5 ms·

The theory of gravity is easily falsifiable. If we identify an object that has a given mass and does not produce the expected gravitational attraction, we will

by epups 3y ago

The theory of gravity is easily falsifiable. If we identify an object that has a given mass and does not produce the expected gravitational attraction, we will have to review the theory. Your assessment is very harsh. Popper's framework is hugely influential in science.

commonlisp94 3y ago
I disagree. The law of gravity is what you describe, masses attract, and is falsifiable. The theory, that masses are distorting and curving space to cause that effect, is very hard to falsify.
- epups 3y ago
  What you are alluding to is a modern interpretation of the theory, one that arose from Einstein's postulation about the relationship between space and time. This interpretation produces novel, testable predictions which have been experimentally verified. As a small quibble, there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories". In common language a theory may imply less certainty than a law, but in science this is not the case.
  - 10g1k 3y ago
    > " there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" Law: A simple relation of limited scope intended to describe a single phenomenon, for example Ohm's Law. Theory: A description or narrative of how and why, which may include laws, data, observations, etc.
  - commonlisp94 3y ago
    > there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" There is according to the academic circles I participated in, although it wouldn't surprise me if most physicists you meet wouldn't know that.
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    There is a difference. A law comes through observation, for example the laws of thermodynamics, there has not (really) been an observation of them being violated (macro-scale). There's not really a theory underpinning them, mathematically a infinite motion machine could work. But it has been observed that it hasn't and it appears that it can't be violated. That atoms make up all matter is a Theory, it's a model based on hypotheses that have been tested over and over. A different model could be created that may match better (like everything being made of fields and waves). Basically a theory is how, a law is what. [Yes i am aware that atoms don't necessarily conflict with waves]
- kazinator 3y ago
  There is a difference between classical gravity whereby masses attract in proportion to GMm/r^2 and the curved space time interpretation in which masses that are held from coming together are actually accelerating due to the curvature (and all that). Due to that difference, some experiment is possible which could go one way or the other.
  - commonlisp94 3y ago
    > some experiment is possible which could go one way or the other. Yes, I agree, but like I said it's much harder to find what these are and create experiments to show them. I'm also saying the theory part is more than the math formula, it's the explanation.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  > hard to falsify. I don't think the principle has anything to do with the difficulty or hardness of falsification. If a theory excludes something from occurring in reality, it is falsifiable, if it does not, then it is not falsifiable. So think about it like this, if a theory is "compatible" with everything that happens, it really does not make any predictions, as regardless of what happens, the theory holds. What the point of such a theory is is unclear. General relativity precludes many things from happening, and many tests have been performed that would have detected things that general relativity precludes from occurring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

by epups 3y ago

commonlisp94 3y ago

I disagree. The law of gravity is what you describe, masses attract, and is falsifiable. The theory, that masses are distorting and curving space to cause that effect, is very hard to falsify.

epups 3y ago
What you are alluding to is a modern interpretation of the theory, one that arose from Einstein's postulation about the relationship between space and time. This interpretation produces novel, testable predictions which have been experimentally verified. As a small quibble, there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories". In common language a theory may imply less certainty than a law, but in science this is not the case.
- 10g1k 3y ago
  > " there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" Law: A simple relation of limited scope intended to describe a single phenomenon, for example Ohm's Law. Theory: A description or narrative of how and why, which may include laws, data, observations, etc.
- commonlisp94 3y ago
  > there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" There is according to the academic circles I participated in, although it wouldn't surprise me if most physicists you meet wouldn't know that.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  There is a difference. A law comes through observation, for example the laws of thermodynamics, there has not (really) been an observation of them being violated (macro-scale). There's not really a theory underpinning them, mathematically a infinite motion machine could work. But it has been observed that it hasn't and it appears that it can't be violated. That atoms make up all matter is a Theory, it's a model based on hypotheses that have been tested over and over. A different model could be created that may match better (like everything being made of fields and waves). Basically a theory is how, a law is what. [Yes i am aware that atoms don't necessarily conflict with waves]
kazinator 3y ago
There is a difference between classical gravity whereby masses attract in proportion to GMm/r^2 and the curved space time interpretation in which masses that are held from coming together are actually accelerating due to the curvature (and all that). Due to that difference, some experiment is possible which could go one way or the other.
- commonlisp94 3y ago
  > some experiment is possible which could go one way or the other. Yes, I agree, but like I said it's much harder to find what these are and create experiments to show them. I'm also saying the theory part is more than the math formula, it's the explanation.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
> hard to falsify. I don't think the principle has anything to do with the difficulty or hardness of falsification. If a theory excludes something from occurring in reality, it is falsifiable, if it does not, then it is not falsifiable. So think about it like this, if a theory is "compatible" with everything that happens, it really does not make any predictions, as regardless of what happens, the theory holds. What the point of such a theory is is unclear. General relativity precludes many things from happening, and many tests have been performed that would have detected things that general relativity precludes from occurring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity