- John Edser
- Sydney
- Australia

This conversation is closed.

## Falsifiability

Today's era is Post Modern. This means that a frame of refernce is not necessarily required or if one is employed it can be changed mid argument. IOW, today it appears valid to move your goal posts to kick a goal removing falsifiability from most arguments, even within the sciences. Mathematically this means that a defined constant to which all the variables within a theory must remain dependent is no longer required reducing Post Modern science to nothing more than reversible (tautological) mathematics. It was Galileo who proposed that only comparing variables without a constant to act as a falsifiable frame of reference prohibits any meaningful concept of cause and effect. We cannot tell if the sun goes around the earth or vice versa without a valid, i.e. constant frame of reference which of course, cannot change except via falsification allowing the evolution of a new theory contradictory to the old one. For example, Einstein's c, which Newton thought was just a variable was shown to be a constant reducing M and T (mass and time) to just variables within Special Relativity. Likewise, Darwin reduced species to evolving variables allowing a combination of survival and reproduction to be maximized providing a new falsifiable frame of reference for the biological sciences in contradiction to religious dogma.

In a world overburdened by massive debt, a science of climate change entirely dependent on mathematical modeling, theory within the physical sciences dominated by non falsifiable infinities and a Neo Darwinism that cannot be empirically falsified only non verified, I ask: what is your FALSIFIABLE frame of reference?

## John Edser

Yet again I cannot reply directly to your most recent posting so I will quote in within my text:

"My falsifiable frame of reference in this example: "all swans are white" is:

- An axiom (one of them by experience) that, there is white color (to be more specific) of something (should be >asserted), feathers, legs, or skin of swan = An axiom version of any possible falsifiable frame of reference = (IN ESSENCE) a complete (informative & consistent) version of any falsifiable frame of reference. In this case, a complete version (informative & consistent) of "white"."

JE:-

My point: nobody can claim to know if a definition of "white" is "complete" BEFORE we test it empirically via NON reversibly linking each contesting definition to a subject e.g. "swan". All we can do is make an INDUCTIVE assumption (just a guess) of what we think a complete definition of white is and then go ahead and test this against nature. While contesting definitions of white cannot be falsified (because they are only tautological) irreversibly linking each to a subject makes each exclusive predicate minimally testable via each reverse contradiction: all white (things) are swans. This is easily empirically falsified bringing us back to our original definition of white. IOW, any search for absolute truth falls; all we can possibly do is provide many testable (constant) frames of reference and proceed to test them. In this case they are different definitions of white which must freely compete such that only NATURE is the final judge. In this way contesting but entirely falsifiable frames of reference evolve to better ones.

> Without a complete falsifiable frame of reference (informative & consistent), we are not pointing to anywhere.

JE:- "Sufficient", not "complete".

> ...(in my opinion) "all swan are white" is not a complete (informative & consistent) statement.

JE:-

It is SUFFICIENT to falsify the predicate which acts as the frame of reference so it is sufficiently complete

## Bernard Seremonia

I am going to make summaries:

FFR = Falsifiable frame of reference

MRU = informative with Minimum Requirement for Understanding & consistent (TO MAKE CLEAR DISTINCTION FOR BETTER COMPARISON)

1. It doesn't mean "white" should be within complete definition. As i already mentioned, there isn't way we could make complete definition. "A complete version" as i told you, it should be informative (it has MRU)

2. An example:

People 1: all humans are THINKER (FFR) = H -> T

People 2: human is FOLLOWER = H then not -> T ?

People 3: "what? should it be like this, that follower are thinker? or what?

Above example, there is no MRU in FFR, generally. Since we don't have clear distinction of "think" compared to "follower". BUT IF THERE IS, THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED.

3. I am not criticizing "all swans are white". But i just made an additional assertions to this forum, that:

- Someday we could deal with FFR without MRU (generally), while we are making a conversation.

- And if someday we deal with this issue (for example: "thinker" as FFR without MRU) while making conversations, we could accept an alternate method to fulfill FFR with MRU

- one of the methods to give FFR with MRU, is by converting (redefine) an FFR as an axiom (ONLY IF WE CONSIDER IT HAS POSSIBILITY). Axiom has MRU, and again it could be considered consistent.

- I gave transitional explanation, how axiom could be adopted into the structure of falsifiability as FFR with MRU

The points are:

- There is an issue, (FFR without MRU)

- I proposed examples of axiom as FFR

- I gave transitional explanation, how to adopt axiom as FFR to conduct MRU.

4. Not for all FFR could be converted (defined) to axiom. Once we could convert (define) an FFR as an axiom, I myself, consider this as an FFR with MRU. I proposed this. It's an optional.

5. Falsifiability using axiom as falsifiable frame of reference (by redefine falsifiable frame of reference as an axiom) is possible

Warmest

## John Edser

Completeness is not unlike the problem of induction. Just as nobody can claim to have observed every swan to verify that they are all white, nobody can reasonably claim to provide a complete definition of white. However, both of these problems CAN be solved via an application of the Traditional Square Of Opposition (TSO):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/

The A proposition (all swans are white) is obviously falsified via a verification of the O proposition (some swans are NOT white). No other proposition in the square can possibly falsify A because they have the same predicate. Falsification within the square absolutely requires the same S (swan) to become a valid deduction from a different and therefore contradictory predicate. The only falsification not included is the proper subset reversal of S and P. The fact that the predicate within O is not named does not matter. Allowing it removes both the problem of induction and definitional completeness via natural selection on contesting predicates.

## Bernard Seremonia

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/ A (left above) & O (right below) Yes, i agree with you :)

Thank you

It's great conversations

Warmest

## John Edser

None of your recent posts can be directly replied to (no " reply" link appears in red at the top of any of your recent postings). This being the case, I can only reply using a separate posting. My comments to your most recent communication appear under my initials JE within your text (please write "then" not -> because it is more readable to all).

"x" -> "y" = "x" then "y"

all "x" -> "y" = all "x" then "y"

swan is white = if swan then white = if "x" -> "y" or if "s" -> "w"

JE :

No , it is the reverse: if "white" then "swan" as long as all the other criteria of a swan have been met. This is only because "white" predicates and therefore acts as a falsifiable frame of reference for "swan" which is a deduction from "white" (NOT the reverse). Unlike mathematics, subject and predicate within a proposed non tautology CANNOT be reversed.

there is black swan = if swan then not white = if "x" -> -"y" or if "s" -> - "w" or if "s" ->

JE:

Again you have this in reverse: there is observed a black swan requires as a prerequisite: if "white" then "swan " . The subject (swan) does NOT determine the predicate (white) the predicate determines the subject. Subjects are always a deduction from a predicate. The falsification requires "swan" to be a deduction from a DIFFERENT i.e. entirely contradictory predicate: e.g. "black". Note that the evolution of swans as both white and black was not at all possible until swans were only defined white on however, an entirely falsifiable basis. IOW, without a possible verification/non verification and at least one possible falsification the swan proposition is not reasonable (even if it was logical).

The critical difference between science and mathematics is that only science can provide falsifiable propositions; mathematics can only provide validity/invalidity.

## Bernard Seremonia

Actually, whether it's mathematics or any kind of symbolic structures for logical thinking is quite enough to conduct a reasoning. As i mentioned earliest, that whether we did mathematical reasoning, or scientific, or empirical observation, or spiritual observation, or anything else, eventually it will fall into logical structure, and we will decide logically, whether empirical observation, spiritual observation or anything else is true or not.

Besides, since both of maths & science are the field of knowledge, there shouldn't be a contradiction each other. One shouldn't against each other. We can use one of them to reach the same purpose. And it should be.

May be it's merely because "black swan", black -> swan. But in grammar (as i followed) "black swan" is swan with black of something (swan -> black). Good book, it doesn't mean "good" -> "book" (unless there is exception we assert it), but there is a book then -> good.

There is black swan, it doesn't have to be "there is black" then -> "swan", therefore there shouldn't be "there is white" then -> swan (unless someone asserts as it is, but in this case, it's not me).

That's why i am using notation to avoid misleading:

If your understanding to me : if "black" then "swan", therefore (as you said) if "white" then "swan", then the notation should be like this:

"x" < - > "y" = "x" then -> "y" & "y" then -> "x", ("x" is "sufficient condition" & "necessary condition" for "y").

And I am not using above notation. I am using, "x" (for swan) then -> "y" (for white), where "x" is "sufficient condition" for "y" and "y" is "necessary condition" for "x", but "x" is not a "necessary condition" for "y". Therefore it can't be reversed.

Warmest

## John Edser

To be able to state ANYTHING that can be deemed reasonable a subject S must remain deductive from a predicate P such that their reversal provides a falsifying contradiction. Note that this does not apply to definitions which are entirely reversible. Of course, only providing a list of definitions is not reasonable. To make definitions reasonable at least two have to connect in a logically NON reversible way, e.g. " all swans are white" necessarily excluding "all white (things) are swans". This example non reversibly connects a definition of "swan" to a definition of "white" thereby allowing a falsification via the reverse. As previously discussed, the predicate from which the subject is always a deduction forms the falsifiable frame of reference. What this means is that while "white" must remain a constant the subject is allowed to vary e.g. while you can have many types of swans (as long as they are white) there is only one type of white. Allowing many whites allows anybody to "ad hoc" change their frame of reference fitting up the facts to the theory via removing falsifiability. Thus, any reasonable mathematical representation must provide an algebraic constant to which all defined variables remain dependent.

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

There is no way for any kind of methods whether maths, science, spirituality or any possible methods that could make a complete definition of anything.

It's because the element of definition should be compared to any possible existences to conduct complete definition, and it's impossible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a definition.

Enough consistency would let us play around it, with enough awareness about what was happening around it.

I agree with you that maths is not sufficient to conduct reasoning (other methods having same problem). An axiom (not specifically) could be added for additional assertions on reasoning.

After this, disagreeing between us, perhaps it would be essentially different between us. But this is great conversations. That's what conversations are for, enriching each other.

This conversation enriches my knowledge. I look forward for possible next conversations.

Definitely, there is something from me that was lacking in understanding this conversation.

Apologize.

Please, refer to my explanation below, about smooth transitions between yours and my thinking. It's my last try to see whether we can be synchronized each other in this conversations.

Thank you

Warmest

## Bernard Seremonia

I will try to follow you.

I am going to make smooth transitions between yours and my thinking, so (hopefully) we can see the same structure in this reasoning.

You use this understanding:

- a proposition, ALL Subject has Predicate = for ALL Swan (Subject) has white (Predicate)

- but since there is Predicate as black, therefore white is not for ALL Swan = but since there is Predicate as black, therefore ALL Swan are not white.

- It's similar to this: All (x) then -> (y)

- but since there is Predicate as not (y), therefore (y) is not for ALL (x) = but since there is Predicate as not (y), therefore ALL (x) are not (y)

Just because we are dealing with symbol, that doesn't mean we can reverse it easily. Symbol is merely symbol without agreement (rules). Once we confirm for the rules behind the symbol, there shouldn't be anymore misleading.

But i replaced (x) and (y) with anything with an exception, no reverse. (x) -> (y)

Now consider these: swan is reality, and white is another reality. There are two realities in here, swan and white.

It would be like this:

- It's similar to this: All (1st reality) then -> (2nd reality)

- but since there is Predicate as not (2nd reality), therefore (2nd reality) is not for ALL (1st reality) = but since there is Predicate as not (2nd reality), therefore ALL (1st reality) are not (2nd reality)

"swan" and "axiom" are ideas within our mind. Those represent reality, but we shouldn't consider there will be a swan in our brain or besides us (when we are thinking about swan). Unless we are in the middle of the swan.

Further:

- It's similar to this: All (1st axiom) then -> (2nd axiom)

- but since there is Predicate as not (2nd axiom), therefore (2nd axiom) is not for ALL (1st axiom) = but since there is Predicate as not (2nd axiom), therefore ALL (1st axiom) are not (2nd axiom)

more ...

## Bernard Seremonia

- a proposition, ALL Subject has Predicate = for ALL Swan (Subject) has white (Predicate)

- but since there is Predicate as black, therefore white is not for ALL Swan = but since there is Predicate as black, therefore ALL Swan are not white.

- a proposition, ALL Subject has Predicate = for ALL (People that looking at a swan and say it loud about the color of the swan) (Subject) has (an announcement to someone that there is white color on a swan) (Predicate)

- but since there is Predicate as (an announcement to someone that there is black color on a swan), therefore (an announcement to someone that there is white color on a swan) is not coming from ALL (People that looking at a swan and say it loud about the color of the swan) = but since there is Predicate as (an announcement to someone that there is black color on a swan), therefore ALL (People that looking at a swan and say it loud about the color of the swan) are not (an announcement to someone that there is white color on a swan).

- (People that looking at a swan and say it loud about the color of the swan) = a reality

- (an announcement to someone that there is white color on a swan) = a reality

- a proposition, ALL Subject has Predicate = for ALL Swan (Subject) has white (Predicate)

- but since there is Predicate as black, therefore white is not for ALL Swan = but since there is Predicate as black, therefore ALL Swan are not white.

All (P then -> Q) (no reverse)

If All (P then -> Q), then there will be no (P then not -> Q)

But there is (P then not -> Q), therefore All (P then -> Q) is falsified.

All (Swan then -> white) (no reverse)

If All (Swan then -> white), then there will be no (Swan then not -> white)

But there is (Swan then not -> white), therefore All (Swan then -> white) is falsified.

more ...

## John Edser

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

- An axiom (one of them by experience) that, there is white color (to be more specific) of something (should be asserted), feathers, legs, or skin of swan = An axiom version of any possible falsifiable frame of reference = (IN ESSENCE) a complete (informative & consistent) version of any falsifiable frame of reference . In this case, a complete version (informative & consistent) of "white".

Without a complete falsifiable frame of reference (informative & consistent), we are not pointing to anywhere.

Because (in my opinion) "all swan are white" is not a complete (informative & consistent) statement. Whether we believe white is the color of something on swan, but for the reasoning, a statement should be formed closer to reality. It's just to make us easy to understand and to avoid misleading or to avoid any possible fallacy in reasoning.

Nice question, nice conversations.

Thank you

Warmest

## Bernard Seremonia

And i am using those structures on all of my examples. Is there any difference (in essence) that could lead this reasoning out of context as you mentioned? No. it's just the same.

The different is, that i modify for the set (Subject) and the proper subset (Predicate) and replace it with any of possible reality that has related each other (between S -> P). But it's not on reverse direction.

Warmest

## John Edser

A reality within a reality without end is also circular so it cannot present a valid frame of reference. Randomness, like all the other axioms you offered, has no possible cause and effect so it is only mathematical not scientific. My point is that mathematics, which is all you appear to be employing here, is not a science. This is because everything within mathematics is logically revresible. To provide a theory of science you must provide at least one non reversible (non tautological) proposition such as " all swans are white". This immediately plugs into the "square of opposition" allowing the falsiying contradiction "some swans are not white". The contrary proposition "no swan is white" does not falsify it only non verifies. This is because nobody can validly claim to have observed every swan (the problem of induction). Because "all swans are white prohibits " all white (things) are swans" the falsifying frame of reference in this instance is the predicate "white". The problem of induction is removed because the falsifying contradiction " some swans are not white" is allowed. IOW, only if a proposition completes a square of opposition can it be said to be reasonable. Mathematics is logical but it isn't reasonable because the axioms of mathematics cannot complete a square.

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

"therefore there is only reality within other reality", it isn't a circular or infinite. What i mean is, that "inside reality there is only reality" (in line with "there is no nothingness within reality").

There is scenario:

- There is proposition (should be tested whether it's true or not) = "all swans are white"

- Just one fact to prove (falsify) "that not all swans are white, but there are several swans are black"

What i mean is, whether scientific or not, or any other way to find another knowledge (induction or deduction), in essence, is the way to get a consistent knowledge.

And falsifying is a part of a way to find out whether a proposition is consistent (universally) or not. It's the essence. And we shouldn't limit falsifying by targeting through frame of reference.

Axiom is another way to falsify whether a knowledge is consistent or not. And in my opinion it's enough to be a tool to falsify. It just that i don't want to be trapped on limited falsifying.

Somehow, we could use falsify to justify: "he was good", but when he did mistake, then he is bad, and similar to this. It's debatable, & we just stop there, and we couldn't understand the essence of something.

The point is (about falsifiability): that we should understand falsifying and see the essence of it and if possible try to move to a higher capability that give better capability to expand the area of certainty. That's why i choose axiom as another way to falsify. It leads us to a better understanding, the essence, so we can do a proper act within our life. And it could be considered (in my opinion) falsifying but much better.

Sorry, for having conversation on a different line, but that's falsifiability on my side (since, known and formal falsifiability could lead to chaotic as i mentioned). Hopefully we have the same purpose, having the essence.

Warmest

## John Edser

My swan example was provided to demonstrate how a falsifiabe frame of reference differs to your axiomatic frames; axioms are not falsifiable only non verifiable. With regards to your argument for consistency I would like to point out that while every tautology is consistent, none of them can be falsified. Reason requires much more than self conintency, i.e. while all reasoning must be consistent not all logically consistent propositions are reasonable. When something is shown inconsistent (proffers a contradiction) this does NOT falsify the proposition simply because there was no proposition. All it can do is prove the proposition invalid. Falsifiability is a term reserved for comparing at least two self consistent propositions via experiment in order to discover which one remains empirically correct. There is no higher capability than falsification simply because all falsifications are verifications of a contradictory proposition. In my swan example the predicate "white" provided the frame of reference. This can be empirically falsified by the obervation of just a single non white swan. As you suggested, this means a black, red or some other colored swan has to be observed as a verification of a contradictory proposition. Unfortunately Karl Popper, the father of falsifiability, failed to understand this leading him to discount the value of verification.

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

Axiom is not always related to mathematics, the fact "that we are aware therefore we are exist", it is an axiom. But when something empirical observation can not be replaced by the axiom through mathematics, while being pulled down to its most basic, we often use the axioms of mathematics.

There are several things for me:

- That something that can be falsified, can't be considered empirically falsified if we never found a chance to falsify. Although it is possible according to its proposition.

The statement "all swans are white" that can be empirically falsified through further observation to find out whether there is just one "swan with black color (or other color), and it will be meaningless if there is someone for the entire life could not see a black swan.

- As well as for the axiom, as far as we understand the axiom as a representative of a reality, and explore the structure of the axioms is the same as exploring the possibilities of reality, then the axiom can also be falsified if there is a chance for it.

The points are:

- I'd rather thinking about falsifiability as: "something regarded as a universal truth and could be considered as axiom, at first", and verify it through empirical observation (or may be represented by other axiom) "

- As generally known about falsifiability, while i see the meaning of "falsifiability" is not specifically related to a form of reasoning. Axiom can justify and can be justified (falsified). It's similar to empirical observation that can justify and can be justified.

- Since the term of empirical could be different to others, therefore, consistency could be reasonable or not, scientific could be widen or not, and falsifiability could be different to others. It's relative to people's experience.

Warmest

## John Edser

Your point that faslsifiability is entirely subjective is not true. The reason why science can be clearly understood in any culture demonstrates this.

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

It's not subjective, but it's subjective within advanced, deepening, or widen. It's like the way we manage ourselves are subjective, but the purpose may be just the same.

It's the way we use (in practice) that it is different to others, but the structure (in essence) is just the same.

Please refer to my answer below.

Warmest

## Bernard Seremonia

- all S(wan) -> (therefore, asserts) y (white)

- If all S(wan) -> y, then there shouldn't be an existence of S(wan) -> -y (black)

* But there is S(wan) -> -y, therefore it's falsified

- all (axiom, x) -> asserts (an axiom, y)

- If all (axiom, x) -> asserts (an axiom, y), then there shouldn't be an existence of (an axiom, x) -> asserts (an axiom, -y)

* But there is (an axiom - x) -> asserts that (an axiom, -y), therefore it's falsified

- all ( f(x) = x^n ) -> asserts (a graph is symmetric to the y-axis)

- If all ( f(x) = x^n ) -> asserts (a graph is symmetric to the y-axis), then there shouldn't be an existence of ( f(x) = x^n ) -> asserts (a graph is not symmetric to the y-axis)

* But there is ( f(x) = x^n ) (where "n" is an odd number) -> asserts (a graph is not symmetric to the y-axis), therefore it's falsified.

We shouldn't confuse with axiom & swan, where "S" for any Swan, but for axiom(s) as different animals, but it's incorrect. Actually, "S" for any Swan (typical), and for axiom(s) as (typical) the same animal.

Where "S" and "the function" is typical as the swan, where the swan is the same animal but it could be conditional (different) at the specific situation. Just the same as this axiom, that it has differences ("^n") to others but still within typical of a function ("x^n").

Warmest

## John Edser

I do not understand your last sentence which summed up your main point. Are you saying that it is not necessary to provide another axiom that contradicts in order to falsify a proposed axiom?

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

If necessary, we can use an axiom to verify a possible contradiction at the final node of form of axiom as a falsifying (if we agree that such this way could be considered valid as we do empirical observation). Or, if we disagree, we could contradict an axiom at the final node of form of axiom with reality (if we have a chance for it).

I will try to explain form of axiom using examples:

1.

//If we touch something then we touch an existence, but axiom asserts there is only zero distance or there is a distance, therefore we never touch existence//

- all (we touch something, x) -> asserts (we touch an existence, y)

- if all (that we touch, x) -> asserts (we touch an existence, y),

--- then there shouldn't be an event of (that we touch, x) -> asserts (we don't touch an existence, -y)

-- but there is (we have no distance to what we touch - x) -> asserts that (we never touch an existence, -y), Therefore form of axiom COMPLETELY falsified

## Bernard Seremonia

2.

//Every dream is unrealistic, but axiom asserts that there is no nothingness within reality (inside reality there is only reality), and a dream is just another reality, unless we accept our awareness of being accused as something that is not real//

- all (someone is dreaming about someone's self, x) -> asserts (in someone's dream, someone is not real, y)

- if all (someone is dreaming about someone's self, x) -> asserts (in someone's dream, someone is not real, y),

--- then there shouldn't be an even of (someone is dreaming about someone's self, x) -> asserts (in someone's dream, someone is real, -y)

--- but there is (someone is dreaming about someone's self, - x) -> asserts that (in someone's dream, someone is real, since someone considered within real world, -y), or

--- but there is (someone is dreaming about someone's self - x) -> asserts that (in someone's dream, someone is ENTIRELY real, since someone's awareness and someone's body inside dream is considered just another "me" and those are real in someone's sense, -y),

* Therefore it's falsified. In this case, our assertion is an axiom itself. People might argue that "myself entirely while dreaming was real in my own perception"

OR,

--- but there is (someone is dreaming about someone's self - x) -> asserts that (in someone's dream, NOT ENTIRELY someone is not real, since someone's awareness is the only real one that someone believe, -y)

* Therefore it's falsified, where, one of someone's self (someone's awareness) is the real one. In this case, our assertion is an axiom itself. People might argue that our awareness while dreaming was real, but it wasn't for our hand (nose, etc).

## Bernard Seremonia

3.

//Randomness is everywhere, but axiom asserts its consistency (certainty)//

- (event is coincident, x) -> asserts (there is inconsistency, y)

- all (event is coincident, x) -> asserts (there is no consistency, y)

- if all (event is coincident, x) -> asserts (there is no consistency, y),

--- then there shouldn't be an existence of (event is random, x) -> asserts (there is a pattern, -y)

--- but there is (randomness in an event of computer programming - x) -> asserts that (randomness in computer programming was produced based on pattern - since this pattern could be produced using complicated function, it's lack of predictability, -y), therefore falsified.

Warmest

## John Edser

For some reason no facility is displayed on my computer for me to be able to reply to any of your recent posts. I repeat, I cannot understand your notation. For example I do not know what -> -y means.

## Bernard Seremonia

Forgive me. Thank you for being patience.

"x" -> "y" = "x" then "y"

all "x" -> "y" = all "x" then "y"

swan is white = if swan then white = if "x" -> "y" or if "s" -> "w"

there is black swan = if swan then not white = if "x" -> -"y" or if "s" -> - "w" or if "s" -> "b"

To be more specific:

- if (there was someone looking at a swan) then -> (it caused) (there was someone told us that there was white color of something on a swan) = why did he/she say there was white color of something on a swan? yes, because he/she already saw white of something on a swan

- one day (there was someone looking at a swan) but then -> (it caused) (there was someone told us that there wasn't white color but black color of something on a swan) = why did he/she say there wasn't white color but black color of something on a swan? yes, because he/she already saw another black color of something on another swan

- therefore, we conclude there were black and white of something on swans = there were black color of something on a swan, or there might be a white color of something on different swan.

Warmest

## Stewart Gault

## John Edser

sci bio evolution

Reversing the Darwinian process of natural selection is indeed possible. This experimental process must halt all Darwinian evolution for as long as it can be maintained. If evolution is not stopped entirely, then Darwinism stands falsified. This can only be tested experimentally via artificially holding the TOTAL number of ADULT (fertile) forms reproduced via each parent in ONE population, EQUAL. This reproductive total per parent per population is absolutely critical because it alone represents a Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) fitness CONSTANT providing a falsifiable frame of reference for evolutionary theory. The big problem: this has not been realized within Neo Darwinism.

## Timo X

You mention causality in the opening post. Seeing that you are so critical of the supposed infalsifiability of modern science, how do you figure you go around proving causality?

## John Edser

Natural selection is the only falsifiable cause of evolution that has been proposed. Darwinism argues that random mutation withiin organisms provides what is termed "heritable variation". This is acted on by non random natural selection to produce the evolution of populations of organisms. The other random force is sampling error, i.e. what is termed "genetic drift". Neither of these are causative to evolution; they are only causative to the heritable variation on which non random natural selection acts. Clearly, any evolution predicated on a random process acting alone, cannot be falsified.

Regards,

John Edser

## Timo X

I think it is admirable that you try to formulate an experiment that can falsify evolutionary theory. However, I think you are on the wrong track. Evolutionary theory is not very suitable for predictions and this poses a problem for scientists who think falsifiable predictions are the hallmark of science (see e.g. Popper's initial rejection of natural selection). This does not mean that evolutionary theory is pseudoscience: it is quite possible to gather clear evidence for and against it.

## John Edser

Regards,

John Edser

## edward long

What do you do with the argument that says axioms are merely statements or propositions which are unproven and are based upon "common acceptance" of the claim that they are not falsifiable, which is, in turn, based upon them being hertofore unfalsified? For example, is it possible that Euclid was wrong about things which are identical to another thing being identical to one another? How do you prove that Euclid's Axiom cannot be falsified without claiming to have proven a negative? Did Euclid have a falsifiable frame of reference? Thank you for your relevant and provocative post, Mr. Edser.

## Bernard Seremonia

Axiom shows us reality as it is, but the problem is since someone might think our axiom doesn't make sense (subjective), therefore we need to find out something that can be considered axiom.

Once we found it (axiom), there we found reality.

Anything that can be considered as true but it could be proved as an opposite of an axiom, then anything should be failed and something is already falsified.

What if we will test an axiom by banging it on another axioma? Then we should choose an axiom as a tester (a standardization of specific truth of specific reality) among axioms that really simple to us to be understood.

Since we might trapped within false axiom. We thought it was axiom but it wasn't. Therefore we should find axiom and we could understand it easily.

If we may think involving axioms are not equal as involving reality, empirically, but what we did in the past (now & in the future) was nothing but tracking from one node to other nodes that represent of something (that we considered as reality, empiric). We might be touch, hear or see something, but finally we believe it as we think of it logically.

The point is, whether we do empirically or anything that can be considered more realistic, scientific, but it's just the beginning or in the middle, and at the end, we would accept it after passing our thinking logically. Any of our works converted into forms of logical that can be tested logically.

Therefore, i choose axioms, because it's mobility (it's miniature of reality), strictly & easy to manage within our thinking as we did to something else.

A key success using axioms is, whether we use axioms that derived through math or anything else, but further, axioms that came out, should be "very easily to understand it, as easy as we think of something very easily".

Outside this is just even worse than subjectivity.

## John Edser

Regards,

John Edser

## Bernard Seremonia

These are examples:

If we touch something then we touch an existence, but axiom asserts there is only zero distance or there is a distance, therefore we never touch existence.

Every dream is unrealistic, but axiom asserts that there is no nothingness within reality, or, nothingness can't separate reality, therefore there is only reality within another reality (inside reality there is only reality), and a dream is just another reality, unless we accept our awareness of being accused as something that is not real.

Randomness is everywhere, but axiom asserts its consistency (certainty)

Less or more ...

Warmest