1. OBSERVE some apsect of the universe.
2. INVENT a theory (interpretation) that is consistant w/ what was observed.
3. Use the theory to make a PREDICTion/s.
4. TEST the prediction/s via experiments or further observations.
5. MODIFY the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.
7. Get peer review (others must be able to repeat and scrutinise the Theory and Predictions).

An Important characteristic of a scientific theory: it must be falsifiable. That means there must be some experiment, or some discovery that could prove a theory untrue. Therefore, scienctific method is not about validating a theory, but trying its hardest to invalidate a scientific theory.

Consider an example. Bob says "There is a race of purple winged firebreathing invisable unicorns living on Mars."
Is this falsifiable? Well, to figure this out I ask Bob:
"Where is it at this moment Bob, show me?"
Bob directs me to a telescope and directs it on Mars.
I say "I don't see it Bob."
He says, "Of course not, it is invisable."
I ask, "Does it leave footprints?" Bob says "No, it doesn't walk on Mars, it only flys."
I say, "Bob, you said it is firebreathing, I don't see any fire on Mars. I will use infrared sensors to detect the fire."
Bob says "The fire is not heated, so infrared sensors won't detect the fire."
"Bob, if the unicorn is invisable, how does its wings reflect purple wavelengths of light?"
"Oh, just 'cause its invisable doesn't mean it can't reflect light. After all, purple is one of the hardest colours for the human eye to detect."

etc etc

Every possible test I submit for Bob's beast is countered by a special explaination as to why the test will not work. Bob's claims are immune to examination, testing, verfification. His claims are unfalsifiable, not testable. Bob's posit is not a scientific theory.

The scientific inquiry ends here for now, and I suspend judgement on whether Bob's beast exists or not. Present evidence or tests don't prove or disprove the existance of Bob's beast.

What other posits are not falsifiable?

"God exists" "There is an Easter Bunny." "There is a Father Christmas." "There is a hell." "Humans have a soul."

Science suspends judgment on these posits, as there are no tests to prove or disprove any of the posits. Science moves on to test other theories.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

"There is a hell."

---

Quite true. It's called Room L/007, where they lecture on Postmodern Theory.

quote:

---

"Humans have a soul."

---

quote:

---

astrology is not falsifiable

---

I blieve it is by the simple fact that the universe is constantly expanding.

If indeed the 'stars' have an effect based on when we were born, given the expansion of the universe, the effect of the stars has to be different for people born even seconds apart, much less years apart.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seiltänzer:
I'm not sure if it's false yet. Does the lack of a soul in one person mean no human has a soul?

---

thats not what Mandos meant. Read the origional post re: whether a posit is falsifiable or non-falsifiable.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

The posit "Humans have a soul" is surely false if I can prove one human does not have a soul. The posit should then become "Humans may have a soul".

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
Note: there is no such thing as "the scientific method". What is "scientific method"? While not written in stone, briefly:

1. OBSERVE some apsect of the universe.
2. INVENT a theory (interpretation) that is consistant w/ what was observed.
3. Use the theory to make a PREDICTion/s.
4. TEST the prediction/s via experiments or further observations.
5. MODIFY the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.
7. Get peer review (others must be able to repeat and scrutinise the Theory and Predictions).

An Important characteristic of a scientific theory: it must be falsifiable. That means there must be some experiment, or some discovery that could prove a theory untrue. Therefore, scienctific method is not about validating a theory, but trying its hardest to invalidate a scientific theory.

Consider an example. Bob says "There is a race of purple winged firebreathing invisable unicorns living on Mars."
Is this falsifiable? Well, to figure this out I ask Bob:
"Where is it at this moment Bob, show me?"
Bob directs me to a telescope and directs it on Mars.
I say "I don't see it Bob."
He says, "Of course not, it is invisable."
I ask, "Does it leave footprints?" Bob says "No, it doesn't walk on Mars, it only flys."
I say, "Bob, you said it is firebreathing, I don't see any fire on Mars. I will use infrared sensors to detect the fire."
Bob says "The fire is not heated, so infrared sensors won't detect the fire."
"Bob, if the unicorn is invisable, how does its wings reflect purple wavelengths of light?"
"Oh, just 'cause its invisable doesn't mean it can't reflect light. After all, purple is one of the hardest colours for the human eye to detect."

etc etc

Every possible test I submit for Bob's beast is countered by a special explaination as to why the test will not work. Bob's claims are immune to examination, testing, verfification. His claims are unfalsifiable, not testable. Bob's posit is not a scientific theory.

The scientific inquiry ends here for now, and I suspend judgement on whether Bob's beast exists or not. Present evidence or tests don't prove or disprove the existance of Bob's beast.

What other posits are not falsifiable?

"God exists" "There is an Easter Bunny." "There is a Father Christmas." "There is a hell." "Humans have a soul."

Science suspends judgment on these posits, as there are no tests to prove or disprove any of the posits. Science moves on to test other theories.

[ 27 February 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seiltänzer:
I'm not sure if it's false yet. Does the lack of a soul in one person mean no human has a soul?

---

Good question. The answer is no, if you describe 'soul' as a part or appendage of the human, and yes, if all humans must not noramlly have them to be human. Does this mean that those humans that have a soul are not human? Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:

And artificiating an unfalsifiable theoretical example is not a true condition of human consciousness preobjectification of human to market product, but it is now. The marketability of those theories is probably co-efficient with the specific consumer cognitive level. But does this mean that those who pursue the truth in the material properties and it's marketability are really concerned with the falsifiability of a theory more than its market value? I think not.

---

quote:

---

]First, it is not a critism. Second, there is a difference in theorizing for unfalsifiable theory in this context and theorizing of man before such theories and man himself become an object of value for the market, rather than an end in himself as member for a society. The remainder posits the question of ethics in the development and marketing of intellectual property: Do they care for results of correct theory only in relation to market value, nothing more?...Posited that way, I now think yes, nothing more. And of unfalsifiable theory? Yes, they see a market value for that inclusive.

---

And ditto. Leftright, stop hiding behind a wall of impenetrable gobbledygook!

Paraphrasing George Orwell: one of the advantages of writing clearly is that it is easier to figure if you're saying something stupid.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Some of those steps may be even missing. Sometimes the theory comes before the observation (as with present day string theory, for instance).

---

One of the weasely ways creationists have clouded the debating floor is to assert that Evolution is "only a theory", trusting on the general public's understanding of this word to mean "hypothesis".

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:

And of course the theory of relativity...

---

And it was Einstein that came up with a "falsifiable" test for relativity. Observe stars with a close angular distance from the sun during a total solar eclipse and see if their apparent location has been altered by the stars' photons passing close to the Sun's gravity well. If there is no deflection, the theory os false.

In 1919 Arthur Eddington, using a telescope set up on the then Portuguese island of Principe was able to determine that light deflection had occurred in the amount predicted by Einstein's theory. This observation was repeated at subsequent solar eclipses verifying the first results. Eddington's observations would make Einstein a household word.

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:

And ditto. Leftright, stop hiding behind a wall of impenetrable gobbledygook!

Paraphrasing George Orwell: one of the advantages of writing clearly is that it is easier to figure if you're saying something stupid.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:

Is that a falsifiable theory Surferosad?

---

Well, observation has clearly shown that you have trouble writing without using language that would give an headache to a federal bureaucrat.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:

Well, observation has clearly shown that you have trouble writing without recurring to language that would give an headache to a federal bureaucrat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
Oh, and by the way, I think that the scientific method doesn't necessarily have to follow a fixed set of rules. Although all the steps on that list are important in ultimately producing a scientific theory that holds water, it is not necessary that those steps be followed in order. Some of those steps may be even missing. Sometimes the theory comes before the observation (as with present day string theory, for instance).

---

Correct, a scientific process can vary from context to context... and the process can be a source of error in and of itself, so the process used in each context needs to come under scrutiny. There are many characteristics that I did not explain, e.g. double blind tests, or the characteristic so eloquently stated by Stephen. J Gould quoted by Bobolink.

I posted the origional post because it appeared that some people were not comprehending how a theory is deemed not falsifiable (not testable/ not observable) , therefore, not a scientific theory.

I had a concern:

It appears that some people confuse "not falsifiable" with "proving a theory false". (A case in point is demonstrated above).
That is not the case in a scientific process. It appears some people interpret a statement like "[this posit] in not falsifaible" as a value judgement or a condemnation of a posit. This is not the case. Science suspends judgement, and moves on to examine other posits.

There are many posits that are beyond science's capability of testing: e.g. "Michael D'Angelo's paintings are unparalled masterpieces." This posit is not testable (not falsifiable) via a scientific method, therefore not a scientific theory. However, the posit could be examined by artists, art critics, and art students. The posit does not become true or false because it is not a scientific theory, but the posit may be supported via other criteria, qualities, or values which I have no authority to speculate on.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Let's not confuse the words hypothesis and theory. Theory........gack....in science is an explanation of....why something is the way it is. It is not a "Law" nor will it transform into a "law" if enough evidence accumulates. Evolution and Relativity, for example, will always be Theories. That doesn't mean they are "guesses"-- far from it.

One of the weasely ways creationists have clouded the debating floor is to assert that Evolution is "only a theory", trusting on the general public's understanding of this word to mean "hypothesis".

If anyone wants to correct my deffinition of "theory" feel free. I'm going by memory, and I'm a bit rusty.

---

The difference between a fact a theory and an hypothesis can be a whole other debate... I think you have explained the differences quite well.

In popular use, theory = vague and fuzzy fact. To a scientist it is a framework that explains existing facts and predicts new ones.

Confusion may occur because fact and theory are interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, for e.g., is considered a fact that can be explained by Newton's theory of gravity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:

And it was Einstein that came up with a "falsifiable" test for relativity. Observe stars with a close angular distance from the sun during a total solar eclipse and see if their apparent location has been altered by the stars' photons passing close to the Sun's gravity well. If there is no deflection, the theory os false.

---

Right. Einstein's Theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of the tests. The tests could have produced contradictory results, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]