4 ms·

> 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 tim

> 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?

pg 14y ago
Will you guys please stop this? You've allowed yourselves to be sucked down a rathole of incivility.
- nessus42 14y ago
  Excellent point. Let me summarize the meat of the debate politely then: Mr Lutus's argument is that scientific theories cannot be truths because they must be falsifiable, which means that they are potentially false and a truth cannot be potentially false. My argument is that "falsifiable" only means that a theory is potentially false with respect to our limited knowledge. A theory can certainly be both true and falsifiable, however, since all that entails is that the theory is true, and yet we don't have all the evidence that would be required to conclude that it is true with the iron-clad power of a logically deductive argument. On the other hand, we might certainly have enough evidence to conclude that the theory is true beyond any reasonable doubt using an empirically inductive argument. Although empirically inductive arguments can never eliminate all doubt, they can eliminate all reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are entitled to conclude, given enough evidence, that a scientific theory is true. Such a theory is still falsifiable, even though we know it to be true (beyond all reasonable doubt), because there is still the logical possibility for the theory to be false, no matter how remote this possibility is. I claim that science strives for (and succeeds in) finding such inductively proven theories.

pg 14y ago

Will you guys please stop this? You've allowed yourselves to be sucked down a rathole of incivility.

nessus42 14y ago
Excellent point. Let me summarize the meat of the debate politely then: Mr Lutus's argument is that scientific theories cannot be truths because they must be falsifiable, which means that they are potentially false and a truth cannot be potentially false. My argument is that "falsifiable" only means that a theory is potentially false with respect to our limited knowledge. A theory can certainly be both true and falsifiable, however, since all that entails is that the theory is true, and yet we don't have all the evidence that would be required to conclude that it is true with the iron-clad power of a logically deductive argument. On the other hand, we might certainly have enough evidence to conclude that the theory is true beyond any reasonable doubt using an empirically inductive argument. Although empirically inductive arguments can never eliminate all doubt, they can eliminate all reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are entitled to conclude, given enough evidence, that a scientific theory is true. Such a theory is still falsifiable, even though we know it to be true (beyond all reasonable doubt), because there is still the logical possibility for the theory to be false, no matter how remote this possibility is. I claim that science strives for (and succeeds in) finding such inductively proven theories.