In Response to S. Dietz's Comment on Falsifiability

The following addresses a reader's concerns with my argument found in my argument on Falsifiability in Wilson's Biological Ethics. I would highly recommend reading the original before reading my additional comments. However, given that the questions posed were of significant concern with regards to the clarity and validity of my original post, I decided that they merited an additional new topic. If the powers that be decide otherwise, feel free to transfer this to a comment in the original post.

S. Dietz,

Thanks for your comments; they are much appreciated! If you don't mind, I'll try to address them as best I can...

I feel that the thesis of your essay hinges on the idea that because it is impossible to find something to falsify the argument then the argument is not falsifiable.

What you stated is, to a certain degree, accurate. However, I'm not merely saying that it is impossible to find something to falsify, but that the theory is capable of being justified, regardless of any attempt at falsification-- it is too subjective to be scientific.

If you are arguing that because his theory is scientifically based that it needs to be falsifiable, I need you to tell me if you are basing this on scientific testability standards or on logical soundness.

Indeed, you summarized it quite nicely; I am, in fact, arguing that science ought to be falsifiable, and that, given that he claims that everything (literally, including arts, ethics, religion, and etcetera) can be explained through biological science, his theory ought to hold to the rigorous standards of science. I believe that I argued why this is the case by providing the example of astrology, which is not a science, as it is not falsifiable. By “falsifiable” I refer specifically to logical falsifiability; a statement is logically falsifiable if, to quote Theo Kupiers in “General Philosophy of Science” on page 518, if there is “at least one conceivable observation contradicting it”. So, “unicorns exist” is falsifiable, because there at least one conceivable observation where there are no unicorns in the universe. However, I would argue that “2+2=4” is not falsifiable (one cannot conceive a world where it is false), so though it is true, it is not scientific. Wilson tried to argue that science can establish ethics, but tried to argue that the science is unscientific (unfalsifiable), therefore establishing a contradiction, meaning that it is necessarily false.

At least, that was the gist of my argument, best as I could make it.

Other than that, however, I think it was very well written. I especially value the parsimony of your essay, because some papers I have had to read just went on and on and on...

Much appreciated; thanks so much!