8 ms·

I don't see how you can dismiss the notion of truth and then invoke falsification. What does "false" mean but "not true"?

by gruseom 14y ago

aharrison 14y ago
In science, there are really two states of being: "false", and "not false yet." Truth implies a definitiveness that science lacks. Unfortunately, this is a hotly debated topic. Many philosophers of science would argue that science is the search for truth, and an example of this might be logical positivism. My own personal take is that science is a method (and framework of thought) for making statistically accurate predictions about the world. Somewhat paradoxically then, "truth" becomes approximations of correct, rather than the traditional inviolable assertion.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Many philosophers of science would argue that science is the search for truth ... Yes, but because the stakes are so high, and because of the critical role of science in modern times, the views of philosophers aren't compelling on science's definition any more. As just one example, society needs to keep superstition out of science classrooms. To do this, and with the aid of expert witnesses, a court of law has recently defined science this way: Source: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html) Summary -- science must have these properties: 1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5. It is falsifiable. The above is why Creationism isn't presented alongside evolution in Arkansas science classrooms. If you think that's important, then it follows that science should be defined clearly enough to avoid that outcome. BTW the above is only one of many nearly identical legal definitions of science. Based on the foregoing, a falsifiable idea is not a truth, it is merely an idea that has survived falsification so far. > My own personal take is that science is a method (and framework of thought) for making statistically accurate predictions about the world. There's a bit more to it than that. There is the responsibility to test one's ideas against reality, and abandon those ideas that fail the comparison. There is the responsibility to candidly consider alternative explanations for the same observation. There is the responsibility to design experiments sufficiently rigorous that independent, similarly equipped observers are drawn to the same conclusion. And many more. > Somewhat paradoxically then, "truth" becomes approximations of correct, rather than the traditional inviolable assertion. For philosophers arguing over tea, no problem. For those who understand the deadly serious role of science in modern times, no way.
  - aharrison 14y ago
    That is an excellent comment and I am particularly amused at the legal definition of science, which I had not heard of before. Keep in mind that my definition is a simplification of the framework. Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal. Note also that this is not how I would describe science to a layperson, or at least not without spending another hour or so going into greater detail of all of the necessary side effects and dangerous pitfalls, but like you are presenting.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing solely to argue, but if your thesis was correct, the Ptolemaic system could have been tuned repeatedly for greater and greater agreement with reality, but without ever reconsidering the basis of the model, the underlying theory. History records that we instead abandoned the Ptolematic theory, even though it "worked" and would have been perfectly satisfactory by way of refinements, to support modern astrodynamics. But instead we stopped generating more and more accurate (and complex) models and replaced the entire structure. It was the same with the ether theory -- after difficulties with the theory arose in the late 19th century, instead of "saving the ether" (an actual expression used at the time), we abandoned the entire structure -- this time 20 years in advance of any plausible replacement, which turned out to be relativity. And relativity turned out to be a much better theory in all respects, even though that wasn't obvious at the time. This is getting into a complex area, one having to do with the law of parsimony (a.k.a Occam's razor) and theoretical elegance, but science isn't about the most accurate model, it is also about beauty and parsimony alongside accurate modeling.
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        This is 99% correct, but you're wrong about the last sentence. Actually, science is about the most accurate model, but it turns out that what we mean by "beauty," is actually about simplicity, and thus about correctness. There is a sound mathematical background behind simplicity and its likelihood of being correct, as outlined in Scott Aaranson's paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791 http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791
lutusp 14y ago
> I don't see how you can dismiss the notion of truth and then invoke falsification. What does "false" mean but "not true"? I will let philosopher David Hume explain it: "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." To summarize, we can never say that all swans are white (a truth) but we might be able to prove that claim false. > What does "false" mean but "not true"? The statement that an assertion is false follows different rules than the statement that an assertion is true. And a theory that's supported by evidence can always be proven false by new evidence -- the point being that no theory ever becomes true in perpetuity (except in mathematics). More detail here: http://arachnoid.com/doubt http://arachnoid.com/doubt
- mjn 14y ago
  Nothing in that explanation is incompatible with the view that science is a "search for truth", at least taken in a suitably weak sense that does not claim to have "found" it. Falsificationism is simply a methodology, not any kind of end goal. The whole point of following such a methodology is to come up with theories that are in some way "better"; the thing we actually want is the positive content of the theories, which can be used as models, make predictions, etc. If we weren't interested in the positive content of theories at all, there would be no point in trying to falsify them. That said, I think Popperian falsificationism is rather questionable as a philosophy of science, once you prod at it more than a little.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Nothing in that explanation is incompatible with the view that science is a "search for truth". Of course it's incompatible. If there is no such thing as truth in science, that eliminates truth as a goal. And there is no such thing as truth in science. > Falsificationism is simply a methodology for finding where theories are non-truthy and amending them accordingly. No, this is not so. Falsification doesn't cut away those parts of theories that aren't representative of absolute truth, it cuts away the theories in their entirety. Astrology wasn't modified to become astronomy, instead astrology was demonstrated to be false and abandoned. The ether theory wasn't "amended" to become relativity, it was falsified in its entirety and abandoned. Falsifiability is not an editor's red pencil, it is a test against reality, and if the test fails, the idea is abandoned. > ... the whole point of falsifying theories is that we don't want false theories, but theories that are... less false. No. This isn't what falsifiability means. Falsifiability means that our ideas must be testable against reality, and only those ideas that survive the test remain standing ... to be tested again, later on, with new evidence. But we never declare a theory proven, beyond doubt (which would support your apparent notion about science).

I don't see how you can dismiss the notion of truth and then invoke falsification. What does "false" mean but "not true"?

by gruseom 14y ago

I don't see how you can dismiss the notion of truth and then invoke falsification. What does "false" mean but "not true"?

aharrison 14y ago

In science, there are really two states of being: "false", and "not false yet." Truth implies a definitiveness that science lacks. Unfortunately, this is a hotly debated topic. Many philosophers of science would argue that science is the search for truth, and an example of this might be logical positivism. My own personal take is that science is a method (and framework of thought) for making statistically accurate predictions about the world. Somewhat paradoxically then, "truth" becomes approximations of correct, rather than the traditional inviolable assertion.

lutusp 14y ago
> Many philosophers of science would argue that science is the search for truth ... Yes, but because the stakes are so high, and because of the critical role of science in modern times, the views of philosophers aren't compelling on science's definition any more. As just one example, society needs to keep superstition out of science classrooms. To do this, and with the aid of expert witnesses, a court of law has recently defined science this way: Source: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html) Summary -- science must have these properties: 1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5. It is falsifiable. The above is why Creationism isn't presented alongside evolution in Arkansas science classrooms. If you think that's important, then it follows that science should be defined clearly enough to avoid that outcome. BTW the above is only one of many nearly identical legal definitions of science. Based on the foregoing, a falsifiable idea is not a truth, it is merely an idea that has survived falsification so far. > My own personal take is that science is a method (and framework of thought) for making statistically accurate predictions about the world. There's a bit more to it than that. There is the responsibility to test one's ideas against reality, and abandon those ideas that fail the comparison. There is the responsibility to candidly consider alternative explanations for the same observation. There is the responsibility to design experiments sufficiently rigorous that independent, similarly equipped observers are drawn to the same conclusion. And many more. > Somewhat paradoxically then, "truth" becomes approximations of correct, rather than the traditional inviolable assertion. For philosophers arguing over tea, no problem. For those who understand the deadly serious role of science in modern times, no way.
- aharrison 14y ago
  That is an excellent comment and I am particularly amused at the legal definition of science, which I had not heard of before. Keep in mind that my definition is a simplification of the framework. Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal. Note also that this is not how I would describe science to a layperson, or at least not without spending another hour or so going into greater detail of all of the necessary side effects and dangerous pitfalls, but like you are presenting.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing solely to argue, but if your thesis was correct, the Ptolemaic system could have been tuned repeatedly for greater and greater agreement with reality, but without ever reconsidering the basis of the model, the underlying theory. History records that we instead abandoned the Ptolematic theory, even though it "worked" and would have been perfectly satisfactory by way of refinements, to support modern astrodynamics. But instead we stopped generating more and more accurate (and complex) models and replaced the entire structure. It was the same with the ether theory -- after difficulties with the theory arose in the late 19th century, instead of "saving the ether" (an actual expression used at the time), we abandoned the entire structure -- this time 20 years in advance of any plausible replacement, which turned out to be relativity. And relativity turned out to be a much better theory in all respects, even though that wasn't obvious at the time. This is getting into a complex area, one having to do with the law of parsimony (a.k.a Occam's razor) and theoretical elegance, but science isn't about the most accurate model, it is also about beauty and parsimony alongside accurate modeling.
    - Locke1689 14y ago
      This is 99% correct, but you're wrong about the last sentence. Actually, science is about the most accurate model, but it turns out that what we mean by "beauty," is actually about simplicity, and thus about correctness. There is a sound mathematical background behind simplicity and its likelihood of being correct, as outlined in Scott Aaranson's paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791 http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791

lutusp 14y ago

> I don't see how you can dismiss the notion of truth and then invoke falsification. What does "false" mean but "not true"? I will let philosopher David Hume explain it: "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." To summarize, we can never say that all swans are white (a truth) but we might be able to prove that claim false. > What does "false" mean but "not true"? The statement that an assertion is false follows different rules than the statement that an assertion is true. And a theory that's supported by evidence can always be proven false by new evidence -- the point being that no theory ever becomes true in perpetuity (except in mathematics). More detail here: http://arachnoid.com/doubt http://arachnoid.com/doubt

mjn 14y ago
Nothing in that explanation is incompatible with the view that science is a "search for truth", at least taken in a suitably weak sense that does not claim to have "found" it. Falsificationism is simply a methodology, not any kind of end goal. The whole point of following such a methodology is to come up with theories that are in some way "better"; the thing we actually want is the positive content of the theories, which can be used as models, make predictions, etc. If we weren't interested in the positive content of theories at all, there would be no point in trying to falsify them. That said, I think Popperian falsificationism is rather questionable as a philosophy of science, once you prod at it more than a little.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Nothing in that explanation is incompatible with the view that science is a "search for truth". Of course it's incompatible. If there is no such thing as truth in science, that eliminates truth as a goal. And there is no such thing as truth in science. > Falsificationism is simply a methodology for finding where theories are non-truthy and amending them accordingly. No, this is not so. Falsification doesn't cut away those parts of theories that aren't representative of absolute truth, it cuts away the theories in their entirety. Astrology wasn't modified to become astronomy, instead astrology was demonstrated to be false and abandoned. The ether theory wasn't "amended" to become relativity, it was falsified in its entirety and abandoned. Falsifiability is not an editor's red pencil, it is a test against reality, and if the test fails, the idea is abandoned. > ... the whole point of falsifying theories is that we don't want false theories, but theories that are... less false. No. This isn't what falsifiability means. Falsifiability means that our ideas must be testable against reality, and only those ideas that survive the test remain standing ... to be tested again, later on, with new evidence. But we never declare a theory proven, beyond doubt (which would support your apparent notion about science).