How Can Falsifiability Be the Criterion by Which Scientific Data Is Measured?

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:

Karl Popper which to most represent a landmark figure in the philosophy of science recognized that scientific theories provide some sort of uncertainties that can be refuted. It is because of this uncertainty that scientific knowledge rest on the doctrine of falsifiability. Popper proposed that “only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observation and experiment are properly open to scientific evaluation”. Therefore, any theory that is not refutable is not scientific.

According to Popper; the claim that all truths are relative to prior knowledge would be considered an inductive reasoning. According to Wikipedia, the premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion, but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. I can certainly argue that the statement “all truths are relative to prior knowledge” is not base on inductive reasoning.

There are many theories that have proven to have derived from prior knowledge. For example, we couldn’t write the word knowledge if we didn’t know the alphabet. We wouldn’t know how an orange came about if we didn’t know a tree produces it. We couldn’t understand the universal language of mathematics if someone didn’t invent it. There are lots of examples of prior knowledge that are adaptive, information that are passed on to us from birth, genetic molecular structure. That information too is part of our prior knowledge.
However, what the statement all truths are relative to prior knowledge is aiming for is a complete rejection from being considered scientific. As Popper mentioned, “Irrefutably is not a virtue of a theory but a vice”. Which mean if the claim that all truth are relative to prior knowledge does not permit refutation, than this claim is therefore not scientific.

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:
Some have defended Popper by implying that "just because falsifiability was the essential and necessary criteria for what Popper considered science does not mean that Popper thought non-falsifiable things were useless; just that they were not scientific".
According to Popper, for our claim to have been confirmed it should allow some type of risky prediction. But does it not allow it?
After reading up to this point; can anyone say with the most certainty that they haven't thought of one example which to them can disprove that all truths are relative to prior knowledge? Well, if you have then by Popper’s definition; our claim should be granted a ticket to be studied by people of higher knowledge for confirmation. If not it can only mean that a theory can be scientific, and not allow any form of falsifiability.

Popper Theory of falsifiability state that a theory is scientific if it contain the possibility of being disproved otherwise it's not scientific. Well, in that sense it is the same as saying that a theory is considered scientific if human development can lead to the possibility of this theory being disproved.

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:
Popper Theory of falsifiability state that a theory is scientific if it contain the possibility of being disproved otherwise it's not scientific. Well, in that sense it is the same as saying that a theory is considered scientific if human development can lead to the possibility of this theory being disproved. If human evolved technologically the chances are new technological discoveries will enhance the possibility of proven a prior cognition invalid. But the invalidity of that theory is relative to time because it may take 2- 3 hundreds of years before a new discovery disprove a previous theory. Therefore, everyone who lived within the time frame before this theory had been disproved never witness its fallen.

In that sense, this theory remain true to them. This theory may well be metaphysical because it depends on evolution for its scientific validity. But since the new technological discovery that would have proven this theory to have been falsifiable had not yet been discovered. According to Popper this theory would not have been recognized as being scientific.

According to Popper's theory of falsifiability; it is very likely for Popper to have qualified a theory as being metaphysical instead of scientific. For the reason being that at that particular time when the theory had been evaluated; it did not show any sign of being falsifiable; precisely because there were no new information available to classify it as being scientific after a hundred year later. Therefore, Popper's theory of falsifiability is time sensitive.

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:
According to my claim, since no one can truthfully say that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted; even those theories that became law can have fault that are not yet detectable. So it is because of that reasoning that we can say what is factual today can only be validated by our current interpretation of prior knowledge.
The only way we can be wrong is if there is no case in history where a law had been demoted to a theory because of its inaccuracy. As long as the possibility for error in our current laws exists; no one can say what is true today will remain true with the most certainty.

Maybe we should rephrase this statement because someone can argue if a law had been proven to have mistakes than it wasn’t true to begin with. In that sense, we have misinterpreted the facts and accepted false knowledge as truth. The confusion here is that any information that is accepted as law possesses every merit to be factual. The problem in this case is what happen to the mind when the paradigm which supports the law has been proven to have anomalies?

If we predict an event to have occurred in 2012 in it doesn't happen until 2666 - it’s not always because of our misinterpretation of the laws in astrology. It could also be because of our misinterpretation of the information that produces the laws that are found in astrology. Pierre Simon de Laplace also realized like we've noticed that "the human mind in the perfection which it has been able to give to astronomy, presents a feeble shadow of this intelligence".

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:
Laplace goes on to say “since the mind has discovered mathematics, mechanics, geometry and universal gravity (electromagnetism), all of which have brought the understanding of the universe within the same analytical formula. He also pointed out by applying the same analytical principle to various other objects; deriving from the same root of knowledge; the mind has manage to reduce the observed phenomena to general laws. From these general laws which are derived from prior knowledge, the mind has managed to predict results from almost any given set of circumstances.”

The amount of new scientific laws that is yet to be discovered may disprove prior laws while providing us with new ways of traveling through time. New laws may help us to discover how to travel between dimensions; who knows what the future hold. We may discover new scientific formula that partially or completely disproves our current ones. Such as E=MC2; It could also be possible that some of our current scientific laws may have kept our mind in captivity; we rely on them too much as if there were the only way, while some derivatives of their prior knowledge had been misinterpreted.

For example, according to the history of science; as stated on darwinconspiracy.com “Darwinist tried very hard to produce an Evolution Formula. But no scientist ever succeeded. As some have said "It was not the fault of the scientists It was the fault of the theory. The theory is false. You cannot create a working formula for an invalid theory.” Darwin introduced his Theory of Evolution in 1859; it was accepted worldwide by scientists during the 1930s. Until now no formula has been proven to explain evolution - There are different theories, but none are laws.

It was Karl Popper who said that science allow falsifiability. He said if a scientific theory was not falsifiable it was not scientific. I argued against it. Here's the evidence:

Written by James Dubreze Dec 2010 Hubpages:
Darwin theory of evolution states that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Which mean the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers – all are related. You may now wonder how anyone could have believed that. Well they did and until this day some still do. We often wonder if they ever thought how uncreative we would have been had we been offspring of one speeches. To invite wind to the fire; we also wonder did Darwin theory came before the loving God or did God’s proposed method came before Darwin’s. They seem to be a bottle between God’s word and Darwin’s - We don’t know about anyone else, but we with God words on that one. Not to say Darwinism is wrong, is just that it has its place, because the environmental circumstances of life do affect all species.

What about our sacred periodic table how accurate is that? For example, “the periodic table and the theory behind it were not shown to be "wrong" with the discovery of six new elements since 1994.” We know you might be thinking this is a conspiracy. We will assure you that it is not – anything that can be proven is not a conspiracy. The element 112, discovered at the GSI Helmholtzzentrum in Darmstadt, has been recognized as a new element by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

Our point exactly is: as long as we continue to have new discovery that influences our thinking; they will always be new opportunities for someone to disprove prior knowledge. Even those that are scientifically proven. Since we accept this notion, we can now say that there is nothing that is theoretically “true” today that cannot be proven “false” tomorrow if the environmental circumstances changes. If the state of consciousness and the new environment allows it, new information can offer the possibility to help solve old questions.
This analogy goes hand and hand with our prior one that states “Since society is not stagnant we can’t expect our values to be”. In order to evolve we must redefine our thinking, otherwise we stay stagnant.