Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification"

Originally posted by robbie carrobienot science
Lol if its been falsified then it must be a valid scientific theory according to Popper. Me thinks you don't really understand the term falsify.

I think the problem lies in the difference between "falsify" and "falsifiable".

Obviously if there is reliable scientific evidence that evolution theory is falsified, then this same evidence has proven that it is falsifiable.

This pits the two anti-evolutionists into opposing camps: those who say evolution theory is unfalsifiable and therefor not a scientific theory (in Popperian terms) versus those who say it has been falsified and is therefore is not accurate science (in whichever way it was found wanting).

How can something that is falsified be unfalsifiable?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol if its been falsified then it must be a valid scientific theory according to Popper. Me thinks you don't really understand the term falsify.

I finally decided to look at the video to see it you were really representing the view of this guy named Popper correctly. He does seem to be saying that a theory that is scientific must be testable, refutable, and falsifiable.

But if such a theory is refuted or falsified, then it is a false theory. And for a theory to be true, it can't be refuted or falsified or else it is a false theory. So I believe he actually means that the ability to test the theory for truth is the important thing in determining if it is scientific.

As I said before, the theory of evolution has been refuted and falsified in many ways, especially with DNA. So even though it might be a scientific theory, according to Popper, it turns out it is a false theory. 😏

The Near Genius

Originally posted by JS357
I think the problem lies in the difference between "falsify" and "falsifiable".

Obviously if there is reliable scientific evidence that evolution theory is falsif[b]ied, then this same evidence has proven that it is falsifiable.

This pits the two anti-evolutionists into opposing camps: those who say evolution theory is unfalsifiable and theref ...[text shortened]... in whichever way it was found wanting).

How can something that is falsified be unfalsifiable?[/b]

Yes, the way i view it is in terms of a chess variation. We may have two or three plausible moves. We can subject them to analysis and by applying logic discern which may be beneficial or detrimental. If one of the variations leads to us suffering detriment then in Popperian terms we have falsified our theory and we are free to treat our other variations as legitimate theories.

The problem that I seem to have with evolution is that it is treated very much like Freud's or Adler's theories in that it seeks to be an explanation for all kinds of phenomena. Thus if you ask the evolutionist why we have a sense of justice and a conscience then they will point us in the direction of the animal kingdom and the cooperation that exists between certain species, like ants by way of example. This they use as a basis for attempting to explain why humans are endowed with the faculty of conscience. Now what is happening is the same thing that Popper himself alludes to in the case of theories that appear to be scientific but are in fact myth or pseudoscience, not because they are true or untrue but because there is no real way to test them empirically.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I finally decided to look at the video to see it you were really representing the view of this guy named Popper correctly. He does seem to be saying that a theory that is scientific must be testable, refutable, and falsifiable.

But if such a theory is refuted or falsified, then it is a false theory. And for a theory to be true, it can't be refuted or fa ...[text shortened]... scientific theory, according to Popper, it turns out it is a false theory. 😏

The Near Genius

The issue is not one of truth or falsehood, the issue is one subjecting a theory to falsification to determine its legitimacy or otherwise as a theory. Think of it like a chess game where you look at a variation that hangs your queen and leads to a losing position, you now know that that line is wrong and you are free to pursue some other variation as legitimate. If you have no way of doing this or that every line you look at seems to be legitimate then you cannot say with any certainty whether your chess theory is a valid theory or not. It may be but it may also be myth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztmvtKLuR7I&feature=youtu.be

Is the theory of evolution falsifiable?

My answer is a seven folded: yes. Let's do this.

-----------------

1. It is easy to obtain confirmation, or verification, for nearly any theory, if we look for confirmations.

True. It's called confirmation bias, and it's something that the scientific method (specifically the formulation of falsifiable theories, and the ruthless process of peer-reviewing), is there to help us with.

2. Confirmations should count only if they're part of risky predictions. That is to say, if unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory, an event which would have refuted the theory.

There are many examples of such possibilities in the theory of evolution. For instance, had we found that every species of life had a completely unique 100% used genome, that would have clearly refuted evolution.

Another example would be if we had found fossils that are out of place, and where the time-scale is too short for evolution to explain them.

A third example would be if there was little to no genetic variability within species, since evolution obviously require variation to work.

A fourth example would be if we had not found that DNA mutates frequently, to produce such variability (in humans, for instance, there are between 100-150 point mutations in every single individual).

The list of possible refutations is simply too long for a single post.

3. Every good scientific theory is a prohibition. It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

The theory of evolution forbids that members of one species should spawn a member of a completely different species (no monkey ever gave birth to a human).

It forbids perfection. Every single feature, in every single species, must be understood as adaptations of earlier features. If we find structures that are perfectly suited for a given use, and can't be understood as adaptations from earlier systems, evolutionary theory is in trouble.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event, is non-scientific. Irrefutibility is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

Say hello to intelligent design. Whatever we find, it can be thought of as designed that way by an intelligence. If it appears to be a crappy design, it's only because the designer stopped maintenance.

Evolutionary theory on the other hand, could not explain away a perfect design, one that never fails the organism.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testibility is falsfiability. But there are degrees of testibility. Some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation than others. They take, as it were, greater risks.

True. Usually, the simpler a phenomenon that the theory explains, the bigger the risks. We often think of the theory of evolution as a theory, when it is in fact an umbrella theory. It's very simple in that it predicts that all life on the planet should have evolved from a common ancestor. To understand how, we come up with all these other hypotheses, each one testable in their own ways, but the survival of the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily hinge on one or a few such hypotheses failing. In fact, sometimes there are competing hypotheses, where only one of them could survive in the end. None the less, the theory of evolution itself hinges on nothing in the natural world contradicting common biological descent. That's risk for you.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory, and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence" ).

Almost every branch of science has made discoveries, independantly of each other, that supports the theory of evolution. One of the best examples of corrobarating evidence is the fact that whether you construct a tree of life from biogeography, genetics (commonalities on one hand and ERV evidence on the other), or the fossil record, the trees overlap, i.e. we get the same tree even though we use data from wildly different sciences.

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers, for example by introducing ad hoc some auxilliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering its' scientific status.

Agreed.

---------

So, is evolutionary theory falsifiable?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So I believe he actually means that the ability to test the theory for truth is the important thing in determining if it is scientific.

No, you obviously didn't pay attention. A theory that can't be proven wrong can easily fall victim to confirmation bias. As Popper says, it's easy to find confirmations for any theory. For a theory to be considered scientific it must be possible to prove it wrong. In other words, there are events we would not expect to observe if the theory is good, and if we none the less observe such events in nature, then the theory has been successfully refuted, and should be discarded.

Originally posted by C Hess
My answer is a seven folded: yes. Let's do this.

-----------------

1. It is easy to obtain confirmation, or verification, for nearly any theory, if we look for confirmations.

True. It's called confirmation bias, and it's something that the scientific method (specifically the formulation of falsifiable theories, and the ruthless process of peer ...[text shortened]...

---------

So, is evolutionary theory falsifiable?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

number seven fails,

the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transformation from one genus to another and entire species (vertebrates by way of example) appear without precedent. In order to take care of this the theory of punctuated equilibrium was postulated in an attempt to take care of this phenomena. The theory of evolution then fails on the seventh point because an ad hoc auxiliary assumption has been introduced in such a way that the theory escapes refutation (in this instance by the empirical evidence of the fossil record)

Sorry its a fail Meester Hess

Originally posted by C Hess
No, you obviously didn't pay attention. A theory that can't be proven wrong can easily fall victim to confirmation bias. As Popper says, it's easy to find confirmations for any theory. For a theory to be considered scientific it must be possible to prove it wrong. In other words, there are events we would not expect to observe if the theory is good, and if we ...[text shortened]... e such events in nature, then the theory has been successfully refuted, and should be discarded.

As I have said before, the theory of evolution has been proven wrong in many ways. The latest of these is the DNA code that could not possibly be a result of evolution. 😏

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is the theory of evolution falsifiable?

Yes. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
number seven fails,

the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transformation from one genus to another and entire species (vertebrates by way of example) appear without precedent. In order to take care of this the theory of punctuated equilibrium was postulated in an attempt to take care of this phenomena. The theory of evolution then fai ...[text shortened]... n this instance by the empirical evidence of the fossil record)

Sorry its a fail Meester Hess

Not just one, but many gradual changes are demonstrated in the fossil record, moving from one species to one or more others. That the entire evolution of life is not captured by the fossil record is to be expected given the rarity of fossilisation events. The fact that evolutionary development in history appears unevenly distributed (which lead to the theory of punctuated equilibrium), doesn't negate corrobarating evidence of evolution from other scientific branches, such as the aforementioned fields of biogeography and genetics. Punctuated equilibrium is not an ad hoc explanation to explain away evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, but an attempt at explaining why we don't see an evenly distributed change in species over time. None of the punctuation events in history is really anything like an explosion in the sense of speed (we're talking really vast stretches of time involving many generations), but an explosion in the speciation sense. It is not in fact true that all modern forms of life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, as creationist apologetics would have us believe. Rather, we see a gradual build up, and then diversification events from there (as a result of changing living conditions or new useful adaptations that allows new ecological niches to be filled), followed by even more vast stretches of time with little change in species. But nowhere in the fossil record do we see change happening so fast it can't be understood as an evolutionary event, though hypothetically such an example could be found.

By the way, what's a "meester"? I've never seen that word before. 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
i.e. we get the same tree even though we use data from wildly different sciences.

My bad, every scientific branch adds to our knowledge, but where they intersect, they match.

Originally posted by C Hess
Not just one, but many gradual changes are demonstrated in the fossil record, moving from one species to one or more others. That the entire evolution of life is not captured by the fossil record is to be expected given the rarity of fossilisation events. The fact that evolutionary development in history appears unevenly distributed (which lead to the theory ...[text shortened]... example could be found.

By the way, what's a "meester"? I've never seen that word before. 😕

Its an ad hoc amendment to the theory Meester Hess and fails therefore on point seven of Poppers philosophy of scientific falsification. I have no need of explanations of why punctuated equilibrium was introduced, it does not matter, the fact that it needed to be introduced to save the theory from refutation is the point of interest. The theory of evolution fails on the seventh point (introducing an ad hoc auxiliary assumption or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation) and probably others as well.

Meester is my russian accent, as in very interesting Meester Bond.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its an ad hoc amendment to the theory Meester Hess and fails therefore on point seven of Poppers philosophy of scientific falsification. I have no need of explanations of why punctuated equilibrium was introduced, it does not matter, the fact that it needed to be introduced to save the theory from refutation is the point of interest. The theory of ...[text shortened]... probably others as well.

Meester is my russian accent, as in very interesting Meester Bond.

Had we found fossils that directly contradict evolution, so that we would have to change the core idea itself, then you could claim that the theory is ad hoc. In this case, the theory is not challenged by uneven speciation events, so punctuated equilibrium is not an ad hoc to try and save the theory of evolution, but a testable in its own right hypothesis to better understand the underlying mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is amply demonstrated through the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, medicinal sciences and more. Your attempt to spin it can only ever work on weaker, less informed minds.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its an ad hoc amendment to the theory Meester Hess and fails therefore on point seven of Poppers philosophy of scientific falsification. I have no need of explanations of why punctuated equilibrium was introduced, it does not matter, the fact that it needed to be introduced to save the theory from refutation is the point of interest. The theory of ...[text shortened]... probably others as well.

Meester is my russian accent, as in very interesting Meester Bond.

I thought that was German for master.

Originally posted by C Hess
Had we found fossils that directly contradict evolution, so that we would have to change the core idea itself, then you could claim that the theory is ad hoc. In this case, the theory is not challenged by uneven speciation events, so punctuated equilibrium is not an ad hoc to try and save the theory of evolution, but a testable in its own right hypothe ...[text shortened]... al sciences and more. Your attempt to spin it can only ever work on weaker, less informed minds.

Damn your logic! 😀