nature of FALSIFIABILITY - interesting!!

amazed

Aku suka betul tentang falsifiability ni.. dari dulu dok terfikir discussion tentang falsifiabilty ni..   aku ada terbaca article mengenai nya  dan aku akan buat a bit summary dan..  hopefully dapat good discussion dgn forummers kat sini, ek...
(btw salah satu course yang aku ambik masa kat NIU dulu -  alternative course :  philosophy of natural science - masa ni lah aku belajar tentang rene descartes and emmanual kant) ingat lagi prof aku nama : prof stearns.. good lord..  lecture dia aku tak faham langsung...maklumlah masa tu aku baru sophomore; english aku pun hampeh langsung..  sib baik ada text book.. kalu dak  hancus  credit aku..

Cam ni lah.. camana aku nak explain kan ye... mengenai philosophy of science tentang nature of falsifiability.. kita kena fahami dulu maksud falsifiability ni in the first place..

Falsifiability sound like a 'big word' but actually it is a simple word  - meaning : whether it makes predictions and whether such predictions can be easily and conveniently proven false.

Aku bagi contoh wokey - scientific statement yang predict :   "all men are immortal" - whether or not it is true of false..  tapi the moment we find a dead human - it is proven that the statement is FALSE..    nevertheless  it  is a scientific theory..

The statement is  framed  like this -- "all men are immortal" -  so that there is a way to prove it false!!  Untuk statement ni - "all men are immortal" -  to proof it is  false is easy --  i.e  find a dead man  and the assertion of 'all men are immortal' is no longer true...

Ok... now statement :  " all men are mortal"  on the other hand, is not a scientific statement..  Because it is not falsifiable..(.. such as - have you ever found a man who did not die?)

So rasanya boleh faham kan..  scientific statement yang falsifiable..  nanti kita cuba  bagi example.. dan predict whether it can be easily and conveniently provent false..

Meh aku bagi satu lagi statement.. :  "all politician are honest".. rasanya statement tu untrue  tapi ianya consistent dengan scientific method..   cari satu politician yang dishonest (senang aje .. with a blink of the eyes   ) - and we have proven that the statement is false..   thus - it was framed as a scientific statement..

Now... jom try opposite lak - "all polician are dishonest" -  well it might take us  gazillion years to find an honest politician..so, within limit and reason - statement "all politician are dishonest" is not a scientific method because it is not potentially falsifiable!!

So, rasanya by now hope you all got the drift.  Easy - a false statement is untrue.  A falsifiable statement maybe true or false.  But it is a statement open to a scientific test.  Science moves forward as we frame more and more testable hypotheses.


Jom buat quiz..  and you guys have to say if the following statements are falsifiable ...

1 -  All Mat Rempits have a death wish.

2 -  Doctors work solely for the good of mankind.

3 -  All lovers are fools.

4 -  Climate change will ensure that Port Klang and Penang will be totally submerged in 100 years.

so, boleh bagi falsifiable statement tak..   best kan philosophy of science ni..


jom discuss ni!! -

mbhcsf

wow thsi i another lingo / register of yours  ..hmm..impressive

so how's ur Prof? is he married?

okay TO THE POINT:-


1) i just wondering , why on earth in thsi field of philosophy the names like i dunno kant and rene descartes are so widely used? what kind of impact did they contribute to the world of knowledge in general?

2) how would this knowledge affected you?

3) what are the disciplines involved in thsi field?

boleh u tolong jawab tak...dear brainy but cheeky?

amazed

so how's ur Prof? is he married?

He is.  I'm not.     ...  notthatucare     

amazed

I'll answer you later tonite ek.. I've got an appointment to take my mother out for a lite supper tonite...  Her birthday you see..     Sengkek ler aku malam ni.. Tak per  mak aku tolong bayarkan dulu  aku rasa    (aku kata aje wallet tertinggal kat rumah..  wokey tak excuse tu   )  tapi hadiah dia aku bagi ler..    anak mithali la ni    ..  pirrrahhhhhhhhh   

mbhcsf

all lovers are fools = plausible , yep may be true may be not but surely it can be deceiving

mbhcsf

Originally posted by amazed at 12-3-2008 08:31 PM



He is.  I'm not.     ...  notthatucare     

haa...thsi might be a good proposition

not that i care : well.. i may or may  not be. hmm..bolehlah tu

then another statement : why does it so important to you  whether i may or may not be?hmm..

meitantei

Originally posted by amazed at 12-3-2008 02:10 AM
1 -  All Mat Rempits have a death wish.

Falsifiable. Tanya jer mana2 mat rempit. Diorang bukannya nak mati pun.

2 -  Doctors work solely for the good of mankind.

Falsifiable. Aku kenal beberapa doktor yg jadi doktor bukan demi kebaikan manusia.

3 -  All lovers are fools.

Not falsifiable. Statement terlalu subjective... Perkataan 'fool' is not properly defined.

4 -  Climate change will ensure that Port Klang and Penang will be totally submerged in 100 years.

Falsifiable... tapi nak kena tunggu 100 tahun utk tengok betul atau tidak. Tapi mungkin not falsifiable gak... erm... a hunch...

...totally submerged in 100 years - maksudnya tenggelam perlahan-lahan dan akhirnya tenggelam habis pada tahun ke-100, kan?
...totally submerged within 100 years - maksudnya bila2 masa dlm 100 tahun ni akan tenggelam habis secara tiba2, kan?

amazed

1 -  All Mat Rempits have a death wish.

Let's take a look at this statement...

Logically, no one has a death wish.. same goes to Mat Rempits..  I would say this is a falsifiable statement.. most of the mat rempits didn't die..  whether or not it is true or false.. but the moment we find out there're some mat rempits who are not dead.. then it is proven that the statement is FALSE.. still.... it is a scientific theory..

Now..  if we take a look at the statemet - "All Mat Rempits didn't have a death wish"  . it is not a scientific statement.. . because it can't be falsifiable..   it is a given - All Mat Rempits didn't have a death wish.. who does, right?  

Itu cuma opinion aku.. mungkin orang lain ada ideas dan argument tentang ni...  would be great to know