Falsifiability
From RationalWiki
Falsifiability is the property of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by experiment. By definition, something that is falsifiable is capable of being tested by experiment or observation.[1] The ability to conduct experiments is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific.
Contents |
[edit] Scientific knowledge
All of our scientific knowledge and theories are based on two things: observation and logic. A theory is a logical explanation for observations and then proposes a set of new observations that could test whether the theory remains logical. This cycle completes itself if observation can still be used to test the theory - if a theory is tested by observation, it can be confirmed or shown to be incorrect and this is the essence of falsifiability. Evolution, for example is theoretically falsifiable - "fossil rabbits in the precambrian", as J.B.S. Haldane once said - whereas Intelligent Design is not, mostly because it makes no predictions that can be tested either way anyway.
The scientific method demands that, for something to be science it must be at least in principle falsifiable. If something is unfalsifiable it is emphatically not science. This is one of the primary tests of pseudoscience.
[edit] Examples of Falsifiability
Until the twentieth century Newton's laws of motion were
- a) scientific and
- b) believed to be true.
Relativity, by finding, and employing, the falsifiability of Newton's laws, modified them. This was only possible because Newton's laws made specific conjectures. It was therefore possible to determine that after specific observations were made, these observations contradicted Newton's ideas.
[edit] Scientific Conjectures, Hypotheses and Theories
- A conjecture or hypothesis is an idea that a researcher believes may be true. The researcher can test this idea using the scientific method.
- A theory is a well substantiated explanation for some aspect of nature, it is different from a hypothesis.
- Scientists constantly investigate even highly supported theories.
- If evidence is found that contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or revised.
[edit] Applications of Falsifiability
A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during an eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory.
Creationism is not falsifiable as its proponents base the theory on a human text, (the Bible) which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that creationism can be contradicted because of the nature of the "theory." Even when evolution in action is observed, creationists will refuse to allow it to alter their ideas. Since no observation will contradict creationism, it is not science. If no matter what the evidence, you can say something like "God is trying to trick us to test our faith," or "this is all part of a grand conspiracy of liberal deceit," creationism can never be proven incorrect.
Just because a theory is falsifiable, it doesn't mean that it ever will be falsified, as many anti-evolutionists seem to believe. Remember, gravity is a theory. Also, theory is not the opposite of "fact." Many "theories" like evolution are so well supported that scientists can build off them as if they were facts. Even though details about exactly the way evolution occurred are debated, evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists. Despite this fact, open-minded scientists would willingly reconsider evolution if suddenly, observations seemed to contradict its principles and seemed to falsify the idea.
Willingness to reexamine facts objectively is the difference between a scientist and a theologian.
[edit] See also
- Disproving Evolution
- Disproving Intelligent Design
- Naturalism
- Threats to scientific validity
- Debate:Falsifiability
