3 ms·

Falsifiable does not mean not true. And even if one does not wish to apply the term "true" to theories, this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. T

Falsifiable does not mean not true. And even if one does not wish to apply the term "true" to theories, this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. They most certainly seek theories that make true predictions, and in this manner they are seeking truth. (And finding it very successfully, I might add.) It is you who apparently have no solid education, nor much exposure to actual scientists. If you want to become educated, perhaps you should read this book, written by a scientist and endorsed by Dawkins, another scientist. It's called "Why Evolution is True": http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-from-dawkins/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-fro... Or if you want a quicker education, watch this three minute video, where Richard Dawkins says these sage words: "What science is about is finding what is true in the real world": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk I'm sure that you're a smart guy, but you are also a condescending ignoramus.

lutusp 14y ago
> Falsifiable does not mean not true. With respect to an idea, it means testable and potentially false. Truths are not "potentially false". > It's called "Why Evolution is True" This is the kind of popular writing designed to appeal to morons who doubt the evidence for evolution. It's a different topic entirely, and a different meaning for "true". > It is you who apparently have no solid education, nor much exposure to actual scientists. Guess again, rocket scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus A quote: "... named Scientist of the Year by the Oregon Academy of Science in 1986." And I am not the topic. If you had any kind of intellectual training, you would avoid wandering off into the woods so regularly. Case in point: > ... this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. This is not a conversation about scientists, it is a conversation about science. It is science that won't deliver truths, and this is by design. Scientists can do whatever they please -- which is why we need science to control their behavior. > ... They most certainly seek theories that make true predictions ... If a theory makes a true prediction, then it is not a theory. This is Science 101. > ... written by a scientist and endorsed by Dawkins, another scientist. If you learn anything during your visit to this planet, it should be that science is not about titles and authority, it is about evidence.
- nessus42 14y ago
  > If a theory makes a true prediction, then it is not a theory. This is Science 101. That's just laughable nonsense. Theories make true predictions all the time. The theory of gravity predicts that when I drop my pen it will fall, and that is a true prediction. As always, science is about making true predictions, and consequently is about truth. > With respect to an idea, it means testable and potentially false. Truths are not "potentially false". You keep claiming to be oh so more educated than me, but talking to you is like talking to someone who read half of a logic book in high school and didn't absorb it all too well, and missed any of the nuance for how logic is actually used, and then has convinced himself of his own expertise. In formal logic, propositions are either true or false (or they may have no truth value at all), but we don't know the truth value of all propositions. Additionally, there are propositions for which we can know their truth value, and yet cannot prove their truth value using logical deduction. A good scientific theory is expressed in a manner in which we might logically prove that it is false, but we can never logically prove that it is true. On the other hand, it is taken by scientists to be the case that a strong inductive argument can ultimately be made to establish the truth of a theory. As mentioned above, an inductive argument does not provide a logically deductive proof for the theory, but is rather considered to be a probabilistic proof, which will eventually converge upon virtual certainty, given enough confirming observations. Note that we can still be 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain of a truth of a theory using inductive reasoning, and yet it will still be logically "falsifiable". You will note that nothing here about falsifiability implies that a falsifiable proposition is not true. In fact, there are an infinite number of true and yet falsifiable propositions. Science, in particular, aims to find, via the scientific method and empirical induction, TRUE falsifiable propositions in the form of theories, and to use these theories to produce TRUE propositions in the form of predictions about real events in the world. With regard to any other assertions you have made, they indicate profound misconceptions for which I am no longer interested in dissuading you from. I will however put my money where my mouth is. I have worked professionally with scientists every working day of my adult life. I have implemented software for an X-ray space telescope, I have adapted brain imaging software to help analyze radio astronomy data, and I am currently working at one of the most prestigious biology labs in the world. I have already pointed you at two famous biologists who say that evolution is a TRUE theory. When faced with facts that you do not like, you poo-poo them, with such assertions as "science is not about titles and authority". Well, it's certainly not about what you spout out of your butt either. I have given you plenty of reasons why your position that "there is no such thing as truth in science" is wrong. I have backed this up with my own argumentation, and with the argumentation of two famous scientists. I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will bet you that I can find at least ten more real, working biologists, who have research positions at the aforementioned world-famous biology lab to go on record as supporting the statement that evolution is a true theory. And I will pay you ten to one odds if I cannot. How much do you want to bet?

lutusp 14y ago

> Falsifiable does not mean not true. With respect to an idea, it means testable and potentially false. Truths are not "potentially false". > It's called "Why Evolution is True" This is the kind of popular writing designed to appeal to morons who doubt the evidence for evolution. It's a different topic entirely, and a different meaning for "true". > It is you who apparently have no solid education, nor much exposure to actual scientists. Guess again, rocket scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus A quote: "... named Scientist of the Year by the Oregon Academy of Science in 1986." And I am not the topic. If you had any kind of intellectual training, you would avoid wandering off into the woods so regularly. Case in point: > ... this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. This is not a conversation about scientists, it is a conversation about science. It is science that won't deliver truths, and this is by design. Scientists can do whatever they please -- which is why we need science to control their behavior. > ... They most certainly seek theories that make true predictions ... If a theory makes a true prediction, then it is not a theory. This is Science 101. > ... written by a scientist and endorsed by Dawkins, another scientist. If you learn anything during your visit to this planet, it should be that science is not about titles and authority, it is about evidence.

nessus42 14y ago
> If a theory makes a true prediction, then it is not a theory. This is Science 101. That's just laughable nonsense. Theories make true predictions all the time. The theory of gravity predicts that when I drop my pen it will fall, and that is a true prediction. As always, science is about making true predictions, and consequently is about truth. > With respect to an idea, it means testable and potentially false. Truths are not "potentially false". You keep claiming to be oh so more educated than me, but talking to you is like talking to someone who read half of a logic book in high school and didn't absorb it all too well, and missed any of the nuance for how logic is actually used, and then has convinced himself of his own expertise. In formal logic, propositions are either true or false (or they may have no truth value at all), but we don't know the truth value of all propositions. Additionally, there are propositions for which we can know their truth value, and yet cannot prove their truth value using logical deduction. A good scientific theory is expressed in a manner in which we might logically prove that it is false, but we can never logically prove that it is true. On the other hand, it is taken by scientists to be the case that a strong inductive argument can ultimately be made to establish the truth of a theory. As mentioned above, an inductive argument does not provide a logically deductive proof for the theory, but is rather considered to be a probabilistic proof, which will eventually converge upon virtual certainty, given enough confirming observations. Note that we can still be 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain of a truth of a theory using inductive reasoning, and yet it will still be logically "falsifiable". You will note that nothing here about falsifiability implies that a falsifiable proposition is not true. In fact, there are an infinite number of true and yet falsifiable propositions. Science, in particular, aims to find, via the scientific method and empirical induction, TRUE falsifiable propositions in the form of theories, and to use these theories to produce TRUE propositions in the form of predictions about real events in the world. With regard to any other assertions you have made, they indicate profound misconceptions for which I am no longer interested in dissuading you from. I will however put my money where my mouth is. I have worked professionally with scientists every working day of my adult life. I have implemented software for an X-ray space telescope, I have adapted brain imaging software to help analyze radio astronomy data, and I am currently working at one of the most prestigious biology labs in the world. I have already pointed you at two famous biologists who say that evolution is a TRUE theory. When faced with facts that you do not like, you poo-poo them, with such assertions as "science is not about titles and authority". Well, it's certainly not about what you spout out of your butt either. I have given you plenty of reasons why your position that "there is no such thing as truth in science" is wrong. I have backed this up with my own argumentation, and with the argumentation of two famous scientists. I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will bet you that I can find at least ten more real, working biologists, who have research positions at the aforementioned world-famous biology lab to go on record as supporting the statement that evolution is a true theory. And I will pay you ten to one odds if I cannot. How much do you want to bet?