Scribd
Upload
66 views

What Is Falsifiability?: Related Questions

Falsifiability is the concept that for a hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to identify potential evidence that could demonstrate that hypothesis or theory to be false. A theory is falsifiable if a conceivable observation or outcome could prove it wrong. Unfalsifiable theories, such as the existence of God, are not considered scientific because there is no possible observation that could prove them wrong. Falsifiability is important because it allows scientific theories to be rigorously tested and refined through experimentation and observation.

Uploaded by

Zaw Ye Htike
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views

What Is Falsifiability?: Related Questions

Falsifiability is the concept that for a hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to identify potential evidence that could demonstrate that hypothesis or theory to be false. A theory is falsifiable if a conceivable observation or outcome could prove it wrong. Unfalsifiable theories, such as the existence of God, are not considered scientific because there is no possible observation that could prove them wrong. Falsifiability is important because it allows scientific theories to be rigorously tested and refined through experimentation and observation.

Uploaded by

Zaw Ye Htike
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

https://www.quora.

com/What-is-falsifiability

What is falsifiability?
6 Answers

Shawn McCaslin
Updated Jan 14, 2017 · Author has 1k answers and 512k answer views

Falsifiability is a test of an observer's ability to scientifically address a question regarding the


behavior or nature of aspects of the natural world. A proposition is falsifiable for an observer if
that observer can, in principle, execute experiments that could contradict the proposition.

First, note that falsifiability is very rarely analyzed in formal scientific publications. You can’t
expect to find a ‘falsifiability’ section in a typical paper published in any major science journal.
Falsifiability, as a topic, is unlikely to be taught in any university science class outside of a
philosophy department. You likely can be a successful science practitioner, even if you have
never even heard of the concept.

Furthermore, falsifiability is more an attribute of a practitioner than of a scientific proposition,


per se. A blind person will have a different sense of falsifiability than will someone with
eyesight. It is possible that some people have magical, transcendent abilities that allow them to
discern truths about reality. Unfortunately, you must have such abilities to judge them. Also, the
scope of the natural world for you might not be static; your natural world, and hence, your
judgments of falsifiability can potentially change.

Most fundamentally, science is not about assessing ‘truth value’; instead, it is a practical tool for
creating reliable models for the prediction and control of the natural world. Proposed
pseudoscientific models are naturally winnowed out over time by their failure to provide
differentiated predictions, not by some pious falsifiability analysis. Falsifiability seems more like
a quasi-religious tenet than a practical tool.

727 Views · View Upvoters

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

 Why is falsifiability important?


 Why do hypotheses have to be testable and falsifiable?
 What is an example of falsified scientific theory?
 How do you test whether a statement is falsifiable or non-falsifiable?
 How do you determine falsifiability?

Ask New Question


https://www.quora.com/What-is-falsifiability

Misha Erementchouk
Answered Nov 1, 2016 · Author has 56 answers and 37.6k answer views

Falsifiability is a possibility to prove statement wrong. Together with verifiability, this makes the
statement to exist in a context where it can be judged true or false. Nothing more, nothing less.

While the notion of falsifiability was brought forward in order to distinguish science from non-
science, it has little to do with this. There are non-falsifiable statements within absolutely legal
scientific context: “an electron has an elementary charge” (one may say that this is how we
identify a particle as an electron). And, another way around, there are falsifiable statements that
have little to do with science: “in view of Fourth of July, black folders sell faster than red
folders”.

People often invite religious notions to demonstrate how falsifiability works, but it’s rarely
convincing. Example #1. “God made the sky blue”. I may live a strange life but when at night I
look up, the sky is black. So, obviously, this is a falsifiable statement and it’s false. Hint: in the
vast majority of such statements, “God” can be replaced by “Nature” or just excluded altogether:
“The sky is blue”.

This works for some more complex questions as well. Example #2: “God exists” turns into
“Nature exists”. Half-baked arguments based on premises that something must exist within
something else, are not really impressive. For one, why not to call that something else “God”
(we’ll get to that in a second). Of course, this doesn’t show that God is equivalent to Nature but
only demonstrates that by simple referring to something religious we do not move into non-
scientific realm. The transition is made earlier when the existence of the reason of all reasons
was assumed to be self-evident.

Finally, Example #3. “On the third day, God created Adam”. It’s an unclear statement from the
perspective of falsifiability and verifiability. What about this “On the third day, God created
Muhammad”. A bit too many people, including atheists, will say that something is not right here.
The reason is obvious: we live in a cultural environment, which is full of religious references.
These references create a context for judging (some) statements about God as true or false. We
can actually make a science out of this.

So, here we have it: falsifiability is a context for positive statements. An attempt to make more of
it leads to recognizing interesting problems but they are far from making a demarcation between
science and non-science.

198 Views · View Upvoters

Jon Jermey, long-term atheist and AGW sceptic


Updated Nov 1, 2016 · Author has 6.9k answers and 3.9m answer views
https://www.quora.com/What-is-falsifiability

To make a car go forward, the clutch has to be released so that the engine engages with drive
shaft. With the clutch in, the engine is spinning, but it’s not making any connection to the
wheels.

Showing that a theory is falsifiable plays the role of releasing the clutch in science. It means that
the theory is is capable of making distinctions between one kind of world and another. It tells us
that if the theory is true we can expect the world to look and act in certain ways that will —
hopefully — be useful to us. Confirmation of the theory gives us one more way to understand
and exploit the world for our purposes. And even falsification of the theory tells us something —
at the very least, not to embrace that theory.

An unfalsifiable theory tells us nothing about the world, because it’s true no matter what the
world looks like. There’s no way we can put it into action to explain or predict things, because
it’s compatible with any explanation and any prediction.

Suppose I claim that lead can be turned into gold by magic. But I can’t do magic, I don’t know
anyone who can, and I have no way of identifying when magic has been used or who by. That’s
an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It may even be a true one; but the features that make it unfalsifiable
also make it useless. It doesn’t help anybody in any way.

638 Views · View Upvoters

Ansal Abdul, BCOM UDSM, Tanzania, University of Dar Es Salaam (2017)


Answered Dec 30, 2016

think on how far can a statement be invalid, or how can we judge wrong the already established
theory or hypothesis,.

if we guarantee any hypothesis or statement or theory to be correct in real sense they cant be
hundred percent valid as in its side coin of CRITICS will offer out invalidation of a given
statement.

for example; assume demand and supply theory “increase in price lead to decrease in demand
and vice versa….” in real sense not necessarily that an increase in price may lead to to demand
decrease, since there is a sense of prestige to some customers that for them buying highly priced
commodities is an interesting phenomenon. so by this fact one can arguer that the falsification/
invalidation of theory immerse on critics that offer out theory strength.

95 Views · View Upvoters

Steven de Rooij, your friendly neighbourhood atheist


Updated Oct 28, 2016 · Author has 4k answers and 5.1m answer views
Originally Answered: What is the principle of falsifiability?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-falsifiability

A theory is not acceptable as a scientific explanation of a phenomenon unless there is a specific,


well described event that, if it occurred, would make you reject the theory.

For example, the theory of evolution is falsifiable: we would reject it if we would clearly and
undisputedly observe that two elephants have a baby that is a giraffe.

The notion that god created life on earth is an example of an unfalsifiable theory. There is
nothing that could happen that would prove it wrong, so it's not science.

Unfalsifiable theories also are very bad at making predictions about future events. If they would
predict things, you could use that to falsify them.

444 Views · View Upvoters

William Hartanto
Answered Oct 28, 2016 · Author has 1.7k answers and 1.4m answer views

Question: What is falsifiability?

Answer: It is a basic philosophical concept in Scientific Method popularized by Karl


Popper.Most people by their very nature would seek supporting evidence to their hypothesis.

But someone familiar with Popperian method will try to find evidence to disprove the
hypothesis; and if after extensive testing, such evidence is not found, we can tentatively believe
that the hypothesis is correct for now (until inevitably proven false on later date as better
hypothesis are created)

Hence a statement that you cannot disprove, is not falsifiable; and not , according to Popper,
subject to Scientific Method. Things like Ethics and Morality fall under this category.

The rest, things that you can technically disprove via induction and deduction are said to be
falsifiable and hence are valid subject for scientific method.

179 Views · View Upvoters

You might also like