Please explain what exactly is meant by falsifiability and why science is falsifiable .

1. Falsifiability.

It is also called provability, 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. Popper.

At the same time, it is 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 his empiricism.

will not 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.

This statement is true. But the example you gave is not very appropriate. Science is the process of observation, analysis, inference, and experimentation to discover the laws behind the material world or explain the phenomena of the material world.

According to this definition, the scientific method is divided into five steps, and this is Francis Bacon.

Proposed, that is: observing phenomena, inductive analysis, putting forward hypotheses, verifying falsifications, and making conclusions. Of course, in the fourth step, if the hypothesis is overturned or insufficient to support the hypothesis, the only way to conclude is that the assumption is "wrong" or to redo the first four steps.

The reason why it is said that "what is falsifiable is science" is because the object of scientific research is the material world, and the expected results are objective laws. Since it is an objective law, it must be repeated to get the same result, otherwise it is not a law.

In other words, the focus is on the object of scientific research. A lot of so-called science is actually pseudoscience.

Because the object of their study is not objective laws, such as the origin of the world, the origin of life, ......None of this can be reproduced in the lab. And then there's the question you mentioned: "Flowers are red".

This proposition is still irrelevant to the law, what color is red, it is a matter of experience and definition.

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.

For example, there is a fortune teller in Chang Shuxin's ** who says to the visitor, "The father dies before the mother".

Because this sentence is ambiguous, there are multiple correct ways to understand it.

1.My father was still stupid, and my mother died.

2.The father would die before the mother.

3.Even if the parents are still alive, the probability that one of the future parents will die first is still 100%.

Therefore, the words of this kind of fortune teller are unfalsifiable, and they are correct no matter how they say.

There is also a way to be vague, that is, to be vague.

For example, to ask the young to say:

1."You have a conservative attitude towards love, but you will still fight hard when you meet true love."

2."Your career has not been developing well recently, and your fate will eventually lead to a catastrophe."

This is also a hundred shots, because the common problem of young people is that their careers or marriages are not smooth, and they use dialectics to combine the positive and negative probabilities, and saying it is equivalent to not saying it.

On the contrary, scientific things may not always be true, but they are certainly falsifiable.

Aristotle said that "heavy objects fall faster", Galileo designed a new experiment to refute it, and finally succeeded in refuting it, no one will say that Aristotle is a **, after all, every era has its limitations.

There is also a type of falsification called "amendment", another example.

Conclusion 1: Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.

Conclusion 2: At a standard atmospheric pressure, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.

Conclusion 2 is the opposite of Conclusion 1"Amendments"or "limit", not "refutation", in short, all correct conclusions must be tested by reality to stand.

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" was proposed by Karl Popper. Popper, a British thinker and scientist who was probably never considered mainstream by most thinkers. "Falsifiability" comes from his masterpiece The Logic of Scientific Research.

Nearly 100 years have passed since Popper proposed "falsifiability", and although this view has been questioned or even denied, it must be recognized that Popper has an important position in the history of philosophy of science. Today, we're going to talk about "falsifiability".Take a look at some examples of falsification in the scientific community

1. Definition of "falsifiability" "falsifiability" is for science. So, what is science? In the scientific community, judgments about science are generally based on four criteria, namely, logical, empirical, sociological, and historical.

Among them, logical and empirical standards are emphasized. The so-called logical criterion is to maintain logical consistency, at least to be self-justifying, not self-contradictory. The empirical criterion, where experience does not refer to life experience, but refers to philosophical experience, i.e., observation, experiment, which can also be regarded as empirical.

This empirical evidence, then, points to "falsifiability". Any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, and if a science is unfalsifiable and correct under all conditions, then it is pseudoscience. To be clear, however, falsifiability is not a sufficient condition for science, but a sine qua non.

All he needs to do is make sure that a scientific theory may be disproved under certain circumstances or premises, but you don't need to actually disprove it. Therefore, a scientific theory needs to be proven, and at the same time, it needs to be falsified.

2. What are the falsifiable examples in the scientific communityThere are actually quite a few falsified examples in the scientific community. For example, Aristotle's theory that "heavy objects reach the ground before light objects" was overturned by Galileo. In 1950, Galileo Galilei threw two iron balls of different sizes and weights at the same time on the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and came to the conclusion that the two iron balls landed at the same time and there was no time difference.

Another example is Einstein's theory of relativity, which solves many unseen but real problems for us, but he has also been falsified. The reason is that if the number of space and circumferential clusters is calculated through telescopes and satellite technology in space, there is a discrepancy between the number obtained and Einstein's theory, which may be small but real.

Through the above two examples, it is not difficult to find that because of the development of society and the progress of science and technology, the process of history is always moving forward. When new discoveries contradict old theories, falsification exists. Therefore, science is a process and a challenge that is constantly looking for falsification.

If you can't find a mistake, it must be right? Why are all sorts of second places always forgotten? Why is it less and less cool to watch blockbusters? The theory of sensory relativity takes you to understand the cognitive biases brought about by human simplification.

All scientific propositions must be falsifiable, that is, the possibility of being proven false.

Unfalsifiability, that is, this proposition is neither right nor wrong, not even wrong, too vague, not a scientific proposition, such as the daily horoscope divination, Aries' lucky number today is 0, no one can prove this right or wrong, .

It can be falsified but not falsified, for example, aliens exist, and this has not been confirmed until now.

It is falsifiable and has been falsified, for example, Aristotle believed that the weight of an object is directly proportional to the speed at which it is moving in free fall. This theory ruled for thousands of years, and was later shattered by Galileo's experiment of two copper balls falling to the ground at the same time.

It must be Wuda, this question is too difficult.

You are my senior sister or senior brother of Wuhan University......We're ...... these questions again this year

Alas, they are all fallen people at the end of the world, so why should they have met before.

Unfalsifiable means that the conclusion of the proposition is indefinite, and it is impossible to verify whether the proposition is correct or not; Falsifiability means that the conclusion is certain. Falsifiable but unfalsified means that the proposition has a definite conclusion, and so far no facts have been found to overturn this conclusion; If it has been falsified, facts have been found that contradict this definite conclusion.

For example, the axiom of parallel lines in geometry is unfalsifiable, because this is a metaphysical absolute presupposition, and different descriptions give different geometries (the main difference in geometry such as Euclidean and Riemann is the definition of parallel lines); The law of gravitation is falsifiable, but there is currently no evidence that it is wrong; The geocentric theory is falsifiable and has been confirmed by human outer space technology.