Dear Friends,
There are many videos about modern scientific method “empirical falsification” at: https://www.google.co.in/?gws_rd=cr&ei=sGBCUpqYEYiJrAe494HoDA#q=empirical+falsification&tbm=vid.
Couple of basic things particularly interesting to me, which are very basic introductions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ.
However this is more informative and illustrative of empirical falsification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZkrX5lMiks
The white swan theory might be useful in case of pseudo-science, but it can be grossly misused. Let me give couple of counter examples: If we can do X-ray or CT-scan on a large animal of a kind (e.g. swan, cat or dog) and found out that it has a Heart, then we can theorize that all animals of that kind must have a heart. That is, if a swan has Heart, we can safely bet every swan on the Earth has Heart.
So obviously white swan theory is not intended for questioning everything. We have no proof (or have any valid reason), why every swan must be white. We have no proof (or have any valid reason), why there can’t be a black swan. On the other hand, we have volumes of knowledge that proves that, it is impossible for any animal without Heart (if it needs Heart – which can be confirmed by checking just one specimen).
So right question must be: Is there any proof that all swans must be white, if I propose a theory “all swans must be white”. Mankind’s Body of Knowledge comprises millions of facts such as “all oxygen atoms must have 8 protons at the nucleus”.
We know all observations are not facts. For example, epicycles and retrograde motions considered facts 500 years ago. Anyone can observe epicycles and retrograde motions, but we know what went wrong. I am sure, Sir Karl Popper is not meant “empirical falsification” in certain context or perspective. So it is misuse, if it is used in any other context, if it was not intended perspective.
In the above illustration of locked box, we can only find supporting evidence as long as we can’t open the box. But once the box can be opened, the thing is no longer open for speculation. In hard sciences, there are many unopened boxes. But some of the boxes certainly would be opened in the future. Also many boxes were already opened after struggling for many decades.
There is no point in debating, if a discovery can open a box. For example, Galileo’s invention of telescope was a key to open the box, but researchers refuse to see inside the box. Likewise, today software researchers continue defend flawed geocentric paradox of software engineering, by refusing to see the objective reality about the physical components and CBD of physical products.
Best Regards,
Raju S Chiluvuri
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Isnt_it_moral_ethical_obligation_of_the_researchers_to_address_counter_evidence_for_each_of_the_theory_or_concept_being_supported_promoted?_tpcectx=profile_highlights
Dear Friends,
I feel, “Scientific Method” also confirms when it is possible to confirm a theory. For example, universal gravity and particularly heliocentric theory was confirmed by the discovery of Neptune due the perturbations of the Uranus.
The best known method is “disconfirm” the theories, as long as it is impossible to confirm (e.g. if it is not possible to open the box).
For example, white swan theory can’t be confirmed as long as we have no valid scientific proof that all swans must be white. So only way to test this is by disconfirmation. On the other hand, we have valid scientific proof that all the swans must have heart, if we can prove that at least one swan has heart. By testing just one swan we can confirm this theory: All swans must have heart.
Like to get more thought and perspectives
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science