Question on 'The Scientific Method'

Discuss Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Geology, Math, Technology

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Question on 'The Scientific Method'

Post #1

Post by Divine Insight »

A Troubled Man wrote: Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.
I have some questions on the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses.

The Inflation Theory Hypothesis

If falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible, why then is Inflation Theory considered to be a credible scientific hypothesis? Is there any known way to falsify Inflation Theory?

The Multi-verse Hypothesis

Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.

Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?

The String Theory Hypothesis

Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.

Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?

The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis

It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.

Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?

The M-Theory Hypothesis

M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.

Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?

~~~~~

So my question is this:

In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?

And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.

In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.

So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.

There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.

Where is there any consistency in their position here?

They don't appear to be following their own rules.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #11

Post by A Troubled Man »

Divine Insight wrote:
So you haven't provided any explanation of how science is different from any other philosophy if mere deductive arguments are sufficient for scientific credibility.
So what? I never made such a claim. I was talking falsifiability. I can see you still attempt to put words in other peoples mouths to support your arguments. Bad form, dude.
And so all mathematical constructs qualify as credible scientific hypotheses?
Where did I say that?
I can create mathematical constructs to propose just about anything I so desire.
But, we have found that you don't really know what you're talking about most of the time, so it's easy to see you most likely haven't the mathematical background to do such a thing. However, feel free to create one and put it up for peer review.
I'm just trying to get clear on what constitutes a credible scientific hypothesis.
Credible? Who said anything about credibility? Hypotheses can be created, but that doesn't automatically make them credible.
So, in other words, you're saying that a hypothesis that even has an unexplained potential for possibly becoming falsifiable in some imagined future assuming that someone can come up with a way to potentially falsify it, would then be a credible scientific hypothesis.
No, I'm not saying that, you are making that assertion based on false premises of credibility.
For example I could hypothesis that fairies exist.
You missed step number 1 in the method. Read it again.
There are many cases where mathematical constructs cannot be falsified in practice because mathematics itself is an abstraction of pure through.
So what?
Take Gabriele's Horn for example. A very well-known mathematical construct. It's interior surface area is infinite, and therefore would require an infinite amount of paint to pain it. However, if you stand the horn up so it's mouth is at the top you can only fill it with a finite volume of paint because mathematical its interior volume comes out to be a finite number, which can be quite small.

So here we have an example where mathematically you would need an infinite amount of paint to paint the interior infinite surface of Gabriele's Horn, but if you stand it up on end you can fill it entirely with a small amount of paint.

In other words, there are paradoxes contained right in our very own mathematical formalism that cannot exist in the real world.

So why should mathematics be a dependable criteria for a scientific hypothesis?
I would recommend you start taking some math courses so you can understand how math works and the fact that whatever can be created in a mathematical formula does not necessarily mean it can exist in reality. Dealing with infinities such as Torricelli's Trumpet is one of them. However, calculus does indeed explain the paradox, regardless of the fact it probably can't exist in nature.

I agree it most certainly was, which drives home my point that falsification is not tantamount to the credibility of a modern scientific hypothesis.
I don't see your point at all. No scientist is claiming Torricelli's Trumpet exists in reality as a working hypothesis.
Boy you really blew your criteria away with this one.
No, I didn't.
I agree that this is indeed considered to be a valid thought experiment used in science to this very day.
Thanks for agreeing with my point that deductive logic can be used to critique a hypothesis.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #12

Post by Divine Insight »

A Troubled Man wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
So you haven't provided any explanation of how science is different from any other philosophy if mere deductive arguments are sufficient for scientific credibility.
So what? I never made such a claim. I was talking falsifiability. I can see you still attempt to put words in other peoples mouths to support your arguments. Bad form, dude.
Hey, it's not a problem. If you concede that modern science isn't any different from philosophy in general I'll be the first to agree with you. ;)
A Troubled Man wrote:
And so all mathematical constructs qualify as credible scientific hypotheses?
Where did I say that?
In this post:
A Troubled Man wrote:
Can you explain how this works in the case of the scientific hypothesis that there may exist multiple universes? And even potentially infinitely many of them?
Those hypotheses are based on mathematical constructs.
How is this hypothesis justified in science as being credible?
Again, it is a mathematical construct, and like other mathematical constructs, the capacity for falsifiability allows it be continuously questioned.
Here you are arguing that mathematical constructs constitute a valid foundation for scientific hypothesis because, according to you, they have the capacity for falsifiability.

But I've already shown that this isn't automatically true of all mathematical constructs. So they would need to specifically show how their mathematical construct could be falsified via actual experiments or observations.
A Troubled Man wrote:
I can create mathematical constructs to propose just about anything I so desire.
But, we have found that you don't really know what you're talking about most of the time, so it's easy to see you most likely haven't the mathematical background to do such a thing. However, feel free to create one and put it up for peer review.
Now you are just spewing totally ungrounded personal slander.

Where is your evidence that I don't really know what I'm talking about most of the time?

Point to even one thing that I have been wrong about.

And if you point to General Relativity again, we're going to have to correct you on that. Because General Relativity does NOT say that the Earth's surface is accelerating outward or upward at 9.8 m/s/s as you claim.

You're the one who has that wrong, and you're the one who needs to get it straight.

Your continual slandering of me because of your own failings to understand General Relativity will not be tolerated.

You are wrong, and you need to be corrected.
A Troubled Man wrote:
I'm just trying to get clear on what constitutes a credible scientific hypothesis.
Credible? Who said anything about credibility? Hypotheses can be created, but that doesn't automatically make them credible.
You did, in this post on your criteria for "The Scientific Method".
A Troubled Man wrote: Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.
This is why I asked specifically about the scientific hypothesis of the existence of multiple universes.

How can that hypothesis be falsifiable?

This is your criteria for it to be credible.
A Troubled Man wrote:
So, in other words, you're saying that a hypothesis that even has an unexplained potential for possibly becoming falsifiable in some imagined future assuming that someone can come up with a way to potentially falsify it, would then be a credible scientific hypothesis.
No, I'm not saying that, you are making that assertion based on false premises of credibility.
Well, as I pointed out above you had given falsifiability as a criteria for credibility. You've even claimed that this is tantamount. To use your own words.

So I'm asking at what point must it be falsifiable?

Must it be immediately falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to simply suggest that there may come a time in the future when more is know when it might become falsifiable?

I think these are valid questions in light of the fact that you feel this is tantamount to the credibility of a hypothesis.

I'm mean you've placed this requirement in a STICKY post making it appear that you are doing to hold this up as indeed being tantamount.

So I'm asking for clarification on what constitutes falsifiability?

Seems like a fair question to me.
A Troubled Man wrote:
For example I could hypothesis that fairies exist.
You missed step number 1 in the method. Read it again.
OK, I've read it again. In fact I'll print it out here in bold:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

So may I ask how unobserved multiple universes qualify as a valid scientific hypothesis?

Did those scientists also forget to read step number 1?
A Troubled Man wrote:
There are many cases where mathematical constructs cannot be falsified in practice because mathematics itself is an abstraction of pure through.
So what?
Well this shows that mathematical constructs alone do not automatically equate to a situation that could be falsified.

So this is why I was asking how the idea of multiple universe could be falsified?
A Troubled Man wrote: I would recommend you start taking some math courses so you can understand how math works and the fact that whatever can be created in a mathematical formula does not necessarily mean it can exist in reality. Dealing with infinities such as Torricelli's Trumpet is one of them. However, calculus does indeed explain the paradox, regardless of the fact it probably can't exist in nature.
Nothing you've said here invalidates my concern.

My concern was simply to ask why mathematics constructs alone should automatically imply a condition of falsifiability.

I gave an example of such a construction that cannot be falsified.

You apparently even agree that it cannot be falsified.

Yet you seem to have totally misunderstood the point.

The point is not that I need to start taking some math courses. Clearly my understanding of mathematics is correct. Even you have agreed with my observations.

My question still remains unanswered.

How can a hypothesis that infinitely many unobserved universes exist be falsified?

And I'm even asking this in either way. Through pure mathematics, or through observation or experiment.

You original argument was to suggest that it's a mathematical construct and therefore innately falsifiable.

But clearly that's not true. The mere fact that it's a mathematical construct does not automatically loan it to falsifiability.
A Troubled Man wrote:
I agree it most certainly was, which drives home my point that falsification is not tantamount to the credibility of a modern scientific hypothesis.
I don't see your point at all. No scientist is claiming Torricelli's Trumpet exists in reality as a working hypothesis.
That wasn't the point. The point is that all mathematical constructs are not automatically falsifiable and therefore it does not suffice to just claim that a theory of multiple unseen universes is a mathematical construct and therefore it automatically possesses falsifiability.

A Troubled Man wrote:
Boy you really blew your criteria away with this one.
No, I didn't.
Well, you certainly haven't justified it in the case of the hypothesis of the existence of infinitely many universes.
A Troubled Man wrote:
I agree that this is indeed considered to be a valid thought experiment used in science to this very day.
Thanks for agreeing with my point that deductive logic can be used to critique a hypothesis.
I have no problem with that. But even deductive logic can not always be falsified in terms of physical reality in the same way that mathematics cannot be.

In fact, we've already seen this.

I pure mathematics we can logically describe three different geometries. Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic. All three of these mathematical geometries are logically sound. But only one of them can apply to our universe as a whole.

So deductive logic alone cannot tell us the true nature of reality.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #13

Post by A Troubled Man »

Divine Insight wrote:
Hey, it's not a problem. If you concede that modern science isn't any different from philosophy in general I'll be the first to agree with you. ;)
So, the fact that deductive logic can be used to critique a hypothesis, your conclusion is that modern science is no different than philosophy in general.

That's a fallacious conclusion based on a false premise.
Here you are arguing that mathematical constructs constitute a valid foundation for scientific hypothesis because, according to you, they have the capacity for falsifiability.
It's odd how you keep putting words in my mouth or are incapable of reading my posts to see what it is I'm actually saying compared to the conclusions you draw from what I'm saying.

I suppose it's the only way you know how to argue.
But I've already shown that this isn't automatically true of all mathematical constructs. So they would need to specifically show how their mathematical construct could be falsified via actual experiments or observations.
No, they don't, and once again, you're missing the point entirely about falsifiability and what constitutes a hypothesis. Perhaps, you should go back and read the steps again.
Now you are just spewing totally ungrounded personal slander.

Where is your evidence that I don't really know what I'm talking about most of the time?
Contained in your posts, of course.
Point to even one thing that I have been wrong about.
General Relativity. Falsifiability. Mysticism and science. The list goes on...
And if you point to General Relativity again, we're going to have to correct you on that. Because General Relativity does NOT say that the Earth's surface is accelerating outward or upward at 9.8 m/s/s as you claim.

You're the one who has that wrong, and you're the one who needs to get it straight.
You're continued denial of that is no different from a flat earther denying the earth is round or the creationist denying evolution. No matter how many sources I provide, you still don't get it.
Your continual slandering of me because of your own failings to understand General Relativity will not be tolerated.

You are wrong, and you need to be corrected.
LOL. Yet, all the sources I provided stated exactly what I said. Did you not read them? Or, are you just in denial?

The more you deny it, the more your credibility disintegrates.
You did, in this post on your criteria for "The Scientific Method".
You're confused. The steps listed in the Scientific Method are used to create a valid hypothesis based on the steps, but that's doesn't make the hypothesis itself valid.
This is why I asked specifically about the scientific hypothesis of the existence of multiple universes.

How can that hypothesis be falsifiable?
I have no idea, if I did, I would have falsified the hypothesis by now.

Well, as I pointed out above you had given falsifiability as a criteria for credibility. You've even claimed that this is tantamount. To use your own words.
Again, you're confused. A valid hypothesis based on the steps of the Scientific Method give validity to the creation of a hypothesis, but that doesn't the claims presented in the hypothesis itself is valid.
So I'm asking at what point must it be falsifiable?

Must it be immediately falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to simply suggest that there may come a time in the future when more is know when it might become falsifiable?
The hypothesis must simply contain the capacity for falsifiability, that's it. What is so difficult to understand here?
I think these are valid questions in light of the fact that you feel this is tantamount to the credibility of a hypothesis.

I'm mean you've placed this requirement in a STICKY post making it appear that you are doing to hold this up as indeed being tantamount.

So I'm asking for clarification on what constitutes falsifiability?

Seems like a fair question to me.
How many times and how many ways must I explain that to you?
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

So may I ask how unobserved multiple universes qualify as a valid scientific hypothesis?
Your question is specific to a particular hypothesis and has nothing to do with this thread. You are free to research yourself the details of that hypothesis to find out. I'm not doing your homework for you.


Did those scientists also forget to read step number 1?
Well this shows that mathematical constructs alone do not automatically equate to a situation that could be falsified.
That would depend on the hypothesis and whether or not all the steps were followed.
My concern was simply to ask why mathematics constructs alone should automatically imply a condition of falsifiability.

I gave an example of such a construction that cannot be falsified.
No, you didn't.
You apparently even agree that it cannot be falsified.
No, I didn't.
My question still remains unanswered.

How can a hypothesis that infinitely many unobserved universes exist be falsified?
Again, I'm not doing your homework for you. If I knew, or if anyone knew that, they probably would have falsified it by now. But, since it has yet to be falsified, those folks who work on the hypothesis may find a way.
That wasn't the point. The point is that all mathematical constructs are not automatically falsifiable and therefore it does not suffice to just claim that a theory of multiple unseen universes is a mathematical construct and therefore it automatically possesses falsifiability.
The hypothesis merely needs to have the capacity for falsifiability, how that is achieved is another story altogether and has nothing to do with the fact the hypothesis has that capacity.

Well, you certainly haven't justified it in the case of the hypothesis of the existence of infinitely many universes.
That's not my problem.

I pure mathematics we can logically describe three different geometries. Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic. All three of these mathematical geometries are logically sound. But only one of them can apply to our universe as a whole.

So deductive logic alone cannot tell us the true nature of reality.
So what? I never said it did. Those are your words, not mine.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #14

Post by Divine Insight »

A Troubled Man wrote: You're continued denial of that is no different from a flat earther denying the earth is round or the creationist denying evolution. No matter how many sources I provide, you still don't get it.
I have reason to be concerned.

Here you are starting an entire sub-forum on science and you believe that General Relativity is stating that the Earth Surface is accelerating outward at 9.8 m/s/s.

That is simple false. And if you go around teaching people that this is what General Relativity is saying then you are perpetuating false information.

You misunderstand the analogy of The Equivalency Principle. It's not saying that the cause is the same in both situations, it's simply saying that no quantitative measurement can be made to distinguish these two situations apart.

This analogy was also made very early on and is not truly a part of General Relativity. The actual formulation of General Relativity resulted in Space-time field equations that describe gravity as being a warped field of spacetime in the vicinity of massive objects.

So you are the one who doesn't understand General Relativity.

And I have already proven you to be wrong way back in that original thread in the following two posts:

Post 11

Post 12

Your refusal to accept correction is beyond belief.

You are bearing false witness against me ATM.

You are claiming that I fail to understand General Relativity when in fact, it's you who continually refuses to confess your misunderstanding.

The Earth's Surface is NOT accelerating up toward us as you have claimed in your post in the following thread:
A Troubled Man wrote: GR works from reference frames under acceleration and basically demonstrates that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable from each other. Since that is the case, we can see that gravity is not a "pulling force" and that we are all literally in free fall and it is the earths surface that is accelerating up towards us, given that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.

That's flat-out wrong Troubled Man.

That is not what General Relativity is saying.

General Relativity describes gravity as being caused by a warping of the very fabric of spacetime due to the presence of the mass of the Earth itself.

General Relativity is NOT describing the Earth's surface to be accelerating up toward us.

The surface of the Earth is not accelerating upward at all. On the contrary, if it wasn't for the material beneath the surface, the Earth's surface itself would be falling downward toward the center of the Earth too.

Here you are starting a Science sub-forum and you don't even understand the basics of modern science.

You better get that squared away first.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Nilloc James
Site Supporter
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Canada

Post #15

Post by Nilloc James »

Just a few things:

Makig predictions is part of the falsification process - if a theory makes impressive predictions then it can be tested (but maybe not at the moment)

Im not sure if the ops coclusion that science is no longer concerned with falsification is the best conclusion. I think it is a good argument against calling the listed hypothesis hypothesis. They may be interesting guesses but they are not behaving like hypothesis should (making testable predictions).

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #16

Post by Divine Insight »

Nilloc James wrote: Just a few things:

Makig predictions is part of the falsification process - if a theory makes impressive predictions then it can be tested (but maybe not at the moment)

Im not sure if the ops coclusion that science is no longer concerned with falsification is the best conclusion. I think it is a good argument against calling the listed hypothesis hypothesis. They may be interesting guesses but they are not behaving like hypothesis should (making testable predictions).
I agree with what you say here.

But then we still have many scientists using scientific grants to investigate non-scientific hypotheses in the name of science. ;)

I don't personally have a problem with this actually. As I realize they have reasons for making their guesses.

But at the same time, I think it almost becomes a two-faced sword when used to dismiss other philosophical ideas as having "No scientific credibility" simply because they don't offer an immediate way that they could be falsified using known science and technology.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Nilloc James
Site Supporter
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Canada

Post #17

Post by Nilloc James »

Divine Insight wrote:
Nilloc James wrote: Just a few things:

Makig predictions is part of the falsification process - if a theory makes impressive predictions then it can be tested (but maybe not at the moment)

Im not sure if the ops coclusion that science is no longer concerned with falsification is the best conclusion. I think it is a good argument against calling the listed hypothesis hypothesis. They may be interesting guesses but they are not behaving like hypothesis should (making testable predictions).
I agree with what you say here.

But then we still have many scientists using scientific grants to investigate non-scientific hypotheses in the name of science. ;)

I don't personally have a problem with this actually. As I realize they have reasons for making their guesses.

But at the same time, I think it almost becomes a two-faced sword when used to dismiss other philosophical ideas as having "No scientific credibility" simply because they don't offer an immediate way that they could be falsified using known science and technology.
There is a purpose to thought experiments and coming up with ideas: they expand what we can test later.

Funding people to generate ideas does contribute to the overall advance of science.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #18

Post by Divine Insight »

Nilloc James wrote: There is a purpose to thought experiments and coming up with ideas: they expand what we can test later.

Funding people to generate ideas does contribute to the overall advance of science.
I agree.

I also feel that it's a far better way to spend money than on things like say wars, or religious proselyting campaigns. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply