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?

  • Jun 12 2012: Bernard,

    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
    • thumb
      Jun 12 2012: Hi

      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
      • Jun 13 2012: MRU is not needed. A definition of "white" can be anything you like as long as it is logically valid. All that matters is that the definition remains irreversibly linked to the subject (swan).The definition stands minimally falsifiable via the simple, logical reverse. Poorer definitions quickly refute in favor of better ones. For example defining "white" as just a chosen color tone quickly falsifies in favor of "white" being the result the reflection of all light. As you know, the colors of objects are due to the wavelengths of light that they reflect. All objects absorb some wavelengths making them appear something less than perfect white, disallowing swans to be a perfect white. Better predicates (frames of reference) evolve from more primitive predicates, if and only if, they remain falsifiable (non tautological ) and are tested against nature without prejudice. This last requirement is the hardest because all of us are prejudiced for our own beliefs.

        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.
  • Jun 10 2012: Bernard,

    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.
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2012: Hi

      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
      • Jun 11 2012: Mathematics is not sufficient to conduct reasoning. The mathematician Kurt Godel proved mathematics will always remain insufficient disallowing a complete and consistent set of axioms for mathematics. The net result: a proposition NOT of mathematics is absolutely required to make sense of mathematics. This is not surprising because mathematics is entirely circular (an expanded tautology). Logic comes in two flavours: reversible and non reversible. Mathematics only employs the reversible type. Reasoning employs both where however, only NON reversible logic can possibly supply a minimal falsification (via a simple, subject/predicate reversal as previously discussed).

        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
        • thumb
          Jun 11 2012: Hi

          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
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2012: Hi

      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 ...
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2012: But perhaps we didn't familiar with swan as reality and white as reality in this case. Now i will put another way.

      - 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 ...
      • Jun 12 2012: At this point I must bring you back to the original question: with regards to "all swans are white" what is your proposed falsifiable frame of reference for this example ?

        Regards,

        John Edser
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2012: 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".

          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
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2012: Hi

      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
  • Jun 7 2012: In your first example, you have not separated the difference between living and non living "existence". While it is true that all the non living are connected this remains untrue for living systems. Darwinism works via separate individuals competing and cooperating within evolving populations. Natural selection absolutely requires this separation. Nothingness within reality does not mean that reality is only nothingness because if it did this axiom only represents a tautology ( any circular argument) which cannot be used as a valid, falsifiable frame of reference.
    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
    • thumb
      Jun 7 2012: Hi

      "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
      • Jun 7 2012: The main falsifiable point that Darinism makes is that the fitness of individuals that are competing and cooperating within the same population, must differ to allow any natural selection. This absolutely requires a complete separation of all biological individuals, e.g. I can't eat or breath for you. Life is very unlike non life because all living individuals remain biologically separate. This is why physics alone cannot explain life. Allowing a reality within another is tautological if the proposed realities are proposed equal. If they are different then you must say how exactly.

        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
    • thumb
      Jun 7 2012: Hi,

      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
      • Jun 8 2012: The test for falsifiability is not difficult: if you state something such that when the subject S and predicate P are reversed this changes the meaning entirely then the proposition is minimally falsifiable via this reversal. For example, you proposed " we are aware therefore we exist" (as a non mathematical axiom ). Does "we exist therefore we are aware" mean the same ? If so, then the axiom is not falsifiable because it is absolutely self referential. If the meaning is not the same then reversing the proposition provides a contradiction such that if it is observed in nature it falsifies your proposition.

        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
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: Hi

          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
    • thumb
      Jun 7 2012: Perhaps, this could describe my structure of thinking on this case:

      - 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
      • Jun 8 2012: You are employing mathematical notation to make your point. This is not a mathematical discussion group. Please rewrite what you mean in words so that all of us can understand your argument

        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
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: Hi

          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
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: Another example:

          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).
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: Further example:

          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
      • Jun 8 2012: Bernard,

        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.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2012: Hi

          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
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2012: Just saying that evolution on a macro scale could be disproved on earth if say we found a 3 billion year old hedgehog or rabbit.
    • Jun 7 2012: Unfortunately, such an amazing observation only constitutes a non verification. While Darwinism does indeed argue that such an observation should not be made, systematics has to be reviewed continually. This is because Darwin demonstrated that one species grades into another so species are only a variable not a constant. Retracing such a complex phylogeny backwards hundreds of millions of years is notoriously difficult (so it must be continuously revised). However, given such an observation it is much more likely that it was produced via another cause, e.g. fraud or represents a false observation. The only way that Darwinism can be empirically falsified has been outlined by myself in the moderated discussion group:

      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.
      • Jun 7 2012: While it is true that a finding that conflicts with extant and often-verified theories is usually not taken as absolute evidence against them, this does not mean that the theory is in fact non-falsifiable. According to Popper, falsification has to be only possible in principle (whatever that means, I prefer testability). Concerning your second paragraph, I neither understand why conducting such an experiment would be the only way to falsify evolutionary theory, nor do I understand how it could do so in the first place. Remember also that natural selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolution.

        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?
        • Jun 8 2012: The most important point to make is that Darwinian evolutionary theory is not dependent on fossil evidence. While fossils can provide amazing evidence that is highly motivational, falsifiability lies elsewhere. The reason why TDF remains crucial is because it alone can provide a falsifying fitness constant for evolutionary theory. My proposed, simple, reproductive total of adults reproduced per parent per population represents what has to be compared within a population in order to provide a FINAL selective result. Neo Darwinism never provides a FINAL result because it does not allow a single fitness constant, i.e. it only compares variables with other variables to produce natural selection. To be falsifiable, it must provide at least one fitness constant to act as a frame of reference.

          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
      • Jun 8 2012: Perhaps I still misunderstand, but I do not see how the experiment you specify is able to (dis)prove anything. If evolution would not occur under environmental conditions that are constant for a long time, this would be in line with the mechanism of natural selection. If evolution would occur under environmental conditions that are constant for a long time, this would mean that natural selection is not the only mechanism by which evolution works - and this fact, as you also point out, is already recognized and incorporated into the theory of evolution.

        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.
        • Jun 8 2012: The experiment that I proposed artificially maintains the final fitness of each parent within an experimental population to remain the same. This could be done with the fruit fly by only allowing each parent to raise a single young to fertile adulthood. When this is accomplished each parent would be removed. Each fly would be able to breed freely but exactly the same situation is repeated for as long as each member of the population successfully raises a single replacement. The experiment terminates when just a single member of the population fails to raise an adult replacement allowing selection to finally act. Darwinian selection is the result of a simple default comparison of each parents Darwinian fitness (the total number of adults reproduced per parent per population) such that only the parent with the largest fitness is naturally selected. While the experiment lasts, each parent has a TDF of 1. Since flys are sexual this means each pair must raise two adult forms into the next generation. The reason why immatures are NOT counted (they are within Neo Darwinism) is because they cannot possibly pass on any of their genes because they remain sterile until reaching adulthood. What I predict terminates the experiment is the random action of genetic drift and mutation. Eventually genomes not subject to selection will become more and more degenerate eventually resulting in a single pair not being able to raise the required two offspring to adulthood. Neo Darwinists continue to insist that drift and mutation are evolutionary forces on a par with selection reducing evolutionary theory to non falsifiable simply because random forces cannot be halted. The experimental population is controlled by a population treated similarly except an intense form of selection is provided e.g. a trait for eye color is selected for. At the termination of the experiment the prediction is that the experimental population does not evolve.


          Regards,

          John Edser
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2012: Your invitation to attend the Relativist's Convention, scheduled for August, October or December depending upon how you view it, is hereby revoked.
    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.
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2012: Exploring the structures of axioms is equal to exploring reality itself. Even more we can explore the final frontier of reality through axioms.

    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.
    • Jun 6 2012: Am I correct in assuming that "axioms" represent your offered falsifiable frame of reference? If so, please provide an example including the falsification. If an axiom is not your offered frame of reference what is?

      Regards,

      John Edser
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2012: Hi

        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