Falsified evidence is what conforms an inference about causality between two conceptual observations. Evidence doesn’t have to be falsified to be evidence of something. For example, a blood sample is evidence, but may never be falsified for a crime .
A theory is an abstract principle, the metaphysics.
A theory might say that masses attract each other. A hypothesis (a subset of theory) would then be to state that if one was to hang a small mass very close to a very large mass, the small mass would measurably move closer to the large mass. The experiment would be the actual exercise of testing the hypothesis that was based upon the theory.
The theory is falsifiable when an experiment can be arranged that would prove the theory false if it was indeed false. Some theories are so ambiguous and vague that no experiment could disprove the theory whether it was false or not. The Big Bang theory, for example, is not falsifiable through experiment and thus isn’t real science. The BB is actually merely conjecture.
Theory
Hypothesis
Experiment
Analysis
And “falsifiable evidence” would be evidence that could be proven to be false evidence if it really was false, as opposed to proposed evidence that could not be verified in any way.
Hypothesis is effectively an observation of causality …
Always from anecdotal falsification (otherwise we couldn’t even conceptualize it) - the principle is then expanded to a theory, which is a universalization of the hypothesis. Then the universalization comes into question as people ponder how to falsify universalizations!!
My point, hypothesis comes before theory, not the other way around
Theories can neither be proven nor disproven. Rather, their truth value, expressed as a set of tested predictions, can change. When people describe them as true or false this is either a simplification of their truth value or a reflection of whether their potential users decided to accept/apply them or reject/discard them, a decision which is based on need and not on something external.
I think you need a few days to clean your mind from the virus of this thread Magnus, and then come back to it.
The reason James came at you the way he did, is because if everything is exactly the same (no external) existence cannot exist, and that’s a contradiction, because, existence does exist.
In science a testable hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable. Non testable hypotheses are not valid because they cannot be potentially falsifiable. Even
if they are true. And whilst theory and hypothesis might be interchangeable terms in common vernacular they have very specific and different meanings in
science. A theory is the highest body of work in science incorporating laws and principles to formulate a single unification and so nothing is above a theory
Whereas a hypothesis is at the other end of the spectrum and so is essentially no more than a reasonable guess or estimate based upon existing knowledge
What you have to do is to show to me that ultimate reality, such as ultimate dimensions of an object, can be sensed and not merely imagined.
Do you know the difference between sensation and imagination?
When you see, with your own eyes, an apple on a table, that is sensation.
When you imagine in your head an apple on a table, that is imagination.
When you imagine there is an apple on a table, that is projected imagination.
Projected imagination can be a random guess, or a guess based on personal preference, but it can also be an educated guess, which is a guess based on experience.
Whatever its from, imagination can never be anything more than imagination. It can never become sensation.
This is where language can confuse us.
In everyday parlance, the word reality is used to refer to BOTH what is sensed and what is not sensed but is imagined based on experience.
We say “there is a tree in our backyard” both when we are looking at it and when we are not looking at it but can expect it to be there based on our prior observations.
When one and the same word is associated with two distinct concepts, one must be careful not to conflate the concepts.
Senses and intellect are not equal.
Senses are fundamental.
Though predictions must refer to some sensory event in time, theoretical constructs need not. They can be as imaginary as you want them to be.
If you want to believe that every event in the universe is determined by some supreme being, that is fine, so as long you admit that it’s nothing more than imagination (that is not projected and that is thus without implications and beyond testing.)
The problem begins when you confuse theoretical constructs with reality.
When you fail to understand that things such as ultimate objects (or objects-in-themselves), causality, laws, etc are theoretical constructs and not reality itself.