Hi.
I saw this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_force#Criticism
(emphasis mine)
However, this makes me curious about what would constitute a "falsification". To me the conept seemed easy enough -- something is falsifiable if you can find an observation or argument that shows it false. Yet it seems like just such a thing might be possible for supposedly-"unfalsifiable" vitalism. For example, it does not seem impossible that with enough science and study, we may come to a point in our knowledge where we could give a complete and total description of the "life process" of a very small and simple living cellular organism with no appeals to anything other than the laws of physics and chemistry. Such a description could take a number of forms, such as a bunch of volumes of text. A more interesting one would be a computer program and data set for some amazingly-powerful supercomputer (probably far more powerful than anything we have now and much more cleverly programmed), that carries out an atom-by-atom simulation of the cell relying only on the laws of physics, and when run, the virtual cell exhibits the life property. But in any case, it does not seem implausible that such a description could exist or be constructed given sufficiently large advances in science and technology. If one were to be found, would not that constitute a falsification of vitalism? If not, then what does it mean to say something is "falsifiable"? Going the other way, could the failure to construct such a description potentially constitute evidence to resurrect vitalism?
It seems that there are a number of interpretations of "unfalsifiable" to choose from. One might be "it is not feasible given current and easily-foreseeable technology and investigative capabilities to formulate and write down the description or make the simulation", but that is a long step from "totally impossible", so this definition seems unsatisfactory. It just means we can't do it right now. It doesn't mean we won't ever be able to do it. "Difficult to falsify" would seem better. Another interpretation might be "we can modify the theory in some way as to elude countermanding evidence", e.g. in the event of the realization of such a simulation or description we might concede that vitalism does not work for the very simple organism so simulated or described, but that in more complex organisms beyond the reach of our descriptions and simulations (like humans, as opposed to single-celled microbes), processes (consciousness?) appear which elude description by physics (however, wouldn't the fact that we conceded that vitalism was false for a very simple organism be at least a partial falsification? Thus it would not be totally unfalsifiable), and/or may posit the existence of "subtle" phenomena in the organism which are somehow essential to its "living character" that the simulation or description can't pick up but the discrepancy never shows up, e.g. due to being unable to run the simulation for long enough (perhaps for want of a faster computer?), or not being able to simulate all possible situations the organism may encounter. And so since we cannot falsify this modified version, we cannot falsify vitalism. However, this interpretation, too, seems wanting, since for one it seems we can apply similar modifications to any other theory -- with enough twists and contortions we could, theoretically, "explain away" everything. E.g. instead of Einsteinian relativity to replace Newtonian mechanics, perhaps we could add all kinds of weird extra "forces" with various bizarre properties to the model to fake relativity (not expert enough in physics to know whether this is actually possible or not -- correct me if I'm wrong). Yet we consider Newtonian mechanics falsified for extreme speeds and gravitational fields, and only approximately true (though very approximately) at normal speeds. So it would seem everything is "unfalsifiable" under this interpretation (or, if my physics example is wrong, at least more than we'd like to have under that umbrella). You could object and say Occam's razor kills the "weird-'force'-laden Newtonian mechanics", but then it also kills the modified vitalism as well. In addition, in the second path we also seem to "move the goalposts" by changing the definition of life in the middle of the game.
I'd also want to point out that even though we do not yet have a full and complete description or simulation of the kind I mention, in all our deep investigations into the foundations of biology we've never encountered anything that needs a "vital force", and that everything we thought needed a "vital force", when we found its real mechanism, turned out not to. So there does not seem room for it. Doesn't this constitute at least a kind of partial, "probabilistic", or "effective" falsification even if it is not as thoroughgoing as the hypothetical one I imagine above?
So what exactly and precisely is meant when it is said vitalism is "unfalsifiable"? How does the seeming falsification I describe not actually falsify vitalism (if it is unfalsifiable, then it cannot be falsified and the posited falsification must be flawed)?
I saw this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_force#Criticism
Quote:
Bechtel and Richardson[16] state that today vitalism "is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine." For many scientists, "vitalist" theories were unsatisfactory "holding positions" on the pathway to mechanistic understanding. In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated "And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow."[33] |
(emphasis mine)
However, this makes me curious about what would constitute a "falsification". To me the conept seemed easy enough -- something is falsifiable if you can find an observation or argument that shows it false. Yet it seems like just such a thing might be possible for supposedly-"unfalsifiable" vitalism. For example, it does not seem impossible that with enough science and study, we may come to a point in our knowledge where we could give a complete and total description of the "life process" of a very small and simple living cellular organism with no appeals to anything other than the laws of physics and chemistry. Such a description could take a number of forms, such as a bunch of volumes of text. A more interesting one would be a computer program and data set for some amazingly-powerful supercomputer (probably far more powerful than anything we have now and much more cleverly programmed), that carries out an atom-by-atom simulation of the cell relying only on the laws of physics, and when run, the virtual cell exhibits the life property. But in any case, it does not seem implausible that such a description could exist or be constructed given sufficiently large advances in science and technology. If one were to be found, would not that constitute a falsification of vitalism? If not, then what does it mean to say something is "falsifiable"? Going the other way, could the failure to construct such a description potentially constitute evidence to resurrect vitalism?
It seems that there are a number of interpretations of "unfalsifiable" to choose from. One might be "it is not feasible given current and easily-foreseeable technology and investigative capabilities to formulate and write down the description or make the simulation", but that is a long step from "totally impossible", so this definition seems unsatisfactory. It just means we can't do it right now. It doesn't mean we won't ever be able to do it. "Difficult to falsify" would seem better. Another interpretation might be "we can modify the theory in some way as to elude countermanding evidence", e.g. in the event of the realization of such a simulation or description we might concede that vitalism does not work for the very simple organism so simulated or described, but that in more complex organisms beyond the reach of our descriptions and simulations (like humans, as opposed to single-celled microbes), processes (consciousness?) appear which elude description by physics (however, wouldn't the fact that we conceded that vitalism was false for a very simple organism be at least a partial falsification? Thus it would not be totally unfalsifiable), and/or may posit the existence of "subtle" phenomena in the organism which are somehow essential to its "living character" that the simulation or description can't pick up but the discrepancy never shows up, e.g. due to being unable to run the simulation for long enough (perhaps for want of a faster computer?), or not being able to simulate all possible situations the organism may encounter. And so since we cannot falsify this modified version, we cannot falsify vitalism. However, this interpretation, too, seems wanting, since for one it seems we can apply similar modifications to any other theory -- with enough twists and contortions we could, theoretically, "explain away" everything. E.g. instead of Einsteinian relativity to replace Newtonian mechanics, perhaps we could add all kinds of weird extra "forces" with various bizarre properties to the model to fake relativity (not expert enough in physics to know whether this is actually possible or not -- correct me if I'm wrong). Yet we consider Newtonian mechanics falsified for extreme speeds and gravitational fields, and only approximately true (though very approximately) at normal speeds. So it would seem everything is "unfalsifiable" under this interpretation (or, if my physics example is wrong, at least more than we'd like to have under that umbrella). You could object and say Occam's razor kills the "weird-'force'-laden Newtonian mechanics", but then it also kills the modified vitalism as well. In addition, in the second path we also seem to "move the goalposts" by changing the definition of life in the middle of the game.
I'd also want to point out that even though we do not yet have a full and complete description or simulation of the kind I mention, in all our deep investigations into the foundations of biology we've never encountered anything that needs a "vital force", and that everything we thought needed a "vital force", when we found its real mechanism, turned out not to. So there does not seem room for it. Doesn't this constitute at least a kind of partial, "probabilistic", or "effective" falsification even if it is not as thoroughgoing as the hypothetical one I imagine above?
So what exactly and precisely is meant when it is said vitalism is "unfalsifiable"? How does the seeming falsification I describe not actually falsify vitalism (if it is unfalsifiable, then it cannot be falsified and the posited falsification must be flawed)?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=266993&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire