798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 195:
Line 195: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
:: There is no contradiction? Here's the relevant quote from the article:
:::"This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper.
:::Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."
:::Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory."
:: How can something be falsified if it lacks falsifiability? By ''definition'', both of these cannot be true. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:24, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:::: The wording is now better. But with respect, the problem is not an issue of mere wording. The article claims that the theory is not testable or falsifiable; it then ''lists things which contradict the theory''. If the theory is not falsifiable, then no observation could possibly be taken as "contradictory" to the theory; no potential piece of evidence could make it appear implausible. That's part of what lacking falsifiability implies. The article also claims that the theory lacks testability, but you have just stated here that there have been tests performed to check it! Clearly both of those cannot be true, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::::: No, you're getting tangled up in semantics. Your objections could be easily satisfied by minor modifications to the wording, which you could easily do yourself. I suggest you focus on opening your mind to the substance first.
:::::: Thanks for taking it this far, Andy. I'm sure [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] will be able to come up with a revision that satisfies all of us. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:18, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::: I added a sentence. It seems that the real problem with the theory is not that it's unfalsifiable as it stands, but that it will merely be amended in the event that evidence appears to contradict it, as has been done in the past. I disagree that this makes the theory unfalsifiable but have left that implication in the article, respecting the intent of the author. "has been criticized" may seem weasel-wordy so feel free to revert that if you think so. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 14:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::: Your edit is heavy-handed, perhaps even a parody of your view of others. If you think the theory is falsifiable, then how would you propose falsifying it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::: I think the issue of siderophilic elements is a legitimate one, and possibly a falsifier. I'm not up-to-date on the literature but I am guessing planetary scientists are working on ways to amend the giant impact hypothesis which incorporate the lack of such elements. Evidence that the earth has never had a magma ocean would also be a falsifier, but maybe scientists will find a way around that one, too. On a more obvious level, direct evidence that the earth-moon system isn't billions of years old (for example) would also completely be a falsifier. I don't think that a theory being subject to amendment in the light of new discoveries renders it unfalsifiable, but it's your encyclopedia and not mine (and that is an interesting debate in the philosophy of science). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::: Your points cast doubt on the theory, but I doubt many would see them as falsifying it entirely.
:::::::::: By the way, black holes and the theory of extraterrestrial life are also not falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
(unindent) I think your opinion on black holes is based on a misunderstanding of the common statement: "'Black holes do not exist' is not falsifiable". Some would argue that this is true (I disagree), but this statement is an argument that falsifiability is not a good demarcation of science from non-science, not that black holes are somehow unscientific. There are serious problems with falsifiability alone. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:edit: I meant to say "'Black holes exist' is not falsifiable." Sorry! [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:39, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
:: How would you falsify the claim that black holes exist???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::: That's the point. "Black holes exist" may not be falsifiable ''per se'', but that clearly doesn't mean it suddenly isn't scientific to state that, because obviously that is a scientific statement. This is one of the serious problems with falsifiability as a criterion.
::: Anyway, I'd say that if we do plenty of looking, especially where black holes are expected to be, and find none, that is close enough to being a falsifier. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Surely this is all the wrong way round. The null hypothesis would naturally be that 'no black holes exist'. This is of course falsifiable if black holes are detected. From our understanding of the laws of physics and observations made, the only reasonable conclusion as it stands is that black holes do exist. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
: Exactly. In this sense, "black holes exist" needn't be falsifiable (in the absence of evidence, there's no reason to think it is true instead of the null hypothesis) in order to be scientific. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
==Could we just say scientists?==
I keep seeing references to "atheistic scientists", would it be more accurate to simply say "scientist"? Maybe even "secular scientist", although the former is preferred. There is no information on the scientists' belief systems who proposed various Moon Origin hypotheses, it would be misleading to call them all atheists. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:33, 18 June 2009 [EDT]