If theories must be disprovable, what value are they?

[aristarchusinexile]

I'm genuinely stumped on this one.

[Rocky Planet]

Your gut has all the answers. Use your flashlight.

[astrolabe]

Hello aristarchusnotinexile,

A theory is akin to a patterned idea. A framework, if you will, which is sort of the method we humans use in order to organize a set of ideas that support the pattern or disprove it through testing. Some tests win, some don't. If we couldn't for some reason develope this characteristic we would have nothing but a bunch of info that would be so seemingly unrelated as to be meaningless.

A theory may not be critical to our survival but the ability to develope one most certainly is.

For example: an individual may, through observation in the field, develope a theory that one could capture a chimpanzee by placing food into a hole in the side if a rock. If the hole was large enough for the chimp's hand to reach in but small enough that it's fist, once enclosed around the food, could not be pulled out then-Bingo! When it came to pass it supported the theory. Other chimps may not put their hand on the hole, others do but then release the food when the captor's approach, disproving the theory. But in reality most are in fact captured so the theory stands, even though in some instances it would appear to be wrong. I personally don't know the % of chimpanzees required to make the theory a correct one

[Rocky Planet]

Disprovability applies to scientific theories. A scientific theory states that a phenomenon always follows one or more rules, or it proposes a mechanism for a phenomenon that is reflected in one or more rules that are always followed, or it specifies attributes of a phenomenon that are defined by one or more rules that are always followed. The disprovability comes into play as the rules must be constructed in a way that we can determine whether they hold true for a particular trial. This means that we need a trial though which we can gather data to plug into the rule to see whether the rule works or not. It is simply a principle of logic that the "always" part is disproved by a single exception but not proved by any number of verifications. You can have a theory that does not follow these principles, but if it can't be tested it's not a scientific theory by definition. We don't need to be able presently to conduct the trial for our theory to meet the definition of testability - the theory need only to have in principle an observable condition that would disprove it. Regarding the value of a theory that is bound by those conditions, the fact is that it's all that logic allows us, and it's better than having no structured method at all to evaluate our scientific explanations. Our knowledge is thereby guided or constrained in the right direction by eliminating all the directions that don't stand up to a test of their criteria against measured reality.

[astrolabe]

Hello Rocky Planet,

Aw shucks........wait a minute.........what about those little chimps? Chalk it up to Darwinism? A theory in and of itself so maybe the chimp snagging is a subset. C'mon work with me here. I mean, who loves ya baby.

[Rocky Planet]

A theory about chimps or anything else could be a scientific theory or not, depending on the phrasing. Does it specify a rule that can be tested? Your chimp theory includes the word "could", so it's not so much a statement of a rule that "always" applies. So, unlike what I described above, this kind of theory can be proved correct by a single successful trial and never disproved by trials only. And Kojak loves me if nobody else does - pass the lollipops.

[bystander]

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
...
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.

[Chris Peterson]

I'm genuinely stumped on this one.

If they are actually disproved, they add to our knowledge- we know with high certainty that something in particular is not true. If they survive testing for a long time without being disproved, they boost our confidence that they do represent truth. Either way, that is value.

[Loco]

Hello aristarchusnotinexile,

A theory is akin to a patterned idea. A framework, if you will, which is sort of the method we humans use in order to organize a set of ideas that support the pattern or disprove it through testing. Some tests win, some don't. If we couldn't for some reason develope this characteristic we would have nothing but a bunch of info that would be so seemingly unrelated as to be meaningless.

A theory may not be critical to our survival but the ability to develope one most certainly is.

For example: an individual may, through observation in the field, develope a theory that one could capture a chimpanzee by placing food into a hole in the side if a rock. If the hole was large enough for the chimp's hand to reach in but small enough that it's fist, once enclosed around the food, could not be pulled out then-Bingo! When it came to pass it supported the theory. Other chimps may not put their hand on the hole, others do but then release the food when the captor's approach, disproving the theory. But in reality most are in fact captured so the theory stands, even though in some instances it would appear to be wrong. I personally don't know the % of chimpanzees required to make the theory a correct one

I hope no one minds if I throw an answer in here (pardon my rudeness, Aristarchus) by saying, why then, not propose theories which do not have to be disprovable. Surely they would be valuable, instead of being for the most part seemingly worthless exercises in futility.

[Loco]

I'm genuinely stumped on this one.

If they are actually disproved, they add to our knowledge- we know with high certainty that something in particular is not true. If they survive testing for a long time without being disproved, they boost our confidence that they do represent truth. Either way, that is value.

What you say has value. However, if a theory MUST be disprovable, that seems to say the theorist knows the theory is false to begin with. I agree with Aristarchus that this proposition seems to have no value at all.

[Chris Peterson]

What you say has value. However, if a theory MUST be disprovable, that seems to say the theorist knows the theory is false to begin with. I agree with Aristarchus that this proposition seems to have no value at all.

A good theory is constructed in such a way as to be disprovable. Keep in mind that no theory can ever be provable, so disprovability is really the only absolute mechanism available for testing. How useful is a "theory" (using the term loosely) that can neither be demonstrated true or false?

Keep in mind that the idea of disprovability is fundamental. The degree to which an actual theory is disprovable varies somewhat. People certainly prefer theories that have a simple method of disprovability, but there are theories which are not easily disproved in a way that everyone would accept without discussion.

[harry]

G'day Aris

You said

I'm genuinely stumped on this one.

If you can imagine a block of granite being chipped away to show the end sculpture, the theories are like chissels chipping away, "in doing" they become blunt and need retuning, resharpenning and updated with stronger metal.


To walk along the journey of discovery you need stepping stones.
I sometimes see theories as stepping stones that sometimes need to be replaced.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This paper maybe related to this topic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

[Loco]

What you say has value. However, if a theory MUST be disprovable, that seems to say the theorist knows the theory is false to begin with. I agree with Aristarchus that this proposition seems to have no value at all.

A good theory is constructed in such a way as to be disprovable. Keep in mind that no theory can ever be provable, so disprovability is really the only absolute mechanism available for testing. How useful is a "theory" (using the term loosely) that can neither be demonstrated true or false?

Keep in mind that the idea of disprovability is fundamental. The degree to which an actual theory is disprovable varies somewhat. People certainly prefer theories that have a simple method of disprovability, but there are theories which are not easily disproved in a way that everyone would accept without discussion.

"I see!" said the blind man. Of course! Just because a theory is structured so it CAN be disproved if new information becomes available does not mean it WILL BE disproved. Simple. I cannot understand why I did not understand this to begin with in the big inning .. (the beginning that is) .. there must have been some kind of blockage .. some kind of hyperwallmentalblock errected by my subliminalsubconscioussubliminalities I suppose. Aristarchus, I hope your subliminalblockages don't cause you as much discomfort as they do the I who is me.

[Loco]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This paper maybe related to this topic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

Harry - are you really from Oz? Do you know Dorothy? Do you think the Tin Man was a forerunner of the robot?

I agree with Lopez-Corredoira in so far as dominant idology used to possess huge mass in cosmological circles .. the Big Bang theory was rarely questioned, and probably with great trepidation. That consensus seems to have shattered though
in the light of theories based on more than the simple flying away of redshifted galaxies. MOG for one, which includes anti-gravity, is far superior in every way. I think those cosmologists clinging desperately to the Big Bang may be moving more and more toward institutions for the elderly, where it is certain raisins in an expanding dough will invoke far greater realistic pleasure than when those cosmologists were young people using that anaology, rarely seeing raisins in real dough, except perhaps at Easter, during which Hot Cross Buns were consumed wholeheartedly. I hope I didn't cross any boundaries by mentioning Hot Crosses? Please believe me when I say I am not of the flaming cross persuasion.

[The Code]

Hi Loco

some kind of hyperwallmentalblock errected by my subliminalsubconscioussubliminalities I suppose. Aristarchus, I hope your subliminalblockages don't cause you as much discomfort as they do the I who is me.

What ever that means, I will just say yes to.

Mark

[Loco]

Hi Loco

some kind of hyperwallmentalblock errected by my subliminalsubconscioussubliminalities I suppose. Aristarchus, I hope your subliminalblockages don't cause you as much discomfort as they do the I who is me.

What ever that means, I will just say yes to.

Mark

A "yes" is acceptable, Mark, but I must say it is not as good as a rousing and stimulating discussion in which points of view are traded for other points of view of equal, lesser or greater value. I must warn you though, saying "yes" to things you don't know what are can theoretically get one into difficulties. On the other hand, a hugely pleasant surprise might await one who simply says, "yes." So .. suit yourself, but always, when suiting, where a complementary tie.

[The Code]

A "yes" is acceptable, Mark, but I must say it is not as good as a rousing and stimulating discussion in which points of view are traded for other points of view of equal, lesser or greater value. I must warn you though, saying "yes" to things you don't know what are can theoretically get one into difficulties. On the other hand, a hugely pleasant surprise might await one who simply says, "yes." So .. suit yourself, but always, when suiting, where a complementary tie.

A man of my clear view,, already knows the treat in store... heeeerrrrreeeeesssss Johny...

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Loco said:

Harry - are you really from Oz? Do you know Dorothy? Do you think the Tin Man was a forerunner of the robot?

Mate, I know Dorothy and the wicked witch of the East and the Kind Witch of the North.

Here in ozzz, we offer Brains, heart, courage and home like no other place.

=======================================================

I was going to say something,,,,,,,,,,,I forgot