Originally Posted by PiOfPie
The conclusion sounded off to me, so I went and ran this by a friend who's a bit better at logic than I am.
1) You're trying to disprove Popper's definition of scientific explanation
by proposing a definition of science
. These are two different things.
2) Theory A is not falsifiable because it's true =!
there is no method which would prove Theory A false if Theory A was actually false (just because an experimental method could
disprove something doesn't mean it inevitably will
3) Your math proof is beside the point; the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.
1. I'm not trying disprove any definition, it's just that his definition isn't good (or thorough enough) just because of an argument from authority, which was the central point of that statement, unless you provide additional arguments that support your claims. I don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove why it's any good. i gave a reasonable explanation of why it wasn't particularly good and that it made some fundamental assumptions.
2. How can you make a proposition like that, that uses the same boolean object (Theory A), which is both true and false at the same time in the same proposition? If a theory is true, then there is no method that would prove it false and as a result, the theory cannot be falsifiable. Theory A cannot be proposed to be true on the left hand side of the equation, and the proposed to be actually false on the right hand side. If this is what your friend told you was logical, then he/she was sadly mistaken.
You can't say, "oh, on the left hand side of the equation X = 1, but on the right hand side of the equation, x = 0"
Otherwise you're just saying X != X which is illogical
Another logical flaw is that the experimental method can only disprove things. Ask your friend if he/she can prove logically that science is only falsifiable rather than verifiable. That'll be a challenging one. If a scientist makes a prediction, and the evidence of reality matches his/her prediction, then evidence verifies a scientific explanation (not falsifies). With enough evidence, you can prove something to be extremely likely, which is then accepted as true as something like evolution, or gravity.
3. In what way does the conclusion not follow the premise? I will simply say the conclusion follows the premiseEdited by serp777 - 1/8/14 at 11:50pm