Statism and the Null Hypothesis (from Fail Quotes)

[MrBogosity]

Yes, the verification principle is different.

Consider the phrase, "Human beings get infected by viruses." A verificationist would say that this must be the statement to examine, because it can be empirically verified: just find a human infected with a virus.

But the problem they ignore is, what if you never find such a person? That doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that they haven't yet found anyone it applies to. There's no way to prove the statement wrong.

The proper default is, "There is no reason to consider that humans get infected by viruses," because that's falsifiable. Once it's falsified--once a human infected by a virus is found--THEN you reject the falsified claim, and can take the former position because it's been observed.

[Travis Retriever]

And just so we're on the same page, the former is an example of the "Verification Principle" while the latter is an example of Verification & Falsification?

[MrBogosity]

Yes, although it's not "verification AND falsification," more like "verification THROUGH falsification."

[Travis Retriever]

Awesome, thanks.

[Travis Retriever]

I believe this bit put it best:
"Scientific inferences are by no means absolutely certain.  They rely upon predictive power and falsification as a type of crutch which helps them overcome the Humean problem of induction."--(Paraphrased; Source)

[Travis Retriever]

The proper default is, "There is no reason to consider that humans get infected by viruses," because that's falsifiable. Once it's falsified--once a human infected by a virus is found--THEN you reject the falsified claim, and can take the former position because it's been observed.

I think I get it now!
H0 is the proper default, which you attempt to falsify using evidence and observation.

By the way, what do you mean by 'corroboration' in this context?
And why does it invite confirmation bias?
Also, is scientific consensus the same as 'corroboration'?

[Travis Retriever]

No, they [scientists] get annoyed because philosophers continually make unfalsifiable statements and pretend that they're valid.

Case in point: The idiots commenting on your videos of Bogosity episode 6 where you debunk the "Law of Attraction".
Or the people in the movie, "The Secret" itself.

[Travis Retriever]

"verification THROUGH falsification."

And I DO believe I've found the name of my own personal "philosophy".

[Travis Retriever]

Shane, I have another question.
This is from an earlier post from FlowCell:

The Verification Principle has two criterion for cognitive meaning 1.) the statement must be logically consistent, and 2.) must be supported by evidence.  The problem with verification is the question: If only the statements supported by evidence are meaningful, how is this supported by evidence?  It isn't supported by empirical evidence, so those who cling to it, like Stephan are being dogmatic.

Do you define the "Verification Principle" the same way?
If so, do you agree with that FlowCell's post?
If so, why does science work this way in terms of how theories are validated via verification through falsification?  That is, scientific theories, in order to be considered validated must be both consistent logically, and supported by the evidence.

[Ex_Nihil0]

OK, but I'm what I'm getting at is, did you mean two different things when you said "verification" (as in, "falsification is an important part of verification") than when you talk of the "principle of verification"?
If the two mean the same thing, that means that falsification is also invalid.

Also, you seem to define "Verification" differently than FlowCell does.

Yes, I would like a clear definition of what Shane thinks Verification is, because when I say verification, I mean the verification principle, which is very specific.  Shane's definition of verification seems to mean what I call corroboration.  In other words, an experiment could be said to be verified if one lab gets the same result as another.  To avoid the confusion between this type of verification and the verification principle, I use the term corroboration. 

The Verification principle is a check for "cognitive meaning" using the criterion of logical consistency and positive evidence (i.e. a modus ponens argument). 

Modus Ponens (Affirming The Consequent)
If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

This type of verification is in strong contrast with falsification (a modus tollens argument) to falsify conceptual ideas.

Modus Tollens (Denying The Consequent)
If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

I do not see how falsification could be considered part of verification unless verification is considered synonymous with corroboration. 

[Ex_Nihil0]

Yes, although it's not "verification AND falsification," more like "verification THROUGH falsification."

That feels more like word play to make your point by changing the definition of verification to be synonymous with falsification.  If verification is through falsification, what's the point in making a distinction between the two words?  It seems impossible to me that you could derive positive evidence from evidence of absence.  This requires further clarification.  I would like to know exactly how you define verification and falsification.

[Ex_Nihil0]

My original quite:

In philosophy, a statement is valid as long as it is logically sound.  Its up to the scientists to show if the assumptions are reasonable or not, but the fact is, assumptions are unavoidable.

What you quoted:

In philosophy, a statement is valid as long as it is logically sound.

Incorrect. Validity and soundness are two different things. This is a perfectly valid argument:

P1: All horses are rockets.
P2: All rockets are mammals.
C: All horses are mammals.

It's valid because the conclusion follows naturally from the premises. But it is NOT sound, because both premises have to be true in order for the conclusion to be true. As it turns out, the conclusion IS true, but only by luck.

The Computer Science expression of this concept is Garbage In, Garbage Out. In order to test for soundness, you need to test for the accuracy of your premises. And the ONLY way to do that is through falsification.

Okay, I explained this rather poorly, but I'm not factually incorrect.  I should have phrased is thus: "philosophers only concern themselves with the validity of the argument; they leave the determination of soundness of the assumptions up to the scientists."  Honestly, this was the point I was getting at.

I'm not sitting through a 2-hour debate just for this. Give me a timecode. And again, as I already said, if he's talking about religion and not scientific theory, it's a bogus example.

Its related to religion, but he seems to be targeting his argument towards philosophy in general.  Dawkins speaks at 00:32:19 and 01:03:19.  It would, however, not be honest of me to omit that Dawkins is actually referencing a conversation between scientist Peter Atkins and Prince Philip, so I do not know what the full context of that conversation was or what else was said.  It would be interesting to find out, though.

Also, I would welcome your opinion on Michio Kaku's contrastingly agnostic point of view. 01:07:34 & 01:34:45 (apologies for the short one's comments)  He makes a very similar point that I've been trying to make all along.

The theists in the debate aren't worth seeing as they add very little philosophy and use emotional appeals and the pointless "revelation" defense.  


I'd like to get back to your points on atomic theory and mathematical proofs, because they still don't address the issue I'm getting at, plus I there are other things about Dalton's original theory that need to be addressed that I feel support my case about the importance of metaphysics as part of the scientific process.  

[MrBogosity]

The Verification principle is a check for "cognitive meaning" using the criterion of logical consistency and positive evidence (i.e. a modus ponens argument). 

Modus Ponens (Affirming The Consequent)
If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

This type of verification is in strong contrast with falsification (a modus tollens argument) to falsify conceptual ideas.

Modus Tollens (Denying The Consequent)
If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

I do not see how falsification could be considered part of verification unless verification is considered synonymous with corroboration. 

Because you've got the falsification part completely and utterly wrong. "If A, then B" does NOT imply "If not A, then not B." The REAL falsification principle is:

If A, then B
Not B
Therefore, not A

This problem of verification the way you've described it and how falsification is the solution is easily represented by Wason's Four-Card Task, elucidated here: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Wason%27s_Four-card_Task

[MrBogosity]

That feels more like word play to make your point by changing the definition of verification to be synonymous with falsification.

I think you need some remedial English. Verification is NOT synonymous with falsification the way I stated it; falsification is a METHOD of attempting to verify statements and concepts.

If verification is through falsification, what's the point in making a distinction between the two words?

Because there are claims to be other ways of verifying things.

It seems impossible to me that you could derive positive evidence from evidence of absence.

No, it's just the opposite, and if you read my previous post and the page on Wason's Four-Card Task I think you'll get cleared up on the matter.

Okay, I explained this rather poorly, but I'm not factually incorrect.

Yes, you are, since as I pointed out it's entirely possible for an argument to be valid but not sound.

Its related to religion, but he seems to be targeting his argument towards philosophy in general.

In many cases, there's not much difference. But as long as he's not talking about scientific theory, then it's not valid. He's using "why" in a completely different context.

The theists in the debate aren't worth seeing as they add very little philosophy and use emotional appeals and the pointless "revelation" defense.   

So what else is new?

[MrBogosity]

Its related to religion, but he seems to be targeting his argument towards philosophy in general.  Dawkins speaks at 00:32:19 and 01:03:19.  It would, however, not be honest of me to omit that Dawkins is actually referencing a conversation between scientist Peter Atkins and Prince Philip, so I do not know what the full context of that conversation was or what else was said.  It would be interesting to find out, though.

Also, I would welcome your opinion on Michio Kaku's contrastingly agnostic point of view. 01:07:34 & 01:34:45 (apologies for the short one's comments)  He makes a very similar point that I've been trying to make all along.

Yes, Dawkins is talking about "why" in the context of purpose or meaning, not in a causal or theoretical sense. It's the same point he made in his "Growing Up in the Universe" lectures. Bees don't make honey for us to eat, flowers don't look pretty so that we can enjoy them. They do so because it's been the best way to pass their genes on to the next generation. But that latter statement is no less a "why" than the former statements; it just doesn't have the metaphysical presumptions that the others do.

As for Kaku, he's a brilliant physicist, but I think he makes the same mistake as a lot of deists and pantheists in that he tries to define God as being the fundamental underpinnings of the universe--in his case, the strings of string theory. But if these things cannot be said to be conscious in any meaningful sense, then how is it God in the sense that any average English speaker would recognize the word?

I really don't get what point you think Kaku is making that you think makes your point. Look at my video again: I say essentially the same thing about mermaids as he does about unicorns.