Falsification of theories in science

[pantheory]

Falsification of theories in science

Since there is no consensus agreement as to the definition of “ science theory,”  it is questionable whether some of  the so-called theories in science are falsifiable or ever could be proven wrong or replaced if wrong.

The major fields of the physical sciences are as follows:

Physical sciences

• Physics.
• Chemistry.
• Earth sciences
• Space Science and Astronomy
• The standard model of particle physics
• Relativity theories
• Cosmology
• Atomic Theory
• Biochemistry.
• Microbiology
• Biology
• Botany.
• Zoology.

The major areas where theories are presently being challenged by some scientists are in the fields involving modern physics. This includes Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Cosmology and space sciences.

If any of these theories are wrong in part or in total, if not falsifiable, how could they ever be proven wrong or replaced?

[pantheory]

Posting from WalterP,

 

Your cited definition is a good one.  "A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation"  I agree with it.  But what's troubling me is the possibility that a theory can become unfalsifiable because the scientist formulating it cannot agree terms of interpretation with other scientists.

 

I'll try and explain.   Let's say that Prof X formulates theory Y and insists that only his interpretation of the above definition is valid, rejecting all others.  This creates the situation where there is no common ground between Prof X and any other scientist.  So, even if the rest of the scientific community consider theory Y to be falsified by experiments and observations,  Prof X will not accept that it has been.  By making himself the sole arbiter of what constitutes 'a proper interpretation' of experimental results and observations, the good professor has , to all intents and purposes, made his theory unfalsifiable. 

 

Before I go any further Pantheory, please trust me and accept that what I am writing here is not a personal attack upon you or your theories. 

 

Let me explain further.  Recently PittsburghJoe showed up and I began to see an interesting pattern in his response to our requests for evidence to back up his claims.  At every turn he rejected all attempts to get him to conform to any commonly accepted standard of scientific rigor.  He was just the same when it came to religious matters and even though he called himself a Christian he rejected every attempt to get him to conform to any commonly accepted Biblical standard or definition. 

 

He was the sole arbiter of what he considered to be right and he was his own authority on anything and everything.  This lack of common ground between him and everyone else meant that, even though we pointed out his mistakes and inconsistencies, he could never accept them.  We caught him out in matters of science and matters of religion, but he was having none of it.  He is the ultimate maverick, sharing no common ground with anyone else.  This meant that his claims were effectively unfalsifiable.

 

So, what has this to do with unfalsifiable theories?

 

This is where I must put my cards on the table and declare that I'm worried about you and for you, Pantheory.   

 

If my understanding of your position is correct (and please forgive me if it isn't) you reject almost everything in modern, 20th and 21st century physics.  You believe that for over a century scientists the world over have misinterpreted the meaning and import of almost every experiment and observation made in physics.  If this is so, then it seems to me that, apart from Classical physics, there is next to no common ground between you and the scientific community.

 

This lack of common ground suggests to me that my hypothetical situation involving Prof X and his Y theory could be very similar to the actual position you occupy vis-à-vis the mainstream scientific community.  Upon examining your theories they might consider them falsified by this experiment or that observation.  But, because you and they cannot agree on how to interpret these experiments and observations, you would consider your theories to still be viable and valid.

 

It may even be that, because you and other scientists can't agree on anything much, that you may have made your theories effectively unfalsifiable.  Putting it another way, if the only conditions under which they could be falsified are those decided by you, then you may have become the sole arbiter of how and when your own theory can be falsified.

 

I hope that you can see the danger inherent in this scenario, Pantheory.  Occupying such a position might result in a loss of professional objectivity.  Please believe me when I say that I am not accusing you of anything.  I just happen to have seen what I think is a pattern and I'm writing to you about this in good faith and in genuine concern for you.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

 

WalerP

"But what's troubling me is the possibility that a theory can become unfalsifiable because the scientist formulating it cannot agree terms of interpretation with other scientists."

 

There rarely ever is just one person who formulates a theory. There might have been just one inventor but to be accepted a theory must have many supporters. This is because in time big theories require a consensus agreement to become accepted. All who like the theory do not look forward to it having it be rejected so often few can agree on a means by which the theory can be falsified, or even tested.

 

"Let me explain further.  Recently PittsburghJoe showed up and I began to see an interesting pattern in his response to our requests for evidence to back up his claims.  At every turn he rejected all attempts to get him to conform to any commonly accepted standard of scientific rigor.  He was just the same when it came to religious matters and even though he called himself a Christian he rejected every attempt to get him to conform to any commonly accepted Biblical standard or definition."

 

This discourse is good in this forum since it is science vs. religion. Of course I can only give my opinion here. As a religious person PittsburghJoe may not agree with some or many science teachings. For the same reason he would not necessary have to agree with any standard of scientific rigor. Also in religious matters, as we all know, beliefs from one religion to another can be very different in Christianity, therefore he would not necessarily have to agree with any accepted Biblical standard or definition. It's not really possible to convince most religious people based upon a relatively short discourse of logic. I give all such people the benefit of the doubt as to honesty of their postings, since I cannot think of a good reason why they would be here other than to honestly proselytize.

 

 

[pantheory]

In your posting above you are discussing mostly non-specifics related to falsifiable science theory and my beliefs. You need to be specific concerning which mainstream science theories you are interested in, or which theories of mine that you disagree with. Whether theories are falsifiable or not is the subject. I have given my opinion that few theories in modern physics are falsifiable IMO. If you want specifics just ask. Without specifics there would be no scientific basis for discussion.