20151123 - Michio Kaku - Sciencey Stuff - Live Show Chat

[GravitySucks]

Loved this show.  Kaku seemed less fringe than in years past.  One thing that troubled me, though, is that his explanation of the EM drive didn't jive with my understanding.  I thought the drive was propellant-less, but Kaku talked about it using plasma or electrons as propellant, equating it with existing ion drives.  I thought it used microwaves.

I didn't listen live, but listened to the podcast.  Twice at the beginning of the show, Dr Kaku said something had to be "falseafiable" if that is even a word to be valid science. That is what I heard, is that what he really said?  If so, I need an ELI5.

[Ciardelo]

I didn't listen live, but listened to the podcast.  Twice at the beginning of the show, Dr Kaku said something had to be "falseafiable" if that is even a word to be valid science. That is what I heard, is that what he really said?  If so, I need an ELI5.

Falsifiability

[GravitySucks]

Falsifiability

Sure seems like an awkward choice of terms when you are trying to prove a theory, but I see in the reference that it is a synonym for testability. I guess that must have been how he was trying to use it.

Thanks

[zeebo]

Interesting .. that's one of those words I figured I just understood when he said it.  But thinking about it just now I, well, didn't.  From the article above basically I take it that for an assertion to be scientifically valid, you must have at least one logical shot to prove it wrong. 

But to me it seems like it's hard to come up with statements that aren't falsifiable (at least in theory, if not in a practical sense).  So if I claim all cookie jars have invisible house gnomes living inside, I guess this is a legit hypothesis as it is indeed falsifiable (you just need to find one in there that isn't invisible). 

[Robert]

Interesting .. that's one of those words I figured I just understood when he said it.  But thinking about it just now I, well, didn't.  From the article above basically I take it that for an assertion to be scientifically valid, you must have at least one logical shot to prove it wrong.

Not a logical shot but an empirical one.

Falsifiability is over-rated in science.  There's plenty of activity in science that's not subject to falsif'n, yet we consider it scientific.  Typical non-falsifiable statements in science relate to classif'n or to probability judgments in directing resources for research.  If a scientist says you should put your $ on a certain line of research that turns out not to be fruitful, that doesn't falsify the statement.  In other words, scientific opinion is still scientific.