, you just keep repeating the same assertions without offering any supporting reasons.  You say that one claim requires you to know what color ALL swans are, but that does not follow logically at all.

 

I don't know if you read a word of what I said.  If so, you certainly haven't responded to a word of it or make any attempt to persuade me that I am mistaken. 

 

I will briefly restate the point,  The quantifiers "All and "No" are said be be universal or absolute while other quantifiers (e.g., some, many, few, etc.) are qualified or conditional, not universal.

 

What is takes to "falsify" a claim will depend on the quantifier.   In order to falsify a statement about "some" things, you would need to know ALL instances.  Not so with universal quantifiers (All, None).  With those terms a single exception to the claim being made will falsify it.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Oh, **** off.  I offered you the background for the reason why falsifiability is a thing.  I offered you why it is such a thing.  I offered you what it is.  If you fail to understand it, then it's your fault.

 

The qualifiers "all" and "no" are different on their face.  If you claim them to be equal, then that's an argument that you will need to make.  If anything, I tried to show why your assertion that a single exception makes something falsifiable is not at all the reason why a thing is falsifiable.  If you continue to insist that it is, then goodnight.

Edited May 1, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Oh, **** off.  I offered you the background for the reason why falsifiability is a thing.  I offered you why it is such a thing.  I offered you what it is.  If you fail to understand it, then it's your fault.

Heh, what you have said, JM, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is basically this:

 

 

 "There are no non-white swans" seems on its face to be a similar claim.  However, in order to show it to be false, you must observe that every single swan in existence is white.  This is why the claim is unfalsifiable.

 

 

 

This is a rank assertion and CONCLUSION, unadorned by any kind of argument, reasoning, or explication.  Your reasoning, such as it is, is strictly circular ipse dixit.  Your assertion is wrong, sorry.  Finding a single non-white swan would falsify the claim being made.  You claim that there are NO such creatures (an absolute claim).  Finding even one proves that the claim that there are "none" is false.

 

If it angers you when someone disagrees with you, or claims you are mistaken, as evidently it does, then maybe you should find a less stressful activity to engage in.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Pay someone to tutor you.  ****, read the wikipedia articles you cite.  This isn't that hard of a concept.  If I make a statement about a limited set, then it is falsifiable.  If i make a statement about an infinite set, then it is unfalsifiable.  I can not make you drink the water, but I can ignore you.

Edited May 1, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

read the wikipedia articles you cite

 

 

Why not cite me to (or quote) some particular language which you think supports your invalid claims.  Then maybe I could show you how you are misinterpreting it.

 

If i make a statement about an infinite set, then it is unfalsifiable

 

.

 

Although I doubt that the number of swans is "infinite" there are admittedly a great number of them.  Yet you have conceded that the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable.  What's up with that?

 

The claim that "no swans are white" is equally falsifiable.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Try seeing if you can comprehend these excerpts from Wiki, eh, JM?:

 

although a singular existential statement such as 'there is a white swan' cannot be used to affirm a universal statement, it can be used to show that one is false: the singular existential observation of a black swan serves to show that the universal statement 'all swans are white' is false—in logic this is called modus tollens. 'There is a black swan' implies 'there is a non-white swan', which, in turn, implies 'there is something that is a swan and that is not white', hence 'all swans are white' is false, because that is the same as 'there is nothing that is a swan and that is not white'....

 

 

It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan.

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Mighty fine cherries you've got there Moron.  You left out a bit of cherries when you were picking from your tree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference

 

 

 Popper held that science could not be grounded on such an inferential basis. He proposed falsification as a solution to the problem of induction. Popper noticed that although a singular existential statement such as 'there is a white swan' cannot be used to affirm a universal statement, it can be used to show that one is false: the singular existential observation of a black swan serves to show that the universal statement 'all swans are white' is false—in logic this is called modus tollens. 'There is a black swan' implies 'there is a non-white swan', which, in turn, implies 'there is something that is a swan and that is not white', hence 'all swans are white' is false, because that is the same as 'there is nothing that is a swan and that is not white'.

One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude:

At least one swan is white.

From this, one may wish to conjecture:

All swans are white.

It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan.

Edited May 2, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Mighty fine cherries you've got there Moron.  You left out the first part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference

 Heh, with the exception of the first two sentences (which don't add or change anything relevant), that's the EXACT SAME excerpt I provided to you.  Where's the "cherry picking?"   Show me where ANYTHING in that excerpt supports your invalid claim, why doncha?

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read anything presented to you. Much easier to just ASSUME it says what you want it to say, and PROVES you right, I suppose.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

All swans are white.

There are no non-white swans.

 

The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance in order to show it to be false, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

 

This is what falsifiability is.

[Moronium]

All swans are white.

There are no non-white swans.

 

The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance in order to show it to be false, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

 

This is what falsifiability is.

 

 

 You already made this bald assertion about 500 times.  Now it's 501.  As usual, you ignore and avoid all questions posed to you and all statements presented to you.

 

Maybe English is a second language for you, I don't know.  But it seems that you are either unable or unwilling to read the material in front of you.  Maybe you read it, but, if so, you amply demonstrate that you don't understand it. You can't even discern that the two statements you just made are identical in substance. Sorry to be blunt, but this is getting boring.  Your bluster in telling me I need a tutor, am "cherry-picking," etc., is not "argument" and doesn't do a single thing to enhance your claims.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I am at a loss. My first language is irrelevant.  You accuse me of being unwilling or unable to read the screeds you write, even though you also claim to not understand and ask for clarification.  You claim the two statements are identical in substance when the very difference between the two defines falsfiability.  You blame me for bluster in pointing out your ignorance.  You blame me for failing to educate you.

 

I spent two days trying to figure out a better way to describe what falsifiability is.  Your response was to pick a few quotes from a wikipedia page that didn't support your claim and had you actually read them, would have helped you understand.  If you are a troll, then you have won.  If, not, then you are an ignorant and assertive *******.

 

How do you describe falsifiability?

Edited May 2, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

“There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who cannot bear to be so.” (La Rochefoucauld)

 

[OceanBreeze]

All swans are white.

There are no non-white swans.

 

The first claim requires observation of one contradictory instance in order to show it to be false, while the last statement requires that all possible observations are not contradictory.

 

This is what falsifiability is.

 

 

I disagree.

 

Both statements are logically synonymous and, as such, both can be easily falsified by a singular existential statement such as 'there is a black swan'.

 

If you are looking for a statement that requires that all possible observations are not contradictory, try something like “there exists a red swan” (your favorite color)

 

While It is entirely possible to verify that this statement is true, by actually producing the red swan, it is not possible in a practical sense to show that the red swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.