Noob question.. please help :)

[ringo]

Hi guys!

I'm what you could call a "new" skeptic - having read a few books and read these forums for a little while, I've a question regarding what a "falsifiable theory" is, and how that differs from a non-falsifiable theory - and why one is different/better than the other.

Could someone maybe give a few examples of a falsifiable theory, and perhaps a few non-falsifiable theories? Why are falsifiable theories considered more robust than their counterparts?

Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work :)

[TobiasTheViking]

Hi guys!

I'm what you could call a "new" skeptic - having read a few books and read these forums for a little while, I've a question regarding what a "falsifiable theory" is, and how that differs from a non-falsifiable theory - and why one is different/better than the other.

Could someone maybe give a few examples of a falsifiable theory, and perhaps a few non-falsifiable theories? Why are falsifiable theories considered more robust than their counterparts?

Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work :)

K, falsifiable.

If you lift an apple 1metre into the air, and let go, then gravity will pull it down. If you make just one test where the apple doesn't fall, you have falsified gravity(shown it is false). That is, of course, baring any other influences(like a fan blowing it up).

Non falsifiable.

Aliens control all humans, but since they control us, and everything we do, and will never let us find out about them, we will never know, but they are there, and control us.

There is no way to prove the second theory false. Thus it isn't falsifiable.

If you can't make a test that proves your theory is false, your theory isn't falsifiable, and thus you can never disprove it.

All accepted scientifc theories(in the scientific meaning) are falsifiable.

A scientific theory is not "facts" or "the truth", but it is falsifable, and so far, all the attempts to prove the theory wrong have failed.

Hope that helped :) Fell free to ask for better explanations.


Sincerely
Tobias

[jimlintott]

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://eagle.la.asu.edu/ast112/critical-thinking.html)


Sums it all up nicely.

[Bronze Dog]

I remember one example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis:

"Show me a man who isn't interested in Madonna, and I'll show you a liar."

Or, in other words, "Every man is interested in Madonna. Those who claim they aren't are lying."

If we were to ask every man on Earth, everyone who said he was interested would confirm the theory. Everyone who said otherwise would be ruled a liar. There's no answer that could show the hypothesis is wrong.

[Ed]

Pardon me but I am a bit singleminded on this one.

ID is not falsifiable.

[Dr Adequate]

Falsifiability (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Falsifiability) on the SkepticWiki.

[Kosh3]

//cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html
add http to the front of that. I can post url's yet.

One of the greatest essays ever: Karl Popper on falsifiability.

[Hawk one]

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html

Just putting up the link properly to save time for the people too lazy to C&P and add 5 characters. ;)

[RandFan]

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://eagle.la.asu.edu/ast112/critical-thinking.html) Thank you. Excellent source.

I watched Larry King live tonight with Sylvia Browne, Char Margolis and Van Pragh. These people are successfully smug simply because so many people have not been able to grasp and master such important principles.

[TobiasTheViking]

Pardon me but I am a bit singleminded on this one.

ID is not falsifiable.
Anyone claimed it was??? i must have missed something.

[Kosh3]

There are some nit-pick things on that Critical Thinking guide however. For instance

"It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable."

Not strictly true, for something can be true and unfalsifiable. Marxism, a favourite example of philosophers of science for an unfalsifiable theory, could have been correct, and yet not falsifiable. All that would mean is that it is not scientific.

[Dogdoctor]

I remember one example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis:

"Show me a man who isn't interested in Madonna, and I'll show you a liar."

Or, in other words, "Every man is interested in Madonna. Those who claim they aren't are lying."

If we were to ask every man on Earth, everyone who said he was interested would confirm the theory. Everyone who said otherwise would be ruled a liar. There's no answer that could show the hypothesis is wrong.
Wait a minute. Isn't that true? No way to prove it I guess. hmm oh well

[69dodge]

Why are falsifiable theories considered more robust than their counterparts?A non-falsifiable theory is a theory that, even if false, is impossible to be shown to be false. So the fact that it hasn't yet been shown to be false doesn't at all indicate that it's true: of course it hasn't yet been shown to be false, because it can't ever be shown false, even if it is false.

A falsifiable theory, on the other hand, is a theory that, if false, can be shown to be false. If it hasn't yet been shown to be false, the lack of evidence against it provides some indication that it's true, because if it were false, we'd expect to have found evidence against it.