dollars

HarveyH55 wrote:

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

James___ wrote: Basically your computer is a set of falsifiable theories based on Einstein's falsifiable work. The fact that you're reading my post shows that Einstein's work back in 1906 has been falsified. And thus science itself has been falsified.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

Karl Popper put the term "falsifiable" into the mainstream lexicon but Karl Popper did not own science and the requirements for science were not established by any person or organization.

If you want a better understanding of falsifiability then look into technology testing. You might have noticed that technology is growing exponentially. Technology is the surest testament to the underlying science. Commercial technology industries insist on very thorough testing of all new science models before they will invest big money on a project. This is what the scientific method has become. It no longer matters what Popper might have said or thought.

Because so much big money rides on it, the standard verbiage of "hypothesis," "experiment" and "scientific method" have essentially disappeared and now everything falls under the umbrella term "testing." The "Test and Evaluation" field has become very complex and very technical and the people responsible for conducting testing and developing test plans require certification, e.g.

Example Test and Evaluation Certification Program
Example Test and Evaluation Professional Certification Program

There can be no ambiguity in a science model. All models must be formally specified (mathematics is the typical form of specification). The formal specification must unambiguously specify that which will prove the model false, i.e. falsifiability. That specification is also known as the "null hypothesis."

Imagine that you are a potential investment banker of many $millions in what might very well be a nutty claim of "science." You're going to insist on it being tyested inside and out ... to your complete and utter satisfaction. You might even insist on being present for some of the testing just to make sure you aren't being conned. Do you imagine that you would allow yourself to be bullied into a rash investment by some Marxists who are calling you "stupid" for daring to doubt (i.e. to deny) what they insist is already "settled science"? What if you overhear some conversation at the water cooler that Popper was discredited and that falsifiability is overrated? Will you ease up on the testing?

Of course not. If you can show some problem with the science model then you want to do so before you invest $millions. Otherwise, if you convince yourself that there's really something to this new science then you would be confident that you're sitting on a gold mine.

Bottom line: You will insist on falsifiablity and you will test any new model every which way from Tuesday.

That is falsifiability today.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

Karl Popper put the term "falsifiable" into the mainstream lexicon but Karl Popper did not own science and the requirements for science were not established by any person or organization.

If you want a better understanding of falsifiability then look into technology testing. You might have noticed that technology is growing exponentially. Technology is the surest testament to the underlying science. Commercial technology industries insist on very thorough testing of all new science models before they will invest big money on a project. This is what the scientific method has become. It no longer matters what Popper might have said or thought.

Because so much big money rides on it, the standard verbiage of "hypothesis," "experiment" and "scientific method" have essentially disappeared and now everything falls under the umbrella term "testing." The "Test and Evaluation" field has become very complex and very technical and the people responsible for conducting testing and developing test plans require certification, e.g.

Example Test and Evaluation Certification Program
Example Test and Evaluation Professional Certification Program

There can be no ambiguity in a science model. All models must be formally specified (mathematics is the typical form of specification). The formal specification must unambiguously specify that which will prove the model false, i.e. falsifiability. That specification is also known as the "null hypothesis."

Imagine that you are a potential investment banker of many $millions in what might very well be a nutty claim of "science." You're going to insist on it being tyested inside and out ... to your complete and utter satisfaction. You might even insist on being present for some of the testing just to make sure you aren't being conned. Do you imagine that you would allow yourself to be bullied into a rash investment by some Marxists who are calling you "stupid" for daring to doubt (i.e. to deny) what they insist is already "settled science"? What if you overhear some conversation at the water cooler that Popper was discredited and that falsifiability is overrated? Will you ease up on the testing?

Of course not. If you can show some problem with the science model then you want to do so before you invest $millions. Otherwise, if you convince yourself that there's really something to this new science then you would be confident that you're sitting on a gold mine.

Bottom line: You will insist on falsifiablity and you will test any new model every which way from Tuesday.

That is falsifiability today.

Why bother investing in something you don't believe in the first place? If something does 'feel' right, I don't buy it, even if it's cheap, or claims to be a huge benefit. I trust my instincts, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but either way, I get good value for my money. Might miss out on a few good deals, but avoid many bad ones.

Obviously, the Popper method fails with Climate Change, since a who lot of governments and business are sold on bad science. Their are spending millions on it, some want to spend trillions. There is a potential to profit, for a short time, but in the long run, it's going to be an economic mess.

Have have noticed that science is done differently, more money oriented, political. Figured it was a funding issue, since research is expensive, and no one is going to pay for it, unless they can profit from it, except the government. A lot of the research seems to start with a pre-drawn conclusion, and the science, is about finding away to make it happen. I just thought science got cheap and dirty, sold out. Use to be about learning, now it's about learning to make money off anything. Guess Popper just figured out how to make science more profitable.

HarveyH55 wrote: Why bother investing in something you don't believe in the first place?

HarveyH55 wrote: If something does 'feel' right, I don't buy it, even if it's cheap, or claims to be a huge benefit.

HarveyH55 wrote: I trust my instincts, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but either way, I get good value for my money. Might miss out on a few good deals, but avoid many bad ones.

HarveyH55 wrote: Obviously, the Popper method fails with Climate Change, since a who lot of governments and business are sold on bad science.

HarveyH55 wrote: Their are spending millions on it, some want to spend trillions.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is a potential to profit, for a short time, but in the long run, it's going to be an economic mess.

HarveyH55 wrote: Have have noticed that science is done differently, more money oriented, political.

HarveyH55 wrote: Figured it was a funding issue, since research is expensive, and no one is going to pay for it, unless they can profit from it, except the government.

HarveyH55 wrote: A lot of the research seems to start with a pre-drawn conclusion, and the science, is about finding away to make it happen.

HarveyH55 wrote: Use to be about learning, now it's about learning to make money off anything.

HarveyH55 wrote: Guess Popper just figured out how to make science more profitable.