Falsifiability

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (See also)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
 
  
 
*[[Disproving Evolution]]
 
*[[Disproving Evolution]]
Line 34: Line 33:
 
*[[Naturalism]]
 
*[[Naturalism]]
 
*[[Threats to scientific validity]]
 
*[[Threats to scientific validity]]
 +
*[[Debate:Falsifiability]]
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 03:44, 16 May 2009

By definition, something that is falsifiable is capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. [1] It is essential to the scientific method. This is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific. All of our scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Logic bases itself on observations, and theories are derived based on logic. However, this cycle completes itself because once a theory is in place, observation is used to test the theory. If a theory is tested by observation, it can be confirmed or shown to be incorrect.

Scientific does not necessarily equate to true, but only, 'true as far as current methods of observation and experiment allow'. That's why it's the 'Big bang theory'.


Contents

Examples of Falsifiability

Until the twentieth century Newton's laws of motion were

  • a) scientific and
  • b) believed to be true.

Relativity, by finding, and employing, the falsifiability of Newton's laws, modified them. This was only possible because Newton's laws made specific conjectures. It was therefore possible to determine that after specific observations were made, these observations contradicted Newton's ideas.

Scientific Conjectures, Hypotheses and Theories

  • A conjecture or hypothesis is an idea that a researcher believes may be true. The researcher can test this idea using the scientific method.
  • A theory is, however, much more advanced of a conjecture and implies very strong evidence.
  • Scientists will investigate a theory even further. Depending on how much evidence there is to support them, theories have various levels of strength.
  • If evidence is found that contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or revised.

Applications of Falsifiability

A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during an eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory.

Creationism is not falsifiable as its proponents base the theory on a human text, the (Bible) which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that creationism can be contradicted because of the nature of the "theory." Even when evolution in action is observed, creationists will refuse to allow it to alter their ideas. Since no observation will contradict creationism, it is not science. If no matter what the evidence, you can say something like "God is trying to trick us to test our faith," or "this is all part of a grand conspiracy of liberal deceit," creationism can never be proven incorrect.

Just because a theory is falsifiable, it doesn't mean that it ever will be falsified, as many anti-evolutionists seem to believe. Remember, gravity is a theory. Also, theory is not the opposite of "fact." Many "theories" like evolution are so well supported that scientists can build off them as if they were facts. Even though details about exactly the way evolution occurred are debated, evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists. Despite this fact, open-minded scientists would willingly reconsider evolution if suddenly, observations seemed to contradict its principles and seemed to falsify the idea.

Willingness to reexamine facts objectively is the difference between a scientist and a theologian.

See also

Footnotes

  1. Free dictionary - falsifiable
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support