How to evaluate the phrase science is falsifiable ?

Science is to judge whether cognition is true through experiments or practice, and the scientific spirit is the spirit of seeking truth and seeking truth that is proved by practice or experiments. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the study of the direction and mode of cognition with the help of logic and speculation. There are two types of work in philosophy, one is to judge and analyze whether the recognized causal relationship is unified and self-consistent, and the other is to trace the causal relationship back to generate new cognition.

Both philosophy and science are faced with the problem of proof and falsification, and the reason why there is a distinction between philosophy and science is that the former is only logical, while the latter is experimental or practical. At the heart of the conceptual category of "science" is whether or not experimentation or practice can be carried out. "Scientific" is what has been proven by practice or experiment, otherwise it is just a conjecture.

Without the means of experimentation and practice, those who only make judgments and analyses logically can only be classified as philosophical concepts, not as scientific. The prevalence of pseudoscience is precisely because the modern scientific community blurs the distinction between philosophy and science, and labels philosophical concepts as scientific theories, resulting in everything being science.

Philosophy is systematic cognition. Systematization means that all cognitions are related and logically correct, rather than isolated perspectives. So it's not just a matter of saying that you can claim to be philosophical.

So, does one logic need to depend on another logic to form? If so, how did the first logical rationality come about? If not, how can logical rationality be formed in non-logical and irrational things?

Therefore, reason always assumes a priori that its cognition is correct, and it is not until there is a contradiction or paradox that the original logic of determination is judged to be wrong, which is dialectical thought.

This is why, logically, we can only be sure that there is an error, but we cannot conclude that what is not found is correct. Whether it is correct or not can only be proved by experiment or practice in the end. Therefore, practice is the only criterion for testing truth.

Philosophy for science consists in the following: first, to eliminate the errors that can be determined, in order to determine the content of the practice, and second, to analyze the causes of the errors when the practice has gone wrong.

A common misconception that "science is falsifiable" is that it is not science that is falsified. In fact, what is falsified is precisely science, and any theory, whether it is falsified or not, as long as it meets the conditions for falsifiability, it is a scientific theory. ‍‍

If a theory can be falsified, it is scientific. This is to say how to judge a theory in a scientific way, but it does not mean that unfalsified theories are unscientific theories. Changing the necessary conditions to sufficient conditions is a common trick of the **. ‍‍

Theories are used to falsify, objective facts are unchangeable, theories should be revised according to the changes in objective facts, and the laws of such changes should be revealed. So for many years, with the advancement of technology, theories have been revising and driving the development of technology. Therefore, the scientific attitude is to constantly revise and improve oneself according to the objective facts discovered.

Instead of denying objective facts, this is equivalent to building a wall in front of oneself and cutting off one's own path. ‍‍

Philosophers choose to replace verifiability with falsifiability. Swans are all white, this statement cannot be proven, but it can be falsified. As soon as you find a swan that is black, you falsify the proposition.

With falsification, science is able to constantly update itself and make progress based on experience, on the basis of new knowledge. ‍‍

Science is a developing science, and science never ends. When the cognitive ability of intelligent life forms expands, the original scientific knowledge will lag behind, and the new knowledge will replace the existing knowledge, and science will develop. So science is falsifiable.

If a theory can be falsified, it is a scientific theory. This sentence refers to the demarcation of science, and it is now a relatively accepted statement. ‍‍

For the question of whether a theory is a scientific demarcation, let's look at the example of Karl Popper. Popper believed that Darwin's theory of evolution was not a scientific theory. Why, because it is not falsifiable.

But Popper argues that Darwinian evolution is a theory of testing and eliminating errors, a framework for testable scientific theories, and a metaphysical program. ‍‍

When modern physics explores at a deeper level, it encounters an unavoidable problem: some theories cannot be tested. Proponents of string theory and the multiverse hypothesis think that Pop Boy should get out of the way because these theories are really beautiful or logically appealing.

"There is dark matter in the universe", but dark matter has not yet been discovered in the universe, not that dark matter cannot be discovered, so it is a scientific theory, because dark matter has not yet been discovered, so it is a scientific "hypothesis". ‍

Title. The basic or fundamental meaning of a sentence in quotation marks is: a sentence that you say for the sake of being true, and it can make people logically point out what may be wrong, then the sentence is falsifiable and therefore scientific.

This seems to be true to this day. Logically falsifiable does not mean that it can actually be falsified, because the conditions for actual falsification are not yet available, and only through research can the conditions be created, and then the actual falsification can be realized. Based on the results of actual falsification, judge whether the original scientific theory or hypothesis is right or wrong.

Need I give an example? Anyone who has done at least the least amount of scientific research as an undergrad will easily relate to their own experiences and understand what I am saying.

I wonder how scientists falsify human nature and the laws of nature? Maybe what comes out of science is inhumane, and human nature is superfluous in the eyes of scientists. Scientists exist in scientific laboratories, and the laws of nature have nothing to do with scientists, so the laws of nature are superfluous to scientists.

What is the object of science for those who do not know science?

Science originates from human cognition, and human cognition will always have limitations, so science can always be falsifiable!

The other universes proposed by the multiverse theory have not been observable by scientific equipment so far, but modern cosmological theories logically support the possibility of multiple universes. Physicists may really have come to rethink "science". ‍‍

The science that has been falsified is by no means science, because it is not science but conceived, how can it be called science?

It may be that the theory is scientifically proven.

As the name suggests, falsifiability means falsehood, and falsifiability means that it can prove that something or a certain person, a certain reason, or a certain theory is wrong, which is what falsifiability refers to in science.

Falsifiability: refers to the logical or principled possibility that the conclusions (explanations, predictions) deduced from a theory may conflict with or contradict one or a set of observational statements.

First, the expression of scientific theories is generally a full-term judgment, while the object of experience is individual. So, if experience is used to prove a theory, then it will not be exhaustive of general theories. For example, no amount of white sheep can prove that all sheep are white, and the theory that just one black sheep can prove that all sheep are white is false.

So, the real meaning of experience is that it can falsify scientific theories.

Second, falsificationism avoids the defense and dogma of false theories. If positivism is adhered to, then once there is an experience that is contrary to the theory, people will make special assumptions or limits so that the theory can satisfy the experience. But in reality, such a setting is often extremely unscientific.

Falsificationism leads people to believe that all science is just speculation and hypotheses that will not be conclusively proven, but will be falsified at any time.

1. Falsifiability is also called verifiability, that is, the possibility of denying a theory. The basic idea is that the criterion of the scientificity of a theory does not depend on its verifiability, but on its verifiability, and theories that cannot be denied by any conceivable event (such as the existence of God, etc.) are non-scientific. At the same time, Popper pointed out that since the amount of information, accuracy, and universality of a theory are directly proportional to the degree of verifiability of the theory, the degree of verifiability has become the criterion for measuring scientific theories.

2. The example you gave is incorrect. A duck with black feathers is a black duck, which is a synonymous and repeated statement, and has no value for logical judgment. If it is changed to "ducks have black feathers", it is more or less a testable proposition.

3. There is no so-called "theory that is actually feasible under objective conditions", this is just a utopian concept. Because when a theory is proposed, people need to test it in practice, but it will be an endless test. A theory that has been tested once, twice, ten, or a hundred times in reality does not prove that the theory is always correct; And as long as one day there is a counterexample, the theory will be overturned, and this is falsifiability.

Therefore, when understanding Popper's theory of negation, it is necessary to combine the basis of his empiricism in order not to misunderstand its original meaning.

All scientific propositions must be falsifiable, and theories that cannot be falsified cannot become scientific theories. This is a concept put forward by the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper's book "Conjectures and Refutations".

In science and philosophy, falsifiability is used to denote the property of empirically derived expressions, namely, that these conclusions must allow for logical counterexamples. In contrast, formal or mathematical expressions such as tautologies (which are always true for reasons of definition), mathematical axioms, and theorems – expressions that do not allow for logical counterexamples.

Some philosophers and scientists, such as Karl Popper, declared that all empirical hypotheses, propositions, and theories are not scientific unless they allow for the possibility of counterexamples. Just because a claim is "falsifiable" does not mean that the claim is "false".

If a claim is falsifiable, then at least theoretically there is a method of observation (even if the observation is not actually made) to show that the claim does not meet the tautology criterion (i.e., the claim is not always true). The logical premise for an observation of a description is that the thing it describes exists. For example, the claim that "all swans are white" can be falsified by the observation of "one black swan", although this observation does not necessarily occur.

A falsifiable proposition must define certain prohibited situations. For example, in this example, the claim that "all swans are white" prohibits the existence of "black swans". Since there may theoretically be a counter-example of "black swans observed", the claim that all swans are white is falsifiable.

Falsifiability is a logical property. Therefore, if we want to show that a physical law is falsifiable, we do not need to show that it is real and feasible to violate the physical law (which would make it no longer a physical law); However, we just need to show that exceptions to this law of physics are logically possible. Further, logical falsifiability is a norm for empirically derived claims, not evidence for the existence of counterexamples.

In addition, falsifiability as a logical property of things has nothing to do with some subjective rhetorical or psychological expressions.

Finally, falsifiability is a necessary property of empirically derived claims—but not a sufficient property. This means that a proposition needs more attributes to make it empirically meaningful. A line of words may not be a claim (it may be a random word without meaning), and even if it is a claim, it does not necessarily mean that it can be a scientific theory.