Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Falsification Notes Right Up


The Falsification principle
‘In order to say something that is possibly true about the world we must say something that is possibly false’ -Anthony Flew
The falsification theory is that an assertion is meaningless if there is no way in which it could be falsified. The falsification principle is not concerned with what may make something true, but with what can in principle make it false.
For example it is meaningful to say that it will rain tomorrow as it is also possible that it won’t.   
Karl Popper linked the falsification principle to scientific theory after all after a scientific experiment is complete the results must be tested against a null hypothesis, in other words it must be proven that the data is not due to chance.
 ‘The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability or testability’ – Karl Popper
For example Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was a scientific theory as it was potentially falsifiable; however the claims of mystic astrologers are so vague that they cannot be possibly wrong and so in the eyes of Popper or Flew are meaningless.    
So how does this relate to religion?
Well if the principle is drawn to belief statements such as ‘Jesus is the incarnation of God’ then they are meaningless as (most) believers are unable to accept that they are wrong. If these claims are too be ever verified than they must be put through the scientific method of testing… which we know will never happen  as God is outside the universe and so it is impossible to empirically prove his existence anyway.
Antony Flew goes on to say that even if there is evidence of Gods non-existence that it is near impossible to show it to a theist. It seems to flew that there is no event or series of events that would ever convince the ‘sophisticated religious person’ that there wasn’t a God after all. (Which I don’t believe is true as it is not unheard of for people to lose their faith after events of suffering)
Flew uses the Parable of the gardener to illustrate his point it goes as follows:
There are two explores out in the depths of the jungle when they chance upon a clearing containing many flowers. One explorer believes that the clearing is the result of a gardener while the other believes that it is merely a naturally occurring phenomenon. They decide to test the theory and so they set up their tents by the clearing and wait. No gardener shows, one explore says that they haven’t seen the gardener because he is invisible, and so they set up a barbed wire fence and electrify it (mabe that’s why they never find the gardener, because he come back to his garden and two men have put barbed wire round it not sure how I would react but I certainly wouldn’t try and go back in……) The men bring blood hounds to try and smell the invisible gardener but still they find nothing. The believer is not convinced he still insists there is a gardener just that he is now invisible, intangible, insensible (to electric shocks ) and also makes no sound nor gives off no scent. The sceptic at last despairs and says ‘But what remains of our original assertion?’
‘Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?’
What Flew is trying to demonstrate is that religious people are like the believing explore. Flew suggests that God dies a ‘death by a thousand qualifications’
By this phrase Flew meant that when a religious believer is challenged about any statement to do with God his response is to always modify the way in which they talk about God in order to respond to the challenge. Believers change and alter their explanations by responding with an equally vague and unfalisifiable statement.
Flew argues that believers end up modifying their statements about God so much when challenged that the statements no longer resemble the original claim about God. (in other words what was said before God dies a death from a thousand qualifications )

Problems of the falsification principle coming soon

location : Library
Start: 2nd 
Finish 3rd
Music: Favorite Worst Nightmare -Arctic monkeys 

1 comment:

  1. An excellent write-up, Ed, with an improved level of spelling, punctuation and grammar - well done (not perfect, yet, though!).

    A few minor points:

    1. You say most believers would accept that Jesus is the Incarnation of God; for the Principle to hold true, it is necessary that all accept this statement, not simply most. Indeed, if they did not, they would not, properly speaking, be believers, as the Incarnation is a foundational belief of Christianity.

    2. You missed an opportunity at the end of the same paragraph to mention Hume's position on the verifiability/falsifiability of things outside the universe.

    ReplyDelete