What is a Theory?

The formal proofs of mathematics have nothing to do with scientific theories. The falsifiability requirement of scientific theories means that they are always necessarily incomplete. Rrhain has been stressing this point about the incomplete nature of scientific theory.You're defining a false set to be any set which contains more than zero false statements, then saying that if we consider science as a set of statements that if it contains more than zero false statements then science is false.This is sort of like saying that if my car has one or more non-working parts that I can't get to work. Mathematics is an essential tool of science, but one can conceptualize mathematical abstractions that have little correspondence to the real world, and that is the case with your line of reasoning. While science uses math, like my car it is part of the real world and is not a mathematical abstraction.--Percy

quote:

---

The falsifiability requirement of scientific theories means that they are always necessarily incomplete. Rrhain has been stressing this point about the incomplete nature of scientific theory.

---

Popper implies that a falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified. There is indeed no proof for this statement.

quote:

---

Mathematics is an essential tool of science, but one can conceptualize mathematical abstractions that have little correspondence to the real world, and that is the case with your line of reasoning.

---

If every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, it means that every falsifiable theory will eventually be proven to be false. That means that the correct status of scientific theories is: unproven, false.This is important. Too many people use the phrase "scientifically proven", even though, not one single theory has ever been "scientifically proven".Furthermore, if the falsification process will inevitably end with the proof that the theory is false, we know that all scientific theories will only be useful for some time, after which they will be discarded.I concede the point, however, that the statement that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, is remains unproven. It requires proving that every collection of future observations for a theory, must contain at least one observation that will contradict the theory. It is not trivial to prove this.

quote:

---

Popper implies that a falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified.

---

As I have stated elsewhere this is to be expected, based on the incomplete state of our knowledge. It is not inherent in being falsifiable (indeed any true and useful theory must be falsifiable but cannot be falsified).

quote:

---

If every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, it means that every falsifiable theory will eventually be proven to be false. That means that the correct status of scientific theories is: unproven, false.

​

This is important. Too many people use the phrase "scientifically proven", even though, not one single theory has ever been "scientifically proven".

---

No. What must be realised is that when we talk of scientific proof we are not speaking of the absolute proof provided by inductive logic. We are, however, speaking of sufficiently strong supporting evidence that it would be sensible to accept the theory as true (as indeed, we can be sure that it IS mostly true).

This statement reeks of "Stupidity." Even if every scientific theory was falsified, in all cases the replacement theory would still contain elements of the current theory. Such robust theories as the Copernican Solar System, Plate tectonics, evolution, oxydation-reduction, Periodic law & gravity, for example, would not be totally falsified without bringing down virtually all related theories. Each may be falsified in the sense of alternation of certain aspects of the theory, but in all of the above cases the theory contains some actual facts. The mechanism for the theory might be modified at some future date, but the premise is still there.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

hey again, ericp, still having trouble with the logic I see. All {A} is {B}, {B} therefore {A} is a common logical error.You can see from this picture that there is a lot of {B} that does not have to be {A}Does gravity not exist because Newton's law of gravity has been invalidated?Do all the rockets that landed on Mars suddenly disappear into space because their trajectories were calculated using Newton's Law?As on your other thread, the antithesis has the same conditions, so according to your "logic" they too must be "unproven, false" and again we have conclusions that are a contradiction based on your premise, so the premise must be false.Again, missing from your logic is the result of a theory that has been falsified:

it becomes a special case condition of a larger theory, as is the case with Newton's gravity being a special case of relativity (proven mathematically btw), or

​

the theory is modified to account for the new information plus provide the same explanation for the old information as before, or

​

discarded and replaced by a new theory.

​

You have assumed, falsely, that only the third category applies.

​

This is important. Too many people use the phrase "scientifically proven", even though, not one single theory has ever been "scientifically proven".

​

Curiously "too many people" doesn't necessarily include scientists. This is also the logical fallacy of popularity.

​

Scientists are more likely to say "science has demonstrated\shown ..." which would be a true statement.

​

Science has shown that evolution has occurred.

​

Science has shown that speciation has occurred.

​

These are true statements because the processes defined as evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) and speciation (the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations) have been observed to have actually occurred.

​

We can also say that science has shown that no contradiction to the theory of evolution has been observed yet, even though the theory has been tested thousands of time. Therefore it is more reasonable to treat the theory as tentatively true than it is to treat it as tentatively false.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It is impossible to prove this, if only because "every collection of future observations" describes a practically infinite number of observations.Also, if a certain aspect of reality behaves according to certain basic rules - be they mathematically expressible or not - and if your theory happens to state these rules exactly, then it is impossible in practice to make an observation that falsifies your theory.But this does not mean that the theory isn't falsifiable in principle, because that only requires you to be able to state an observation that would falsify it, if and when it were made.Therefore it is possible to have a falsifiable theory which, due to its exact coincidence with reality, must forever remain unfalsified, which disproves the statement that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified.Only falsifiable theories which are in fact false, may eventually be falsified.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

it becomes a special case condition of a larger theory, as is the case with Newton's gravity being a special case of relativity (proven mathematically btw), or
the theory is modified to account for the new information plus provide the same explanation for the old information as before, or
discarded and replaced by a new theory.

---

All cases are equivalent. "Water boils at 100 C" has always been unproven, and presumably false, but it took a long time to discover that "Water boils at 70 C if you reduce the pressure sufficiently", and that the boiling point for water was replace by a formula in terms of atmospheric pressure. That theory or any further refined theory is, of course, still false.Whatever theory currently describes the boiling point for water, it will still be false, but we simply don't know why, and that is why we keep using that theory, until the next iteration of refinement produces yet another theory.Even though formally unproven, the point of view that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, and therefore false, is in my opinion, absolutely reasonable.In those terms, science is necessarily: unproven, false.Edited by erikp, : unmatched quote

Good thing you pointed out it's only your opinion

No it is not, just refined. At a given pressure water boils a specific temp. All that has done to the original theory is correct a missing part. It does not disprove or make the theory false. Why do you claim the theory is false? Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

Also, if a certain aspect of reality behaves according to certain basic rules - be they mathematically expressible or not - and if your theory happens to state these rules exactly, then it is impossible in practice to make an observation that falsifies your theory.

---

Exactly.We use theories that are (currently) impossible to prove false; but which are (necessarily) false.The state of the art moves forward, and science progresses when someone finally makes the observation necessary to prove what we knew all along, but never managed to prove: that the theory is simply false.

quote:

---

No it is not, just refined. At a given pressure water boils a specific temp. All that has done to the original theory is correct a missing part. It does not disprove or make the theory false. Why do you claim the theory is false?

---

The theory that says that "water boils at 100 C" is simply false. According to the definition of "false", one observation that contradicts the theory is sufficient to prove it false. Well, one can clearly observe that water boils at 70 C when atmospheric pressure has been reduced sufficiently. Therefore, applying the definition, the theory is incontrovertibly false.Note that 999 999 999 999 observations may not contradict, and therefore support the theory; it doesn't matter. That one observation that does contradict it, irrevocably falsifies the theory. And the theory is then simply false, regardless of how long anybody or how many people may have thought it was true.

No it isn't, water under normal circumstances still only boils at 100 C. But the observation wasn't under normal circumstances, it added a bit, the pressure. And so the theory became, water boils at 100 C unless a certain pressure is applied, then it boils at 70 C. Exactly, but since this doesn't happen naturally here on Earth, the theory that water boils at 100 C still stands. No it isn't. Your logic, however, is. Yes it does. Since the observation you're talking about didn't contradict the theory. But it didn't contradict it, water still boils at 100 C under normal circumstances, it will boil earlier when you tinker with the pressure,, but in a normal situation, this never happens. As shown, the theory is not false, there was just a bit added.

---

I hunt for the truth

And you are showing once again why working scientists tell ivory tower philosophers to butt out and let them work.You bring to mind that nice Jack London quote:

quote:

---

You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration.

​

Jack London, The Iron Heel

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

No it isn't, water under normal circumstances still only boils at 100 C.

---

What is the definition for "normal circumstances"? In absence of a definition for that term, your statement is simply open-ended.If you do define the term, however, we are inevitably back to the formula that describes the boiling point for water according to the current state of the art.That formula is wrong, but we just still don't know why. The next iteration of that formula will be wrong too.Science will remain: unproven, false.

Conditions as they exist naturally on this Earth. Happy now? Yes, and it is true. Everything we know says that it is right, how can you be so sure that it is wrong? Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No? Then this is just a baseless assertion. How do you know there will even BE a "next iteration"? You don't? Then it is again a baseless assertion. Wrong. Science will remain true, until facts turn up that show it isn't entirely correct. I think we can say this safely about most of the most well understood theories: "NO fact that turns up will sow them to be absolutely false." They might need some tweaking, but I'm fairly confident that they won't be shown to be utterly false. Look at your water example, that water boils at 100 C is still true, it just so happens you can also make it boil at 70 C when you tinker with the pressure.By the way, you do know NOTHING can ever be proven in science, don't you.

---

I hunt for the truth