Jump to content

ccdan

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Poor

About ccdan

  • Rank
    Lepton

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what I'm saying. I already told you the wiki article claims that "Some swans are not white" is what make the statement FALSIFIABLE!
  2. It's irrelevant the so called keyword. every room in every building = all swans "there's a green unicorn in every room" = property of the room(it has an unicorn), equivalent to the color of the swan If you find a single room without unicorn, the property of the room is changed, equivalent to finding a swan of a different color That's completely nonsensical. Counting swan's eyes is the same as seeing swan's color. The number of eyes is just a property of the swan, the same way color is. By that logic, seeing the color of a swan would make the statement "all swans are white" falsifiable.
  3. Don't put things in my mouth... here's the original text from wiki: My statement is basically identical, I just replaced color with the number of eyes. "since" = that's why it's falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be
  4. It''s wrong. As is the article on "falsifiability" No one does actual science by trying to "disprove" theories, hypotheses and so on. The only problem being, that, until you find a three eyed swan, the statement "all swans have two eyes" is non-falsifiable, that is, non-scientific - according to the Popperian theory you're subscribing to.
  5. "falsifiability" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method.
  6. I have noticed that this term gets thrown around quite often when people debate what's "scientific" and what is not. What I have NOT found is a definition or explanation of "falsifiability" that is unambiguous, coherent and logical! Apparently it's an alleged "property" of a theory or hypothesis, which for some mysterious reason makes it "scientific" (whatever that might mean - I'll get back to that later) So we need a "test" which could tell us whether a theory/hypothesis is "falsifiable" or not. In the context of science any such a "test" should be rigorously and unambiguously defined. The problem is, the only things I found are ambiguous and nonsensical ramblings made by people who seem very unfamiliar with the clarity, rigor and logical soundness that actual science requires. And I haven't even touched on the issue of how such a "test" would prove that something is "scientific" and what that would really mean. Let's explore a few examples ... first, wikipedia: So we have: "basic statement" - what does it mean? how does it differ from non-"basic statements"? do you just have to "say something"? "successful or failed falsification" - a theory is falsifiabile if [something], which, in eventual successful or failed falsification [some other stuff] - what is the meaning of falsification here, as it sounds like a circular statement "must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation" - what's the meaning of "hypothetical observation"? it kinda sounds like oxymoron! are imaginary things are ok? unicorns? aliens? or just scenarios that are imaginary but seem plausible due to similar actual facts that exists or perhaps laws of physics? OK, let's now explore the concrete example... from the same wikipedia: 1. what if that "basic statement" were not a "true observation" but some imaginary stuff? 2. how about this one: "all swans have two eyes" ... good luck finding a three eyed swan! OK, now let's try to falsify one popular "theory": "The earth is flat!" - well, this is contradicted by many statements and experiments that back them! So "the earth is flat" is a scientific theory according to Popper! WOW! How does it help us in separating non-scientific stuff from scientific stuff? We can even try to formulate theories related to imaginary friends: "In every room in every building on earth, there's a green unicorn!" Finding just one room without an unicorn would make the theory "scientific". You can replace unicorns with angels, gods or whatever. Then there's the nonsense that a theory can only be "disproved" and never "proved" - which is hugely wrong and nonsensical(you might get to "disprove" an infinity of things and won't be able to reach any conclusion)! Actually the whole story about "falsifiability" comes from this philosophical idea of Popper that "nothing is certain" and theories can only be shown to be false. Besides being wrong, is completely unhelpful, as that's not the way we use science to our benefit. I'll stop here for now.
  7. You'll find lots of jobs related to "syhthesizing new chemicals" and virtually none specifically related to quantum physics (only university professors and a very small number of researchers have anything to do with quantum stuff - almost exclusively on a theoretical level )
  8. I wouldn't really call paleontology (as it is right now) a science because the fundamental aspect of science, the testing of various hypotheses using the scientific method, is pretty much non-existent.
  9. It's not scientific at all. Science uses the scientific method, verifiable evidence and some pretty clear and rigid rules in order to repeatedly test and confirm or reject various hypotheses. That kind of stuff has nothing to do with the scientific approach.
  10. @mooeypoo: I don't understand what you mean! and you seem to be extremely "selective" with your "observations".... the fact that PhDWannabe called me a "troll" for absolutely no reason, means nothing...
  11. Very interesting! So you admit that you know just about nothing about psychology (and implicitly psichiatry), but for "some reason" you don't want want to " have this thread turn into that kind of discussion"... WHY? Moreover, you're not even curios to find out why I said that there is no science in these fields... as such, you seem interested in this subject, in thes same fashion religious people are interested in religion... well, that's a bit unexpected, beause we are, supposedly on a "science forum"
  12. Oh! So... approaching this subject in an objective, rigorous and scientific manner (I guess you know my older posts) is called "trollig" ... interesting! As, for your "doctoral program" it's not really a surprise... there are PhD's in "fields" like theology, philosophy and in some countries even in astrology... and who knows what else... apparently, if there are enough people preoccupied by certain "subjects" no matter how non-scientific and nonsensical, there could also be PhD programs for those things...
  13. You're being dishonest... you should admit openly that you can't diagnose anything (from a distance or not), simply because there's no objective, verifiable and scientific criteria for such a thing! Everything in psychiatry and psychology is based on pseudoscience, subjectivity and imagination.
  14. Just like any other "disorder" defined by the DSM, it's just an arbitrary term for an arbitrary set of so-called "symptomps" with no real scientific basis! As such, there's no real disease (or "disorder"), and of course, no "treatment"
  15. the scientific method cannot be applied to society, because the society is made of irrational and subjective beings... the venus project is itself the brainchild of extremely irrational and subjective beings, who don't have even the slightest idea about the nature of the human being, the nature of economics, money and so on...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.