But they have interventionist gods, with interventions with physical effects. They also have communicative gods. Both these phenomena, should they be real, could potentially be tracked by scientific research. — Coben

This would only be possible if God deterministically responded to a particular input with the same output. In that case, it would be a function. If you feed input I to God, the effect will be output O, i.e. O=f(I).

In that case, God would be a deterministic device.

Scientists, not just journalists, take as real things that have not been directly confirmed — Coben

A scientist is the author of an experimental test report in which he fed input I and received output O. If he did not receive output O, then his experiment has failed. If this person then still considers the hypothesis to be scientifically justified, then he is simply not a scientist.

The scientific method simply does not allow for claiming that a theory is justified in absence of successful experimental testing.

They draw conclusions about what happens inside Black Holes due to relativity, since this holds in other places. — Coben

Black-hole conjectures have never been tested experimentally. At best, they belong to the epistemic domain of predictive modelling and not to science.

Most astrophysicists believe in dark matter and energy because the effects have been observed. — Coben

Astrophysics is also just predictive modelling and not science. It is simply not possible to back their hypotheses by experimental testing.

We don't observe quarks or particles in superposition. We observe effects, sometimes effects of effects or machine interpretations of effects. — Coben

I am not familiar enough with very low-scale research to pinpoint what exactly in contemporary research is merely hypothesis and what has been properly confirmed by experimental testing.

Some researcher may deliberately confuse things, but in principle the concept of scientific status is easy: If you can confirm it by reproducible experimental testing, then the theory is scientifically justified. Otherwise, it is just a hypothesis, possibly awaiting successful experimental testing.

Not all scientific hypotheses will successfully be tested experimentally. Popularity of the hypothesis really does not matter in that regard. It really does not matter to the status of the hypothesis how many people believe that the hypothesis will be successfully tested in the future. Such imaginary experimental test results should not be taken into account.

This would only be possible if God deterministically responded to a particular input with the same output. In that case, it would be a function. If you feed input I to God, the effect will be output O, i.e. O=f(I).

In that case, God would be a deterministic device. — alcontali

See, I find all this extremely speculative. But even nere their might be facets that are predictable in the ways that intelligence responses are predictable, but not mechanical. And of course there is no reason to argue that God, say, is not deterministic in the complicated sense that we are. IOW he would, say, respond to prayers for intervention when the attitude was of the kind God is looking for. Or some other pattern that indicates the criteria of what could only be consider an intelligent and in this case vastly powerful other - who could create anomolies in what we call natural laws. And all this is just me speculating possibility. Sitting around and saying we can rule out what science could possibly detect and decide is confirmed, is as problematic as a scientist in early enlightenment ruling out what we could detect and corfirm now.

A scientist is the author of an experimental test report in which he fed input I and received output O. If he did not receive output O, then his experiment has failed. If this person then still considers the hypothesis to be scientifically justified, then he is simply not a scientist.

The scientific method simply does not allow for claiming that a theory is justified in absence of successful experimental testing. — alcontali

Here's an article by physicists on why dark matter is considered to existt due to the effects it has. I suggest you tell them that they are not scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/

Earlier you expressed the possibility, merely, that scientists would be able to determine there was dark matter and energy. But in fact a majority consider it real and have written papers on in it in rigorous scientific journals.

I am not familiar enough with very low-scale research to pinpoint what exactly in contemporary research is merely hypothesis and what has been properly confirmed by experimental testing.

Some researcher may deliberately confuse things, but in principle the concept of scientific status is easy: If you can confirm it by reproducible experimental testing, then the theory is scientifically justified. Otherwise, it is just a hypothesis, possibly awaiting successful experimental testing. — alcontali

They observe effects. They don't observe things in all cases. There are many things considered real that we cannot observe. In fact it can be argue that all observation is observing effects and using deduction - thinking of this as a philosopy forum and issues relating to perception. So, sure they need something they can track but not necessarily at all the ding an sich. We could deduce the existence of an intelligent alien species without ever observing them. We could be many, many effects away from something to decide it exists. Yes, scientists need patterns of effects to work with. I can't see how we can rule out that this would never be the case with a deity.

If a theologian says, God will never let his effects be noticed or tracked, then that theologian's idea of God is one that I can't imagine scientists could ever think they have confirmed. A deist God would certainly be very hard, though perhaps there would be 'archeological' indications in cosmology that something intelligent made everything. Of course perhaps that would have been an AI.

But to rule out scientists deciding there is a deity, it seems to me is making a very strong metaphysical claim and also a claim about an ability to encompass both future finds in the universe and the make up of the unvierse and future scientists abilities.

I think all talk of what science will never be able to find is intuitive. Which is fine, if one's intuition is really good, and given the topic rather remarkable given the dearth of good training or evolutionary need for ths kind of predictive intuition about future knowledge.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/ — Coben

Yes, but just the title sounds already impossibly inept: "Is dark matter theory or fact?" I am not even going to read it. Furthermore, this article is not an experimental test report. Hence, it engages in "original research" without backing every word they say with experimental test reports. These people are simply not serious.

I do not deny (or confirm) that there is unexplained, excess gravitation that can be observed through its effects on observable matter. I do not deny that it could be interesting to design experiments that would further shed light on the problem. In the meanwhile, however, we must considered any explanation for this "calculated excess gravity" to be hypothetical.

Further research could even discover that there is actually something wrong with existing calculation rules. Why not?

I can't see how we can rule out that this would never be the case with a deity. — Coben

According to Abrahamic religious rules, God has no physical incarnation. Therefore, God cannot be tracked down by conducting a search for his physical presence. Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, I personally see no value in furthering that kind of heresies.

Yes, but just the title sounds already impossibly inept: "Is dark matter theory or fact?" I am not even going to read it. Furthermore, this article is not an experimental test report — alcontali

Precisely. Because test reports do not explain how physicist think in general. And in the mainstream astrophysicist position is that there is dark matter and dark energy. They are a mass of reports that lead them to these conclusions. What I was addressing was your confusion about 'observations' and also presenting how scientists, in that field think. But you consider anyone who disagrees with you about dark matter and energy as non-scientists. Good luck with that.
They probably did not pick the title, but they are physicists explaining why something not directly observed is consider confirmed. There is consensus that dark matter exists in astrophysics.

According to Abrahamic religious rules, God has no physical incarnation. Therefore, God cannot be tracked down by conducting a search for his physical presence. Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, I personally see no value in furthering that kind of heresies. — alcontali

I already addressed this issue. In a couple of ways. But now you repeat an opinion from an earlier post of yours. Snore.

I do not deny (or confirm) that there is unexplained, excess gravitation that can be observed through its effects on observable matter. I do not deny that it could be interesting to design experiments that would further shed light on the problem. In the meanwhile, however, we must considered any explanation for this "calculated excess gravity" to be hypothetical. — alcontali

Well, pass that on to the astrophysics community.

Further research could even discover that there is actually something wrong with existing calculation rules. Why not? — alcontali

Oh, heavens, you mean that a scientific position might need to be revised in the future? Any postion that might need to be revised in the future, well that just ain't science. There are so many entities and processes that scientific theories now include that are not directly observable. in fact that whole line of reasoning in my earlier posts you just ignore.

But you go ahead and act like it is knowledge that science will never be able to take a position on God. Let me know when you find the test reports on that. (and yes, I know, you think you've ruled it out using deduction. But since your defense of your deduction here is mere repetition of your opinion without addressing my points, consider the possibility you are just speculating wildly. Stringent, you think with others, free to make stuff up yourself) I'll leave your posting style to others to interact with.
There's a direct link to test research at the end of this article...

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-dark-alternate-explanations.html

But you go ahead and act like it is knowledge that science will never be able to take a position on God. — Coben

The (Abrahamic) theological argument is that God does not have a physical incarnation.

Therefore, anything that has a physical incarnation cannot be the creator of the heavens and the earth.

Hence, yes, I maintain my position that the epistemic domain of science, which requires physical observation, cannot take a position on the matter.

But since your defense of your deduction here is mere repetition of your opinion without addressing my points, consider the possibility you are just speculating wildly. — Coben

Which point did I not address? In my opinion, we should simply agree to disagree.

The journalist whom you referred to is not a scientist.

He is just some kind of sycophant.

Furthermore, there was no reason to believe that these people had ever authored any original experimental test report. Therefore, on what grounds do you call them scientists? — alcontali

Seriously? The Scientific American article was written by physicists Rhett Herman and Shane L. Larson, they both have numerous published papers in reputable scientific research journals.

The NASA page was written by Marc Rayman, mission director at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, chief engineer for NASA's Dawn mission, who has authored numerous scientific publications, go tell him he isn't a scientist?

You prefer to read scientific papers directly? Here, three papers I've found in under one minute, written by scientists:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942 : From astronomical observations, we know that dark matter exists
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10630 : In our view, the presence of dark matter in and around galaxies is a well-established fact
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01840 : Over the past few decades, a consensus picture has emerged in which roughly a quarter of the universe consists of dark matter

Go tell them that Wikipedia is a more reputable source.

Still, that does not make any difference because you cannot freely choose the input to feed into the test. Without that ability, the test is not "experimental". Other people will not be able to reproduce the test either. — alcontali

This is wrong on so many levels. An experiment is the testing of a hypothesis. What reputable source do you have to show that if the 'input' of the test cannot be chosen freely then it isn't an experiment?

The model: gravitational acceleration = theoretical_function ( mass, distance ), can be tested for various masses and various distances, so even in that predictive model the input can be chosen freely. It can be reproduced by other people too.

And I argued extensively how the criterion of reproducibility is not applied consistently by scientists, but you're just ignoring that.

What you are doing is applying your own definition and own criteria of what science is and what it isn't, and scientists mostly disagree with your criteria. Which is just more evidence of what I've been saying all along, that people decide for themselves what they call science and what they call non-science. But don't believe that your own personal criteria have universal validity.

I cannot guarantee that their scientific research efforts will yield a successful experiment. I never did — alcontali

What you also didn't do is understand what I was saying, which is that even if their experiments are 'successful', they would not prove the existence of dark matter.

The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation. That is an epistemic issue that you keep ignoring. — alcontali

No, what you keep ignoring is that for people who believe that God created the world, evidence of the world is evidence of God.

Yes, the scientific method can verify scientific theories by experimentally testing them. Popper never said that scientific theories cannot be verified. — alcontali

Yes he did, you just didn't understand him if you even read him. Why do you keep pretending you know what you are talking about? Here is an excerpt from your favorite reputable source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable
Popper, who had long claimed to have killed verificationism

https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942 : From astronomical observations, we know that dark matter exists — leo

From astronomical observations, we know that dark matter exists, makes up 23% of the mass budget of the Universe, clusters strongly to form the load-bearing frame of structure for galaxy formation, and hardly interacts with ordinary matter except gravitationally. However, this information is not enough to identify the particle specie(s) that make up dark matter. As such, the problem of determining the identity of dark matter has largely shifted to the fields of astroparticle and particle physics. In this talk, I will review the current status of the search for the nature of dark matter.

Given the absence of detections in those experiments, I will advocate a return of the problem of dark-matter identification to astronomy,

"Dark Matter" means "calculated excess amount of gravitation in current model of universe". This calculated excess "exists" in a sense that you can observe total gravitation and calculate the excess part.

Go tell them that Wikipedia is a more reputable source. — leo

Wikipedia does not contain original research. It is supposed to only refer to externally-published research. Do you have any reason to believe that they are guilty of original research concerning dark matter?

What reputable source do you have to show that if the 'input' of the test cannot be chosen freely then it isn't an experiment? — leo

A controlled science experiment is setup to test whether a variable has a direct causal relationship on another.

Identify your independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is commonly known as the cause, while the dependent variable is the effect. For example, in the statement A causes B, A is the independent variable and B is the dependent. A controlled scientific experiment can only measure one variable at a time. If more than one variable is manipulated, it is impossible to say for certain which caused the end result and the experiment is invalidated.

And I argued extensively how the criterion of reproducibility is not applied consistently by scientists, but you're just ignoring that. — leo

It is a well-known problem that quite a bit of published research is in fact not reproducible. Well, quite a bit of that research is undoubtedly deemed so uninteresting by others that nobody even tries.

What you are doing is applying your own definition and own criteria of what science is and what it isn't, — leo

I think I actually made it clear what my possibly original idea is: to only consider theories backed by controlled experiments only, and no longer consider mere predictive modelling, to be science.

and scientists mostly disagree with your criteria — leo

Up till now, it is only you who seems to disagree. I do not believe that anybody else has ever looked into the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable — leo

The full quote is:

Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable, as well as not "confirmable" under Carnap's thesis.

Types of verification
Ayer distinguishes between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification, noting that there is a limit to how conclusively a proposition can be verified. ‘Strong’ (fully conclusive) verification is not possible for any empirical proposition, because the validity of any proposition always depends upon further experience. ‘Weak’ (probable) verification, on the other hand, is possible for any empirical proposition.

To verify under Carnap's thesis means 'strong' verification, which means 'proof' in proof theory, while 'weak' verification means experimental testing. By the way, Carnap later on abandoned verificationism and the requirement of 'strong' verification:

In 1936, Carnap sought a switch from verification to confirmation. Carnap's confirmability criterion (confirmationism) would not require conclusive verification (thus accommodating for universal generalizations) but allow for partial testability to establish "degrees of confirmation" on a probabilistic basis. Carnap never succeeded in formalizing his thesis despite employing abundant logical and mathematical tools for this purpose. In all of Carnap's formulations, a universal law's degree of confirmation is zero.

In the context of verificationism, it is needed to clarify if "to verify" is meant as "strong" or "weak". Furthermore, I do not believe that the verificationist vocabulary is still in use.

Verificationism has been replaced a long time ago by falsificationism:

Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery proposed falsificationism as a criterion under which scientific hypothesis would be tenable. Falsificationism would allow hypotheses expressed as universal generalizations, such as "all swans are white", to be provisionally true until falsified by evidence, in contrast to verificationism under which they would be disqualified immediately as meaningless.

As such, the problem of determining the identity of dark matter has largely shifted to the fields of astroparticle and particle physics. In this talk, I will review the current status of the search for the nature of dark matter

"Dark Matter" means "calculated excess amount of gravitation in current model of universe". This calculated excess "exists" in a sense that you can observe total gravitation and calculate the excess part. — alcontali

No it does not in the mind of most scientists working on that subject, by dark matter they mean matter, as in something made of particles, I mean for god's sake just look at the quote you posted right above, they're talking about identifying dark matter through particle physics, that means matter, why do you keep pushing your own flawed interpretation of what they say?

Wikipedia does not contain original research. It is supposed to only refer to externally-published research. Do you have any reason to believe that they are guilty of original research concerning dark matter? — alcontali

Wikipedia articles are not only made of quotes from externally-published research. People who edit the articles paraphrase what they've read, they add their own interpretation, they decide what information to include and how that information is presented, Wikipedia articles are not neutral reports of original research written by researchers.

Now regarding the article concerning dark matter, it directly contradicts your position: the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the scientific community. By that they mean the existence of matter, not the mere existence of a "calculated excess amount of gravitation". How long are you gonna keep digging that hole? When they say matter they mean matter.

A controlled science experiment is setup to test whether a variable has a direct causal relationship on another.

Identify your independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is commonly known as the cause, while the dependent variable is the effect. For example, in the statement A causes B, A is the independent variable and B is the dependent. A controlled scientific experiment can only measure one variable at a time. If more than one variable is manipulated, it is impossible to say for certain which caused the end result and the experiment is invalidated. — alcontali

I asked you for a reputable source showing that if the 'input' of a test cannot be chosen freely then that test isn't an experiment (which is what you claimed).

That "sciencing.com" website is a reputable source how? The article you linked was written by an anonymous contributor on a non-reputable website, and then you argue that articles written by practicing physicists on Scientific American and on the NASA website are not reputable sources?

Then that passage you quoted doesn't imply in any way that "if we can't freely choose the input of a test then that test isn't an experiment".

I think I actually made it clear what my possibly original idea is: to only consider theories backed by controlled experiments only, and no longer consider mere predictive modelling, to be science. — alcontali

Yes, which is applying your own criterion defining what is science and what isn't science.

Now, I agree in principle that experiments where all variables except one are controlled give more robust tests than experiments where a bunch of variables change simultaneously, because indeed given enough variables we can always find spurious correlations that wouldn't be there in other situations.

But the fundamental problem with this criterion is that you're never controlling all variables except one, and you cannot know that you're controlling all variables except one, so there is no strictly controlled experiment, and then your criterion is not precise but fuzzy. Who gets to decide whether an experiment is controlled enough to be considered as a "controlled experiment"?

For instance you were claiming that based on this criterion Newton's theory of gravitation would not be scientific because you can't control planets individually, but that the theory according to which mixing vinegar and baking soda gives rise to sodium acetate would be scientific. But by your criterion that latter theory isn't scientific either, because there will always be some variables that weren't controlled in that experiment: the time of day or year, the temperature or pressure surrounding the mix, the molecular composition of the surrounding air, the gravity in the frame of the laboratory, the electric charge of the vinegar or baking soda, the volumes of vinegar and baking soda, the surroundings of the laboratory, the instruments and tests that determined that the ingredients are vinegar and baking soda, ...

Even if you control some of these you can't control them all, you're making assumptions as to what requires control and what does not, what is a possibly dependent variable and what isn't, which in the end amounts to deciding whether a theory is scientific not based on your criterion but based on your own assumptions and beliefs and desires.

I do not believe that anybody else has ever looked into the matter. — alcontali

Plenty of people over the centuries have looked into finding criteria that would distinguish science from non-science, but these criteria always fail in some way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

The only criterion that seems to always apply is that people do not classify something as science based on a precise objective criterion but based on their own assumptions/beliefs/desires. This implies that 'science' doesn't have a position of authority in itself, it's only people who attempt to confer a position of authority to ideas that suit them by calling them 'scientific'.

The full quote is:

Popper regarded scientific hypotheses to be unverifiable, as well as not "confirmable" under Carnap's thesis. — alcontali

You're misinterpreting that quote, it says two different things. The first thing is that Popper regarded scientific hypotheses as unverifiable. The second thing is that Popper regarded scientific hypotheses as not confirmable (in the sense of confirmation that Carnap introduced).

Types of verification
Ayer distinguishes between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ verification, noting that there is a limit to how conclusively a proposition can be verified. ‘Strong’ (fully conclusive) verification is not possible for any empirical proposition, because the validity of any proposition always depends upon further experience. ‘Weak’ (probable) verification, on the other hand, is possible for any empirical proposition.

To verify under Carnap's thesis means 'strong' verification, which means 'proof' in proof theory, while 'weak' verification means experimental testing. — alcontali

That's again your own flawed interpretation, nowhere it says that "Carnap's thesis" has anything to do with Ayer's 'strong' and 'weak' verifications.

Besides, here is what that Wikipedia article on Ayer's book says: Ayer himself later rejected much of his own work. Fifty years after he wrote his book, he said: 'Logical positivism died a long time ago. I don’t think much of Language, Truth and Logic is true ... it is full of mistakes.'

In 1936, Carnap sought a switch from verification to confirmation. Carnap's confirmability criterion (confirmationism) would not require conclusive verification (thus accommodating for universal generalizations) but allow for partial testability to establish "degrees of confirmation" on a probabilistic basis. Carnap never succeeded in formalizing his thesis despite employing abundant logical and mathematical tools for this purpose. In all of Carnap's formulations, a universal law's degree of confirmation is zero.

In the context of verificationism, it is needed to clarify if "to verify" is meant as "strong" or "weak". — alcontali

No, look at what that very quote says. Even if you were to associate Carnap's confirmation criterion with Ayer's weak verification (probable verification), the quote says: In all of Carnap's formulations, a universal law's degree of confirmation is zero, and that degrees of confirmation are established on a probabilistic basis, which implies that a universal law is not even verified in the 'weak' sense. In the 'strong' sense we can't say that a universal law is conclusively verified, and in the 'weak' sense we can't even say that it is probably verified.

Verificationism has been replaced a long time ago by falsificationism:

Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery proposed falsificationism as a criterion under which scientific hypothesis would be tenable. Falsificationism would allow hypotheses expressed as universal generalizations, such as "all swans are white", to be provisionally true until falsified by evidence, in contrast to verificationism under which they would be disqualified immediately as meaningless. — alcontali

Popper introduced the criterion of falsification because he believed that theories cannot be verified in any way (neither in the 'strong' nor 'weak' sense), because of the problem of induction.

Falsificationism is still trendy in scientific circles but it is flawed just like verificationism, as Feyerabend and Lakatos explained. An observation can never be said to falsify a theory, because it is always possible to save the theory from falsification, by assuming that there is an additional phenomenon that is responsible for the difference between observation and theory.

As an example, again, observations that didn't fit the predictions of the theory of general relativity didn't falsify that theory, because an invisible matter was invoked to make up for the difference, and it's always possible to do that. If an observation doesn't match the theory, invoke some invisible phenomenon, and the theory is not falsified. Which makes the criterion of falsification flawed just like the others.

What's science and what isn't science isn't decided by some precise criterion, it is decided by people based on their assumptions/beliefs/desires, to promote the ideas they like and dismiss the ones they don't like.

they're talking about identifying dark matter through particle physics — leo

They are trying to do that, but this approach has not succeeded until now.

Wikipedia articles are not neutral reports of original research written by researchers. — leo

There is the Wikipedia no original research and neutral point of view policies and then there are the practical results visible in their pages.

If you detect a violation of these policies, you can report them to the editors in the "talk" metapage for the page.

By that they mean the existence of matter, not the mere existence of a "calculated excess amount of gravitation". — leo

The research paper clearly underlines that they have not been able to identify what kind of particle it would consist of. If it is matter, then there is a requirement to disclose that. This has not been possible at this point. Therefore, the phenomenon is only matter-like; assuming the standard model in which it is matter that causes gravitation. Note that this is yet another hypothesis that cannot be tested experimentally.

Popper introduced the criterion of falsification because he believed that theories cannot be verified in any way (neither in the 'strong' nor 'weak' sense), because of the problem of induction. — leo

The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term.

Outside the very narrow context of verificationism, it means probabilistic sampling for counterexamples, with no pretension that it would constitute full or fail-safe proof. Therefore, "experimentally testing" is a suitable synonym for "verifying" in the context of falsificationism.

As an example, again, observations that didn't fit the predictions of the theory of general relativity didn't falsify that theory, because an invisible matter was invoked to make up for the difference, and it's always possible to do that. If an observation doesn't match the theory, invoke some invisible phenomenon, and the theory is not falsified. Which makes the criterion of falsification flawed just like the others. — leo

Yes, but "invisible matter" is still a cutting-edge research topic in search for more concrete results.

They are trying to do that, but this approach has not succeeded until now. — alcontali

That's not the point. The point is in their view the existence of dark matter particles is a fact, not a hypothesis. What's a hypothesis in their view is what kind of particles dark matter is made of, what are the properties of these particles. You kept saying they see the existence of dark matter as a hypothesis, that's wrong.

And, again, their concluding that dark matter exists from observations they've made is the same as other people concluding that God exists because they believe God created the world.

When scientists say that they can infer from observations that dark matter exists but not that God exists, that's a double standard. They push the existence of dark matter as a fact, and the existence of God as unknowable or false. In other words they push the existence of dark matter as more certain than the existence of God. That's not a conclusion that follows from observations, they are simply pushing their belief as fact.

When scientists say what the universe is made of, they're not providing a world view that is more certain or more probable than others. Yet that world view is taught in schools as if it was fact, as if it was more certain than other world views. Science has become the religion of the modern age.

The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term. — alcontali

I don't see how it is ambiguous, the common language is the common dictionary definition: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true. We never make sure that theories are true.

Outside the very narrow context of verificationism — alcontali

That's not a very narrow context, that's a context in which theories evolved for centuries, and even today many scientists still believe they can verify theories.

it means probabilistic sampling for counterexamples, with no pretension that it would constitute full or fail-safe proof. Therefore, "experimentally testing" is a suitable synonym for "verifying" in the context of falsificationism. — alcontali

You're making up your own definitions as you go. In the context of falsificationism, experimentally testing that a theory's prediction matches an observation precisely does not verify the theory in any way, nor does testing where the theory doesn't match observations. If you keep going like this you're gonna end up saying that verification is a suitable synonym for falsification.

Also, even if you test a theory a million times, you can't even say that it is probably true, because you don't know how probable it is that it's not going to suddenly stop working tomorrow.

If you still think that we can know that a theory is probably true you're failing to see the problem with falsificationism. It is precisely because a theory can always be saved from falsification (by invoking unseen phenomena) that we can always explain a given set of observations or experimental tests in terms of many different theories.

Regarding the motion of stars in galaxies, we can say they move that way because of dark matter, or because gravitation is not suitably described by general relativity, or because we have the illusion they move that way because their redshift is not due to their velocity, or because God is choosing to make them move that way, or because we live in a simulation and its programmers want to mess with our observations, or because space is folded in such a way that it makes them seem move that way, or because they are not stars in galaxies but lights in the sky, or because it's an optical illusion, or because we are hallucinating, or because ...

All these theories can be made consistent with observations, so we can't say any of them is probably true. Observations cannot verify these theories and they cannot falsify them either. People simply pick a framework they like and attempt to fit observations into that framework. Saying that one framework is more true than others is a belief, not an inference from observations.

Yet that world view is taught in schools as if it was fact, as if it was more certain than other world views. Science has become the religion of the modern age. — leo

It may be your kids, but that does not mean that you have a say in what the ruling elite's indoctrination machine will teach them. The populace gave up that right when they implicitly agreed to compulsory schooling schemes in State-run indoctrination factories, to be paid by extracting the money upfront out of the parents' wallets.

The current type of government naturally emerges out of the population's take on what government is supposed to be. If the population believes that the government should have wide-ranging power to coerce other people, that is exactly what will emerge out of the fray.

By catering to the populace's false belief in scientism, the ruling elite successfully manages to transfer even more authority from the family to themselves.

In my opinion, the population in the West consists of the dumbest idiots that have ever walked the face of the earth.

It may be your kids, but that does not mean that you have a say in what the ruling elite's indoctrination machine will teach them. The populace gave up that right when they implicitly agreed to compulsory schooling schemes in State-run indoctrination factories, to be paid by extracting the money upfront out of the parents' wallets.

The current type of government naturally emerges out of the population's take on what government is supposed to be. If the population believes that the government should have wide-ranging power to coerce other people, that is exactly what will emerge out of the fray.

By catering to the populace's false belief in scientism, the ruling elite successfully manages to transfer even more authority from the family to themselves. — alcontali

Yes, at last we've found something where I wholeheartedly agree with you :)

The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term. — alcontali

"Verify" is no more common or uncommon than "falsify". :chin: :chin: :chin:

The old jokes are still the best ones, eh? :up: :smile:

"Verify" is no more common or uncommon than "falsify". :chin: :chin: :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Ok. Point conceded. The verificationists, i.e. the Logical positivists within the Vienna Circle, have managed to taint the term so badly that it now carries too much baggage:

It was unified by the aim of making philosophy scientific with the help of modern logic.

They were obviously deeply mired in the heresy of scientism and clearly beyond salvation ...

They were obviously deeply mired in the heresy of scientism and clearly beyond salvation ... — alcontali

I'm a strict traditionalist in this. Burn the witches!!! :up:

Fooloso4 The old jokes are still the best ones, eh? — Pattern-chaser

I have become one.