Falsifiability (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 18, 2014, 21:46 (3407 days ago) @ GateKeeper

GK: wow, you just proved my point.
> > > 
> > > "contrary to the scientific method"? wow!!!!!!!!!!! nutz. unreasonable people waste tax payers money thus we make up copout terms like " Falsifiability".
> > > 
> > > example: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html
&#... > > 
> > > The claim "no human can live forever" when investigated properly does not need the word at all. It is only needed to shut down a literalist.
> > > 
> > > GK: when you say "does not belong in science." do you mean textbooks or people have to stop trying to engineer experiments to find out? Like the LHC?
> > 
> > All this discussion means is that theories have to be tested. When not testable they remain entirely speculation. How long life can be lived is not an appropriate example of the principle, but an example of what does not need testing.
> 
> you guys win. Its just me
> 
> 
> its words games. I use the time I claimed there are planets in high school. It was then I heard the word "falsable". I told the teacher your copping out. Based on what we know it is more reasonable to assume planets than not.
> 
> but no matter. people will use the term and I will pin them down one exactly what they are saying. Then will we talk of probability and being irrational when drawling conclusions based on nothing. Did the same thing when I told a friend about the magnetic fields influencing alot of the shapes we see in space. Now its common knowledge. The only time when the word "falsable" is needed is when you are dealing with an irrational person basing a conclusion on what is not known. Like in philosophy many times.
> 
> Maybe I don't get it because I only use what I do know to Draw a conclusion? I will have to think on that. .--It's not word games. To use your own examples, if someone did not die, then the hypothesis would be true as long as that person lived. Therefore, the hypothesis is falsifiable. If you claim there are planets, but none are ever found, then the hypothesis is falsifiable. However, neither of those is really a valid scientific statement because they are impossible to measure accurately. Science runs like thisose a question.
Hypothesize an answer.
Design an experiment that would illustrate the predicted results.
Determine criteria that would disprove your answer. 
Perform experiment.
Make observations. 
If any of the results meet the criteria that would disprove your hypothesis, then it is obviously wrong. 
If none of those results happen, then it doesn't mean you are right, only that you got the expected results. (Yes, there is a difference)-In science, you are never proving anything, you are only disproving things. Therefore, for something to be scientific, it MUST be possible to disprove the hypothesis. Otherwise, it is simply a fallacious argument. -String theory falls into that category because:
A) It can not be tested
B) It can not be observed
C) Because of A & B, it can never be disproven.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.