falsifiability

[A.J. Peticolas]

> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:29:47 -0600
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: falsifiability
>
> "A.J. Peticolas" wrote:
> >Pragmatically, if we only hold falsifiable theories, we are
> >always capable of making some correction in thoughts we hold
> >and actions we are therefore doing.  And the correction is on
> >the basis of reasonable doubt and a rational basis, rather than
> >an arbitrary change based on whim and "enlightenment".  This
> >openness to rational changes of course, it seems to me, is something
> >we shuld care about a *lot*.
>
> Are you arguing that corrigibility and falsifiability are coterminous?
Gosh, I don't know.  This is not something I've thought about a lot, nor
have I read Popper.  It's jsut that when Yoshie said why should we care if
it's falsifiable, I immediately thought of course we should care.  My
instant reaction would be that the falsifiable is at least the largest and
most important part of the corrigible.
>
> You can't pursue question of "falsifiability" very far before you run
> into propositions which are _in principle_ falsifiable but which are
> not, for various reasons, testable _at this time_.
>
> One very important category of propositions consists of propositions all
> of which are in principle falsifiable (and will in fact be eventually
> confirmed or rejected) but which cannot possibly be tested now:
> Propositions concerning (a) the probability of global warming and (b)
> propositions concerning the impact of global warming (if it continues)
> on human life. Are these propositions all irrational because their
> falsification or confirmation can only take place in the future?
I don't know much about environmental stuff either, but in my lay mind
(I'll only discuss (a) ) that "global warming is occurring" is most
definitely something testable now in the sense that evidence can be
obtained that will confirm or -- more importantly -- falsify it.  If I
understand the current consensus, there is some agreement that some
degree of global warming has occurred in recent years but disagreement
over whether this is normal variation (to quite possibly be reversed by
the next variation) or part of an important long-term trend.  My
perception also is that this claim has gained an increasing number of
adherents as observable data are tending to falsify the claim that simply
normal variation is at work.

    If over the next ten years, say, the polar icecaps materially
increased in size, and temperatures dropped consistently, that should tend
to falsify the claim that "global warming is occurring" and presumably
many or most adherents would drop the belief.

    If you say this is not "now", I disagree because ANY test takes time.
Even a test that takes 2 days cannot be done NOW, that is in 5 minutes.
It doesn't make that belief not falsifiable in my mind.  Falsifiable "in
the future" is still falsifiable.  Not falsifiable is a belief such as
"God's providence has arranged all these things," because no event will
potentially dissuade an adherent.

				Regards,

				 Anne