Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Londoner's answers to these questions are as good as I can come up with, but I'd thought I'd throw on my spin.
ken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:04 am
Why are they called falsification tests
A valid hypothesis will predict something different that some alternative model. The thing in question is tested, and the model that makes the worse prediction is falsified, which is not death for it, but demonstration that it needs improvement. With some competing models, one might predict the outcome of X better, but the competing model predicts the outcome of test Y better. Both models are off then, but perhaps they're the best we have at a time. The parts where predictions match is closer to the 'verified' list.
Why not instead just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS
That's what they do.
Trying to perform a falsification test or a verifiable test means that there is already a preconceived outcome
No. The method of measuring results is designed to eliminate biased results.
But what about the unconscious biases, or even the sub-conscious biases?
If people are not even yet aware of their own biases, then they can not very well eliminate them.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Double-blind tests are a great example of this. Bias is recognized and the double-blind procedure eliminates it.
But confirmation biases will eliminate that which disposes of what it is that is wanted to be confirmed. This can happen sub-consciously and unconsciously.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmWhat do you mean by; Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed 'invalid'?
A model that makes no predictions is useless to science which is about making accurate predictions.
So, if a model predicts that a traveler will take longer to travel over any distance, in any frame, than what the speed of light could travel, then is that useful to science?
Is science only about making accurate predictions?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Science is not in the business of discovering what actually is, however much they might phrase their findings that way.
So, what is science in the business of actually?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmIf hypotheses (some thing) are not subject to potential falsification, then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses (or some thing) invalid? Or, could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification also just mean that that thing could be just what IS, or an unambiguous fact, which may not be disputable, instead?
Your wording implies that an invalid hypothesis must be wrong.
There was NO intention at all in My wording to imply that an invalid hypothesis must be wrong.
My wording was just a question only, asking for clarification. My wording was NOT implying any thing at all.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Not so. It is invalid as a hypothesis is all. It may very well describe what is.
Okay.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm What IS, has nothing to do with science.
Thank you for being honest.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm What do you mean by 'unambiguous'?
Not open to more than one interpretation.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm If you mean it cannot be questioned, then all hypotheses are ambiguous since they question things.
That is not what I mean.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm If you mean it is what actually is,
That is not what I mean.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmthen science doesn't concern itself with what cannot be known.
Are you saying
what actually is can not be known?
If not, then what are you saying here?
What are you suggesting 'can not be known', which you say science does not concern itself with?
Also, the way 'science' (or the scientific method) is said to be conducted science is more concerned about and in relation to
what IS falsifiable rather than
what IS verifiable, which is a bit like getting rid of the unknowns until only
what IS known is left.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmWhat if flat-Earth is actually true?
Then a flat earth is actually true, obviously.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm I can make a case for it by stepping outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and propose a solipsistic view of what actually is.
Will you give us an example of this?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm No test can falsify that, but no prediction is made. It is a valid interpretation, but an invalid hypothesis.
Until we see your example we do NOT know if it is a valid interpretation or not. We also do NOT know if it is an invalid hypothesis or not. Neither do we know if there is a test or not that can falsify "your example." And, if you do NOT make a prediction then yes no prediction is made.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmThrough scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?
You're asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'?
Sort of, but I am more asking could some thing ever be just an accurate model of
what actually IS?
I am, more or less, asking if human beings can ever move past just hypothesis? If so, when is that, and, what do they call that 'thing', which explains
what actually IS the case instead of just being a model of
what actually IS the case.
For example if a model is conceived and all of its hypothesized predictions are found to be 100% accurate, then what do we call 'that'? What is the name for that 'thing' which is found to be a 100% accurate description of
what IS actually true and real?
When, and if, ALL the conceptualized model's false predictions are found and eliminated and there is just ONE combined left, which forms one whole completely accurate picture of, let us say, Life, Itself, or ALL-THERE-IS, or
what IS, then what is the name for that 'model'.
Or in other words, when some of the predictions of one model are falsified, and what is left are predictions, or newly found information, which have been demonstrated by 'empirical data', then what is the name of 'that thing'?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm This seems to be the crux of this attitude you're taking.
Again, you have jumped to a WRONG conclusion about the "crux of the attitude I am taking". If you stop assuming things and/or stop making assumptions, then you will also stop jumping to wrong conclusions.
I am just asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified' BECAUSE ALL the previous predictions from other models have been falsified, and what is left is a model that has already had ALL predictions demonstrably shown to be accurate with empirical data?
If that is possible, then when there is a model where ALL of its prediction have been demonstrably shown to be accurate, then I just want to now know what will that "model" be called?
If that model does not make any new predictions, because on a whole-istic level ALL the predictions have already been shown to be accurate enough, then obviously that model could not be called a hypothesis, so what is, or will be, the name given to 'that model'?
The reason 'that model' could not be falsified is because it is already an accurate description of
what IS.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Is it possible that Earth will ever be
demonstrably flat, and we're all sheep for believing the round model?
Are you actually asking that as a real and true question posed for answer?
That question appears to Me as though you are not really looking for an answer at all, because you already have the answer, is this correct?
If not, your beliefs show otherwise.
My answer to the first part of your question is yes, and, My answer to the second part of your question is 'sheep are sheep', which are NOT human beings who believe in things. Human beings who believe the round model, or in fact believe any thing at all, are NOT sheep. Human beings who believe things are just non-open human beings.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Are we closed minded for actually accepting that, or just stubbornly remaining sufficiently ignorant of the evidence that you consider it a viable possibility?
Your assumptions really do lead you so far off what is the real and accurate truth that you are completely missing the mark and missing the point.
To Me;
There is NO such thing as closed minded.
You are NOT closed for accepting a spherical earth.
The second part of what you wrote is NOT what I observe at all.
In fact, if we were to look at this fully, and in depth, I think what will be found IS, it is;
You who believes that I am "closed minded" for actually accepting some thing which you do NOT and will NOT accept.
You who believes that I am stubbornly sufficiently ignorant of some evidence, which you also consider makes Me consider, what you say is true, not viably possible.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmThis seems to be the point you've been taking against us, but correct me if I'm wrong.
You are so far wrong. From your first point here to your last point here.
Stating that, I am asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'?, but disguised with a question mark.
1. I was NOT asking that at all. I was actually asking;
Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?
The conclusions you have wrong jumped to of Me, which are based on the actual assumptions that you, your self, make up, being completely wrong in the first place.
2. What you presume was the crux of the attitude I was supposedly taking was wrong. The actual essence of what I am doing is finding out, through simple open clarifying questions, if you think or believe if a model, statement, description (whatever, some thing) could ever be made from or through scientific methods in which it was accurate enough that it could become not a subject to or of potential falsification?
The third one was just a question you asked, so I can not really correct a question you ask. But I can, however, point out, which I have already, that your question was not really asked from an open clarifying point of vision but rather from your already sustained beliefs instead.
The fourth was also just a question you asked, and I have already shown how I see that as more of just a projection of you, thinking that I would view things the same way as you do.
The point you seem to think that I am taking against 'you',
us has been corrected. I have already explained many times the best way and HOW you can gain a clear and accurate view of the point/s I make.
By the way, who are the 'us' that you refer to here?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmIn other words could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, ever be found, realized, and known through scientific method?
Why would an absolute fact be beyond dispute?
Why would you even think or assume that, based on what I have actually written here?
1. I never said 'absolute', although without clarification I do not see it really matters anyway. However,
2. There is NO thing beyond dispute. I used the words " 'can not' be disputed" in a certain context. I NEVER said any thing about being "beyond dispute".
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Anybody is free to dispute.
Agreed.
Does any body, would any body, disagree that any body is free to dispute?
I hope the contradiction is almost instantly noticed.
Could any person dispute, that they are free to dispute?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Can it be known through the scientific method? Not all of the facts, no.
Finally. That, or a 'yes' was the answer I was looking for, or a clarifying question.
Are you talking about 'all of the facts' of absolutely every thing?
Because I was talking about the actual Truth, which as I have already explained are those things that we ALL accept and agree with.
Knowing all of the facts of all things, would be about as impossible as possibly could be.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm The more we progress, the more things become matters of interpretation.
Is that THE Truth or just 'your' interpretation of things?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm It should be the other way around if we're expected to approach some kind of actual truth.
And, are you saying it is not the other way around?
Is that your interpretation or the actual truth?
Hopefully this contradiction here is also noticed just as quickly?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmOr, does every thing, which is a part of a scientific method, always remain a fundamental component and therefore there will always be potential for falsification?
You (or somebody) brought up Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. as a line of people who've been falsified. They haven't.
If I recall correctly it was not I who brought that up.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm All of them proposed things that are still taught as fact (not just history) today.
Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
Or just a fact, which may or may not be true?
What kind of "fact" are those proposed things taught as?
Absolute facts, real and/or true facts, or some thing else?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Their models grow more unfalsifiable over time, but each of them was incomplete.
So if and when new models are proposed which grow more unfalsifiable over time also, is it possible that eventually there will be just one unfalsifiable model that is actually complete? Or, is that impossible?
Seems to be if models are growing more unfalsifiable over time that there might be a time when models "out grow" themselves?
That time might be when human beings STOP just making up predictions and models of what they THINK things are like, and instead just look at and observer
what actually IS.
But who am I to be listened to?
In this thread 'I' am just a troll that understands nothing.
By the way, that making up models, hypothesis's, and predictions and waiting to do tests, experiments to find so called "empirical data", which supposedly falsifies and/or verifies things is one way of doing things, but it is a very clumsy, complicated, slow, and open to being conflicted and contaminated with and by biases or there is another, much simpler, quicker, and easier way to find the Truth of things. But again, 'I' am certainly NOT worthy of being listened to, correct?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm Einstein and relativity is like that.
Of course the so called "relativity" is incomplete. That is already very obvious. I do NOT think einstein is or was incomplete though.
Where "relativity" is incomplete and where and how to make it complete, WITH others, is also already very obvious.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm It will be tweaked and improved, but the chance of a non-relativistic model replacing all of these is about as likely as one where Earth is flat.
That is the way, stay as closed as you possibly can. I am sure you agree that being closed as much as you can, and not being open at all, is the better way to discover and obtain new and further knowledge of things, correct?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmIn other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
Outside science I guess.
What do you mean outside of science?
What is outside of science?
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm It doesn't become true or real because it always was.
Are you suggesting that what is true and/or real was NOT always true and/or real?
If yes, then when do things become true and/or real?
If no, then what do you mean here?
I would have thought if some thing 'it' was always true and/or real, then that would give more support to 'it' being actually true and/or real.
Noax wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pmBut just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified.
If and when it becomes 'verified' does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method or does it progress further and past the scientific method?
There is no verifying a hypothesis. There isn't a way to do that.
Okay. I accept that that that is what you believe is true.