= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheatreAddict comments on Fake Causality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
So.. How precisely would I go about doing this? I mean, let's say I really thought that phlogiston was the reason fire was hot and bright when it burns. Something that today, we know to be untrue. But if I really thought it was true, and I decided to test my hypothesis, how would I go about proving it false?
What I think the point is about, is that if I already believe that phlogiston was the reason fire is hot and bright, and I observe fire being both hot and bright, then I think this proves that phlogiston is the reason fire is hot and bright. When actually, that's pointless because I'd have to prove that phlogiston is indeed the reason fire is hot and bright, not the other way around. Am I right? Or did I just end up confusing myself even more, because I'm not entirely sure that what I said is correct and/or makes any sense. O_o
Yes, this is right. A better way of saying it might be: "Phlogiston", as ancient chemists understood it, meant "that which makes stuff burn". So saying "Phlogiston causes fire" is like saying "The stuff that makes things burn causes stuff to burn." If you look at the second statement, phlogiston obviously doesn't mean anything.
If you wanted to test the hypothesis "phlogiston causes stuff to burn" you really couldn't, because phlogiston isn't a proper explanation - there aren't any conditions that would disprove it. If you want to even consider the hypothesis in the first place it has to make better predictions than other hypotheses.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
The phlogiston theory was tested and disproved because combustion products increase in mass rather than decreasing as the theory predicted.
I thought that just made theorists respond "So phlogiston must be lighter than air". But you're right, the article exaggerates the unfalsifiable, fails-to-constrain-expectations, fake-causality aspects of the theory and oversimplifies it a bit.
Ehh, I don't mind the exaggeration and oversimplification.. If it wasn't simplified, I probably wouldn't understand it. :3