TED Conversations

John Edser

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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?

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.