6 ms·

A well-designed experiment is designed to falsify the conventional theory in favor of a proposed theory. An experiment designed to confirm is not valuable at a

A well-designed experiment is designed to falsify the conventional theory in favor of a proposed theory. An experiment designed to confirm is not valuable at all. I can drop an apple over and over again and confirm that it obeys F = mg every time, and learn nothing of value.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
insanitybit 3y ago
That's the same experiment over and over again. Presumably we have done many many different experiments to confirm gravity.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  Again, the experiment or observation is designed to falsify a theory, not confirm it. This is true of gravitational experiments as well. Yes, we have done many experiments or observations to try and falsify various theories of gravity. For instance, Newton's gravity was falsified (as an adequate model of the solar system's dynamics) when we observed that the precision of mercury was not what was predicted by the theory. General relativity predicted that gravitational waves exist, and we observed them, which meant that we were unable to falsify GR using that observation. But people keep trying. There are now proposals using both quantum mechanics and gravity whereby it is predicted that we can entangle gravity. Experiments are not that far into the future, which will be used to falsify these joint theories of quantum mechanics and gravity.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    Oh, I guess I think of "designed to falsify" and "intended to confirm" as two distinct goals.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
Let me restate my point in a more nuanced fashion after also talking to someone irl. Theories are often parameterized by experimental constants. For the Standard Model, among many others, the mass of the proton is one such parameter. I assert that each different value of the parameter yields a different theory. The Standard Model is an infinite collection of theories parametrized by the proton mass and other parameters. An experiment that measures the proton mass will falsify all theories in this collection that are outside the value + error bars of the measured proton mass. There is always falsification in a valuable experiment. If you do another experiment that falsifies already discarded values of the proton mass, people will not pay attention - unless of course, you used some different techniques in your experiment which then increases our belief in the previous falsification.
davrosthedalek 3y ago
I think it is somewhat nuanced. In principle you are right, I would even go so far as to say: You cannot confirm a theory with experiment. But every test build to "confirm" a theory, is always also an experiment to falsify every other theory with a different prediction. Look at the Higgs discovery. The experiments were clearly designed to measure the Higgs and confirm the prediction. But you can state it as "they were designed to falsify the (at that time SM) theory that there is no Higgs". What is important to remember that a) you cannot absolutely confirm a theory (as in: rule out all others) with a finite series of experiments b) correlation doesn't mean causation c) causation doesn't mean correlation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

insanitybit 3y ago

That's the same experiment over and over again. Presumably we have done many many different experiments to confirm gravity.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago
Again, the experiment or observation is designed to falsify a theory, not confirm it. This is true of gravitational experiments as well. Yes, we have done many experiments or observations to try and falsify various theories of gravity. For instance, Newton's gravity was falsified (as an adequate model of the solar system's dynamics) when we observed that the precision of mercury was not what was predicted by the theory. General relativity predicted that gravitational waves exist, and we observed them, which meant that we were unable to falsify GR using that observation. But people keep trying. There are now proposals using both quantum mechanics and gravity whereby it is predicted that we can entangle gravity. Experiments are not that far into the future, which will be used to falsify these joint theories of quantum mechanics and gravity.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Oh, I guess I think of "designed to falsify" and "intended to confirm" as two distinct goals.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

Let me restate my point in a more nuanced fashion after also talking to someone irl. Theories are often parameterized by experimental constants. For the Standard Model, among many others, the mass of the proton is one such parameter. I assert that each different value of the parameter yields a different theory. The Standard Model is an infinite collection of theories parametrized by the proton mass and other parameters. An experiment that measures the proton mass will falsify all theories in this collection that are outside the value + error bars of the measured proton mass. There is always falsification in a valuable experiment. If you do another experiment that falsifies already discarded values of the proton mass, people will not pay attention - unless of course, you used some different techniques in your experiment which then increases our belief in the previous falsification.

davrosthedalek 3y ago

I think it is somewhat nuanced. In principle you are right, I would even go so far as to say: You cannot confirm a theory with experiment. But every test build to "confirm" a theory, is always also an experiment to falsify every other theory with a different prediction. Look at the Higgs discovery. The experiments were clearly designed to measure the Higgs and confirm the prediction. But you can state it as "they were designed to falsify the (at that time SM) theory that there is no Higgs". What is important to remember that a) you cannot absolutely confirm a theory (as in: rule out all others) with a finite series of experiments b) correlation doesn't mean causation c) causation doesn't mean correlation.