3 ms·
We're not saying they're equally falsifiable though. We have p values and sigmas and statistics to deal with different levels of wrongness and likeliness of bei
by vikramkr 7y ago
We're not saying they're equally falsifiable though. We have p values and sigmas and statistics to deal with different levels of wrongness and likeliness of being wrong. Nobody's saying that DNA and a bacteria causing influenza are equally likely to be wrong or equally wrong or something. The problem is saying that dna's existence is not falsifiable. That is an incorrect statement. That's all that's being pointed out.
- Dylan16807 7y agoWhen the likelihood of something starts to drop far below "universe spontaneously stops existing at the same time you're hit by lightning while checking your winning lottery ticket" levels, it might be valid to not treat it as a real option.
- vikramkr 7y agoAnd that's what we do in science - after 5 sigma in physics, it's discovered. But remember, an experimental error is a thing, measurement error is a thing. We've been caught on that before, and while something like "this thing exists" is not as likely to be overturned (though things we were very sure existed have been overturned as new instruments and tools became available), our understanding of what that thing does and how it interacts with other things leave room for compounding uncertainty. The great thing is, we have tools in statistics to put a number to that likelihood and allow people to make the subjective calls of what they're willing to treat as an axiom and move on regarding.