by Ann » Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:15 pm
neufer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability wrote:
<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.
Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion.
Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>
![👽](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f47d.svg)
Verifying the claim "There are no alien civilizations out there" would require observing all habitable planets and moons in the Universe, as well as all other places where a technological civilization might dwell, such as on an advanced space ship
![🚀](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f680.svg)
, which is not technologically possible.
![Rocketship :rocketship:](./images/smilies/rocketship.gif)
![👽](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f47d.svg)
![🚀](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f680.svg)
In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.
Ann
[quote=neufer post_id=318117 time=1636490327 user_id=124483]
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability]
[float=left][img3=Even with no black swans to possibly falsify it, "All swans are white" would still be falsifiable—a black swan would still be a state of affairs, only an imaginary one.]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Black_Swans.jpg[/img3][/float]
<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.
Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion. [b][size=120][color=#0040FF]Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.[/color][/size][/b] As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>[/quote]
[/quote]
👽Verifying the claim "There are no alien civilizations out there" would require observing all habitable planets and moons in the Universe, as well as all other places where a technological civilization might dwell, such as on an advanced space ship 🚀, which is not technologically possible.:rocketship:👽🛸
🚀In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.👽 :rocketship:
Ann