/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13246800

92KiB, 600x600, Karl Popper.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Falsifiability

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 08:33:24 2021 No.13246800 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13247134 >>13247270 >>13248646 >>13249234 >>13249464 >>13249484 >>13249803

I dare you to show me the falsifiability of falsificationism.

For the same reason that falsificationism is not falsifiable, it is not testable experimentally (I cannot go to reality to verify it), it is that falsificationism is not science according to the falsificationists themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 08:37:35 No.13246802 Report

Quoted By: >>13246823 >>13246990 >>13247323

NOT SCIENCE OR MATH

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 08:38:17 No.13246805 Report

Quoted By: >>13246820 >>13247084

>>>/lit/

physicists are positivists, move on

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 08:45:20 No.13246820 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246805
I'm banned from /lit/. If the mods move the thread to /lit/ I can answer the questions from another phone, no problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 08:46:22 No.13246823 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246802
Actually...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20210423_214404_735.jpg, 38KiB, 640x640

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 09:21:31 No.13246882 Report

Quoted By: >>13246904

So what? Taking shit on faith is fundamental to human existence, Gödel pretty much proved that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 09:29:23 No.13246904 Report

Quoted By: >>13246905

>>13246882
This has nothing to do with religion you fucking moron. And godel didn't prove anything of the sort. God is a mathematical thing, yes, with a very real power to shape human collectives. But it's not to do with human existence in any fundamental way, it's more like game theory in a limiting conception.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 09:30:38 No.13246905 Report

Quoted By: >>13246924

>>13246904
You don't understand anything you're talking about. Faith in God is logically equivalent to faith in the importance of falisfiability or whatever else. Axioms are axioms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 09:45:21 No.13246924 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246905
God has nothing to do with whatever you're talking about. You're just bloviating about some notion of faith, which is entirely removed from what God literally is in a mathematical sense. God is produced by a process of approximation and construction, like naming higher ordinals. It gives guidance to people's thoughts, because it is produced (or produces, the direction of causation is meaningless in positivism) a meaningful ethics by which people come together into large superrational communities which behave coherently in concert.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 10:45:45 No.13246990 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246802
Ehm, bit of a tough call. Popper, Kuhn, and other philosophers of science are definitely more /sci/ than /lit/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 11:32:29 No.13247069 Report

Quoted By: >>13248306

You're dumb and this is a lazy attempt at a gotcha that makes it clear you've never read one word of the theory of science outside of wikipedia. The principle of falsification was a test for what makes something scientific. He never thought that the principle itself was scientific. The principle doesn't aim at describing the world. It's prescriptive, if anything. Also, unlike the logical positivism, Popper denied that anything that isn't scientific (or formal) was meaningless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 11:36:57 No.13247084 Report

Quoted By: >>13248363

>>13246805
Are you the same guy who recommended reading some post by ron maimon in another thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 12:05:00 No.13247134 Report

Quoted By: >>13247297

>>13246800
falsifiability is simply a definition for what counts as science. definitions like this are just like definitions in math, they’re a convention as opposed to a statement and thus applying a truth or false value to them is not applicable. similar to math though, a definition could be evaluated on something like usefulness or consistency and in that regard falsifiability is a useful and fairly consistent criterion for scientists to use

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 13:12:45 No.13247270 Report

Quoted By: >>13247297

>>13246800
it's a postulate, axioms and postulates aren't falsifiable which falsifies the claim that science needs to be falsifiable.
all confusion aside it's basically just the idea that proper science needs to be testable. Falsifiability itself is testable since you can see whether it leads to accurate or inaccurate science. spoiler, it almost always leads to accurate results but some very theoretical models of the past turned out to be useful in the modern times.
statements that are self asserting, untestable or assert that testing is not needed (e.g. religion/faith) are not science

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 13:25:04 No.13247297 Report

Quoted By:

>>13247270
>>13247134
Good replies

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 13:27:19 No.13247308 Report

Quoted By:

Why can things be falsified but not proved? Isn't a falsification just a proof of the negation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 13:31:39 No.13247323 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246802
Falsification is a topic within the philosophy of science. This absolutely belongs here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 17:40:37 No.13248306 Report

Quoted By:

>>13247069
>The principle doesn't aim at describing the world. It's prescriptive, if anything.
Can you explain this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 17:56:40 No.13248363 Report

Quoted By:

>>13247084
yes, he has the right idea

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 19:02:51 No.13248646 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246800
You didn't read Popper

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 21:49:40 No.13249234 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246800
Isn't Falsifiability irrelevant?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO einstein_1947.jpg, 32KiB, 340x411

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 22:49:35 No.13249464 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246800
Popper is good, but the best philosopher of science is pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 22:51:45 No.13249469 Report

Quoted By: >>13249746

popper is a fucking retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 22:55:39 No.13249484 Report

Quoted By:

>>13246800
But falsification doesn't claim that absolute verifiability exists, only that you can come as close as possible to it, but you can never be absolutely certain. That is why you must falsify and chop bits of uncertainties off your theory, and if there are no bits of uncertainties to chop off, then it is unfalsifiable and needs to be revised.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Jun 2021 23:51:10 No.13249746 Report

Quoted By:

>>13249469
Popper seems right on first pass, but is deeply deeply wrong about things. Read 'Against Method' by Feyerabend. There's a good interview with Lee Smolin somewhere where he talks about Popper and Feyerabend that's insightful if you haven't read the works of either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Jun 2021 00:05:08 No.13249803 Report

Quoted By: >>13250192

>>13246800
Falsifiability doesn't apply to falsification.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Jun 2021 02:06:40 No.13250192 Report

Quoted By: >>13250402

>>13249803
How so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Jun 2021 03:03:56 No.13250402 Report

Quoted By:

>>13250192
It's philosophy, not science.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches