The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[Tassman]

Yes, you certainly failed. I asked you directly several times the exact same question, and in no uncertain terms. Rather than give an honest answer you danced around the topic, and then acted like I was the childish one for calling you on it. You're a dishonest punk.

Yes you did ask SoR the exact same question and it's quite evident that the only "honest answer" you're prepared to accept is your own. As for "dancing around the topic" you're demanding black-and-white answers to complex questions that don't lend themselves to such simplistic responses.

[robrecht]

It may be that this disagreement is a simple matter of understanding the tense intended.

Two competing theories are both viable (present tense) because neither has been falsified (past tense). Eventually, if one is falsified in the future, at least one of the theories will need to be modified.

A tempest in a teapot.

[shunyadragon]

My point is that competing theories right now tend to have more in common in their predictions than in the past; often being made compatible with a host of different finding in experiments. I think this is the line of thinking shunny is getting at.

Yes, there is a tendency to contort science to justify a philosophical/theological beliefs, and that is the problem. Simply stating that; "It is falsifiable that the universe is finite and no prior energy and matter existed," is a contradictory negative hypothesis to "It is falsifiable that energy and matter existed prior to the beginning of the universe." They are in a sense the same hypothesis, and falsifying the negative is problematic. I gave the example of the increased death of bees and pesticides. Another example is the hypothesis; 'The prediction that Black Holes exist based on our knowledge of physics and QM.' has positive meaningful predictive value, and the result was the existence of black holes has been falsified. The negative of this hypothesis is meaningless and contradictory, and has no predictive value.

It is a common for extreme theists to challenge science with negative statements throughout recent history as to what they claim 'cannot be falsified nor 'proved,' because . . . The examples here is the existence of multiverses and the preexistence of matter and energy before the hypothetical beginning(?) of our universe. The many hypothesis concerning the existence of multiverses is not an issue in this thread, but I may start a thread in science concerning this issue.

Kerbs claim that current theories in cosmology that go beyond the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (which is what the BB is actual called BTW) are not science is very off base. I think he is a good physicist but I don't think he is very up to date on cosmology, and I don't think he understands how theoretical physics has historically progressed.

Kerbs is a rare example of the extreme view not representative of by far most physicists and cosmologists. It is a similar problem of the two or three scientists of the Discovery institute that believe that evolution is not falsifiable. These are examples of a Newtonian view of science in that if you cannot directly see it happen is is not falsifiable.

Yes, the scientific methods and falsification can be 'tricky' and sometimes complicated, but challenges to science tend to revel in this to create a high fog index, and say; ' . . . because there is no direct evidence in the lab we can replicate, therefore it cannot be falsified.'

Your comment, 'I don't think he understands how theoretical physics has historically progressed.' is very meaningful concerning the problem. It is the philosophical/theological assumption that take precedence here, and lead to contemporary theoretical physics.

[element771]

Good the read your comments Sea!

Question..

Do you think the hypothesis that our universe had a beginning is falsifiable?

If not, please explain why.

[shunyadragon]

BTW: I certainly wouldn't be dishonest when talking about something that is my greatest passion in this life. I really do try to help people understand the jargon and that is honestly what I was trying to do.

Still need some clarification, jargon, tricky stuff and complications aside. The following is a correction of my previous post.

Your comment, 'I don't think he understands how theoretical physics has historically progressed.' is very meaningful concerning the problem. It is the philosophical/theological assumption that take precedence here, and lead to [the rejection of] contemporary theoretical physics. This is part of the problem of trying to falsify a philosophical/theological assumption that 'our universe has a beginning.'

[Kbertsche]

You are entitled to your opinion. But until and unless concepts such as string theory, multiverses, etc are testable and falsifiable, I believe they are best viewed as metaphysics rather than physics.

Once again, you seem not to understand what metaphysics actually is. For the most part, it's a set of ideas that try to explain reality itself, and has little (if any) connection to describing the physical world. Typically there is no difference between one framework and another in how each describes the physical universe and how it behaves.

PS: most ideas in science would never have had a chance by this line of thinking. One could have easily called quarks and dark matter 'unfalsifiable' and gave up the hunt.

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not say that ideas are metaphysics until they are actually tested, and falsified or verified. I said that if they are not testABLE or falsifiABLE, they are not physics, but metaphysics. If a theory does not make predictions which can in principle be tested, it is not science.

Let's take dark matter as an example. It was proposed because we can see gravitational effects but cannot account for all of the mass present. Gravitational effects can be observed and tested. Thus, dark matter was testable and falsifiable, thus a scientific theory, even when first proposed. Through gravitational lensing (e.g. the bullet cluster) we can now get a rough image of the distribution of dark matter. But what is dark matter made of? This we don't know yet. Numerous theories have been proposed, tested and shown either false or inconclusive. We have no good evidence yet for what dark matter really is.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not say that ideas are metaphysics until they are actually tested, and falsified or verified. I said that if they are not testABLE or falsifiABLE, they are not physics, but metaphysics. If a theory does not make predictions which can in principle be tested, it is not science.

If all hypothesis of cosmological origins are not testable nor falsifiable, explain how some hypothesis of cosmological origins are indeed found false and discarded.

[Kbertsche]

Here's an idea: if you think that predictions of other universes are not science then I suggest you email Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg, Alan Guth, Sean Carroll, Edward Witten, Juan Maldecena, Martin Reese, Andrie Linde, Joe Polchinski, Stephen Hawking, and their beloved Alex Velinkin to tell these men so. Go ahead. Tell them all of their work 'isn't science' and can't be falsified. Then tell them about how falsification works in theoretical physics.

PLEASE post the responses if they give you the time of day.

I recently did something similar. I bumped into my thesis advisor (a leading experimental physicist) after not seeing him for at least a decade and we caught up on what each other had been doing. He made some comments about string theory. I mentioned that it is more metaphysics than physics, and he agreed.

Perhaps you could dismiss our opinions as bias, due to our being experimental physicists. But I would claim that the entire scientific community shares this experimental bias to some extent. Nobel prizes are not given for ideas that have not been experimentally verified.

[shunyadragon]

I recently did something similar. I bumped into my thesis advisor (a leading experimental physicist) after not seeing him for at least a decade and we caught up on what each other had been doing. He made some comments about string theory. I mentioned that it is more metaphysics than physics, and he agreed.

Perhaps you could dismiss our opinions as bias, due to our being experimental physicists. But I would claim that the entire scientific community shares this experimental bias to some extent. Nobel prizes are not given for ideas that have not been experimentally verified.

This is at best represents a minority of a few physicists and cosmologists. Still remains an anecdotal claim of support without a name and peer reviewed publication from an accredited journal like I have cited to support my view.

Still waiting . . .

References . . . please cite references that describe how 'the beginning of our universe is falsifiable confirming that all energy and matter began at that point, which would provide scientific evidence for WLC's, or any other apologist, claim of the Kalam argument.

[Sea of red]

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not say that ideas are metaphysics until they are actually tested, and falsified or verified. I said that if they are not testABLE or falsifiABLE, they are not physics, but metaphysics. If a theory does not make predictions which can in principle be tested, it is not science.

Let's take dark matter as an example. It was proposed because we can see gravitational effects but cannot account for all of the mass present. Gravitational effects can be observed and tested. Thus, dark matter was testable and falsifiable, thus a scientific theory, even when first proposed. Through gravitational lensing (e.g. the bullet cluster) we can now get a rough image of the distribution of dark matter. But what is dark matter made of? This we don't know yet. Numerous theories have been proposed, tested and shown either false or inconclusive. We have no good evidence yet for what dark matter really is.

And what ever theory best explains what dark matter is and stands up to falsification will win out.

Science is not about actually falsifying a given idea, nor does an idea being falsifiable make it science at all - though it helps. Creationism, astrology, and homeopathy all make falsifiable predictions, but nobody calls them science. It is about making attempts to falsify ideas until eventually, ithey becomes accepted as a theory. Any theory can be overturned by new evidence and a larger paradigm be created. What matters is what frameworks explain the data best, how they stand up at attempts to falsify them, and how other ideas stand up against them. That's how science is done - no more, no less.

All theories of quantum gravity and early cosmology make predictions that can be falsified or confirmed. If you want to falsify multiverse theories of chaotic inflation, then you need to falsify inflation. If you want to falsify string theory, falsify gravitons or SUSY. These theories have experiments that can falsify them, Kerb. Physicists and cosmologists wouldn't bother themselves with them if they didn't.

[Sea of red]

I recently did something similar. I bumped into my thesis advisor (a leading experimental physicist) after not seeing him for at least a decade and we caught up on what each other had been doing. He made some comments about string theory. I mentioned that it is more metaphysics than physics, and he agreed.

Perhaps you could dismiss our opinions as bias, due to our being experimental physicists. But I would claim that the entire scientific community shares this experimental bias to some extent. Nobel prizes are not given for ideas that have not been experimentally verified.

Sure, but those ideas can always be overturned by new evidence. That is part of the deal. I agree in spirit that theories of early cosmology and quantum gravity are not settled science. That said, these theories do make predictions on what should be observed providing they are true. Not being able to conduct the experiments right now is not an argument for them being 'unscientific'. You may not like the theories but harping on them as not being science is just cheap thinking.

If you think you've got a theory that explains dark energy, dark matter, the elementary particles, the physical constants, all the cosmological parameters, and the early universe, then feel free to propose it. Offering an alternative is also part of doing good science.

[Sea of red]

Good the read your comments Sea!

Question..

Do you think the hypothesis that our universe had a beginning is falsifiable?

If not, please explain why.

I would say we can never know for sure if we are a part of an infinite paradigm, or if we had a beginning from some other reality. There's only so much information available in the early universe and while it may be able to show us our origins, it can't go eternally into the past - nothing can.

[element771]

If all hypothesis of cosmological origins are not testable nor falsifiable, explain how some hypothesis of cosmological origins are indeed found false and discarded.

A frog laid an egg that was the singularity causing the origin of the universe.

It is false and should be discarded because frogs didn't exist 14 billion years ago.

According to your idea, that hypothesis is not considered to be falsifiable.

[Sea of red]

Yes you did ask SoR the exact same question and it's quite evident that the only "honest answer" you're prepared to accept is your own. As for "dancing around the topic" you're demanding black-and-white answers to complex questions that don't lend themselves to such simplistic responses.

I think his vendetta against shunny got the better of him. Anything other than 'shunny is an idiot' was not going to satisfy him. It's funny to watch a man so willing to lecture others about self-control, try to goad people into getting upset, and then become so upset himself because someone sided with a poster he hates.

[element771]

I would say we can never know for sure if we are a part of an infinite paradigm, or if we had a beginning from some other reality. There's only so much information available in the early universe and while it may be able to show us our origins, it can't go eternally into the past - nothing can.

Right but I don't think that you answered my question...

I am not asking if you agree with the hypothesis.

I am asking if it is falsifiable.