avi

Thank you spin, that is precisely what I believe I am doing.
Oh? "demonstrably false"? WHAT???
Maybe in Alaska. The use of "falsification" is clearly INCORRECT everywhere else on the planet earth, in the context of ostensibly refuting scientific evidence or hypotheses--see below.
Perhaps you intended to write UNequivocally wrong? Doesn't "equivocally" represent "arguably" or "perhaps"?

Thank you for providing SEVERAL dictionary references which confirm my perspective on the primary meaning of the word.
However, THAT effort, noble though it were, is NOT what I meant, when I solicited a response from Toto, or anyone else, for an erudite AUTHORITY to prove me WRONG, when I assert that "falsify" has been misused in this thread on the forum, in the context of seeking to refute a scientific inquiry. "falsify" in my learned opinion, as an expert in scientific matters, ALWAYS signifies fraud. No exceptions.

Here are a few scientific, medical, and engineering periodicals of international renown. Can you find EVEN ONE article published in any of these journals, during the past fifty years, written by a native speaker of English, which employs the word "falsify" to indicate the concept of "disprove", "repudiate", or "refute", (rather than its conventional definition, "misrepresent") regarding scientific hypotheses or evidence?

nature
science
national library of medicine
pnas
acm
IEEE Computer Society
asme

What difference does it make? Why is this question pertinant to a discussion of the evidence garnered from a multi-decade archaeological excavation of ancient ruins in the desert along the Euphrates River?

Well, first of all, those excavations were conducted (in the 1920's and subsequent decades,) in a state of warfare, by institutions with a LONG HISTORY of committment to Christianity. The excavations were not conducted by organizations free of worry about raising money to support their endeavors. Consequently, the quality of the resultant evidence, is somewhat suspect, in view of the lax (non-existant) security both, at the site, and in the Yale University Laboratory. To those who would protest that fraud is almost non-existant in archaeology, here are a couple of citations:
Japan
Mammoth
Ustica

Secondly, if one accepts at face value the evidence apparently generated by the excavation, there remain several questions regarding interpretation. To that end, we have seen, just in the past two days, a couple of WELL-INTENTIONED, WELL-AUTHORED submissions to this list, which nevertheless, contain tiny (perhaps completely insignificant) imperfections. For example, I was very impressed by Pat Cleaver's letter for letter presentation of Ben's wonderful translation of that 14 line papyrus fragment, recovered from the trash dump at Dura. In no way do I seek to criticize either Pat or Ben. Thank you both, well done. One notes, however, that the TEXT, the Greek text, DOES NOT CONTAIN "CR...", (supposedly representing "cross", with three letters missing) as they have both written. The papyrus fragment contains instead, "STA...". Spin has suggested, perhaps correctly, I don't know, that "STA" STANDS ALONE, i.e. "without lacunae", in other words, spin believes that the original author did not intend to write "stavros", i.e. "stake" in English, but rather intended to abbreviate "stavros" by writing ONLY "sta". How do we know whether or not spin is correct? What we ought not do, in this setting, then, in my opinion, is to WRITE, in English, words with meanings which confound the purpose of the inquiry. Use of peripheral meanings of ANY word, rather than the principal meaning, DOES NOT AID our understanding of the underlying phenomenon, we seek to investigate. The notion that "everyone" understands what we mean, therefore we can write in any fashion, is simply not correct. We cannot even agree among ourselves about the significance of a scrap of papyrus, let alone explain to one another how that scrap may or may not be used in which context to affirm or negate which theory....

The proper method, in my opinion, is not to belittle, or dismiss someone who seeks illumination and clarity, where the discussion has become murky. The proper approach, in my opinion, is to ask this question:

IF we change our method of writing, to accommodate the GENERALLY ACCEPTED meaning of any word, rather than a secondary, peripheral meaning, do we risk compromising our analysis? If not, then, we ought to employ the MOST COMMON MEANING of any word in our submissions to the list, else we complicate the task of recruiting colleagues from other disciplines, and speakers of languages other than English:
In short, by adopting a parochial attitude, insisting on a discredited secondary meaning of a word, substantially at variance with the primary meaning, we alienate those who may otherwise have a keen interest in the topics of this forum. The forum in such a setting, appears as a private club of a handful of eccentrics, using their own private vocabulary, and disdaining to communicate with those who conservatively approach the issues prominent on the forum.

Another way of describing this situation is to ask this question:
WHO benefits from employing the WRONG meaning of a word?

My claim is that the Forum as a whole, receives injury by the consistent, forum-wide misuse of any English word, so if someone (and I am not accusing anyone on this list of engaging in such behaviour) sought to deliberately discredit the forum, what better way could there be, than to write at length WITH THE WRONG vocabulary, to ensure that others, not presently affiliated with the forum, would shake their heads in amazement and disbelief, upon encountering the amateurishness displayed, and defended, on this forum.

spin

<comment no longer needed>

J-D

It is extremely common in English (and, I suspect, in other languages as well) for a word to have more than one meaning. The word 'fast' can have more than one meaning, and as a result a sentence like 'The boat is fast' can have more than one meaning. I can see no justification for an insistence on confining each word to its most common meaning only and banishing all other usage.

spin

For those who want to know, click to check the Google results for :

Nature

Science

pnas

These, national library of medicine acm, IEEE Computer Society, and asme, aren't likely candidates in which one might find falsifications of theories or hypotheses.

Anyone further interested, click to google this:

hypothesis|theory falsified -falsify -false site:jstor.org/

and see if the idea of a theory or hypothesis being falsified is popular throughout scholarly pursuits.

You're wearing egg all over your face, avi.


spin

avi

I will acknowledge having been in error, when you produce a REFERENCE from a legitimate, scientific, academic source.

A reference, includes the author, title of his/her article, name of the periodical, page numbers for the article, and date plus place of publication.

The link you provided yielded this result from New Zealand:
an article from the Journal "Psychological Studies", written by J. R. Flynn in the department of Political Studies, at the University of Otago.

If you prefer to discuss politics, rather than science, that's fine, but my assertion has not been refuted by your continued childishness.

Please offer a proper citation to a journal article from a well respected academic publication in the field of science, medicine, engineering or mathematics, published within the past half century, authored by at least one native speaker of English, in which "falsification", or "falsified" refers to repudiation, rather than "misrepresentation" as applied to analysis of either hypotheses or data.

spin

As predicted you didn't even look at the links to several articles in Nature and Science.

You're a joke. You've had your opportunity not to continue your folly, but you are smearing the egg further and further into your face.

Your assertion doesn't need response. The childishness you claim was to show you that the word is accepted in all major dictionaries to mean what it has been used here to mean contrary to your bogus claim. You won't look at internet links that you asked for. You will not look at the references I provide below. You will not admit that you have made yourself look like a total idiot.


spin

First a couple from Nature:

nature 156, 680-683 (08 December 1945)
An Electrical Hypothesis of Synaptic and Neuromuscular Transmission
J. C. ECCLES

SINCE 1933 the transmission of impulses across synaptic or neuromuscular junctions (henceforth called junctional transmission) has been the occasion of a controversy1. The electrical hypothesis has had the grave defect that (except for the falsified isochronism theory) it has never been stated in such precise terms that it could be subjected to crucial tests 1,2,3,4,5,6.

====

Nature 446, E10-E11 (5 April 2007)
Palaeontology: Undressing and redressing Ediacaran embryos (Reply)

Jake V. Bailey1, Samantha B. Joye2, Karen M. Kalanetra2, Beverly E. Flood3 & Frank A. Corsetti1
Abstract

Xiao et al.1 suggest that the presence of a textured capsule surrounding some Doushantuo globular microfossils calls into question the alternative interpretation of these structures as giant sulphur bacteria similar to modern Thiomargarita2. However, the outer coatings illustrated by Xiao et al.1 are similar morphologically to known bacterial features, and the texture, location and thickness change of the capsule is inconsistent with that of a fertilization envelope. We are therefore not convinced that the bacterial hypothesis has been falsified.

From Science:

SCIENCE News This Week

Volume 290, Number 5490, Issue of 13 October 2000
©2005 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT:
Texas Scientist Admits Falsifying Results
David Malakoff

====

Science 5 April 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5565, p. 7

Technical Comments

The California Current, Devils Hole, and Pleistocene Climate

...

That claim requires that regional surface temperatures be synchronous with ice volumes, and is falsified at a number of marine sites off the California margin discussed in our study (1).

From pnas:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12759.full
Fatness at birth predicts adult susceptibility to ovarian suppression: An empirical test of the Predictive Adaptive Response hypothesis

1. Grazyna Jasienska*,�*,‡,
2. Inger Thune§,¶, and
3. Peter T. Ellison‡,‖

+Author Affiliations

1. *Department of Epidemiology and Population Studies, Collegium Medicum, Jagiellonian University, Grzegórzecka 20, 31-531 Kraków, Poland;
2. �*Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and
3. ‖Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
4. §Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway; and
5. ¶Ullevål University Hospital, N-0407 Oslo, Norway

1. Contributed by Peter T. Ellison, July 1, 2006

Abstract

...

Although the logic of the PAR and EM hypotheses is attractive, it is difficult to think of how they can be tested in combination. By itself, the PAR would be falsified if the results of fetal programming could be shown to be maladaptive.

====

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/26/15458.full
Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence

1. Allen G. Collins�*

+Author Affiliations

1. Department of Integrative Biology, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

1. Communicated by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA (received for review October 1, 1998)


Abstract

..

Of the three hypotheses that cannot be falsified with the 18S rRNA data, one is most strongly supported.

I'll leave you in your darkness now.

Amaleq13

No question about it. You are simply and unequivocally wrong to claim that spin's use of the word was in error. He is quite clearly and correctly applying one of the secondary/tertiary meanings of the word.

The word is not "invariably" "associated with fraud" and, as spin has now shown, this holds true even with regard to a "context of ostensibly refuting scientific evidence or hypotheses".

And everywhere else English is used.

Gosh, do you think so? That you offer this disingenuous and pedantic correction while repeatedly spelling my screen name incorrectly does offer some mitigating amusement, however. Being a smart-ass so often results in one losing the "smart" portion. :thumbs:

Just like Palin was vindicated by the report that said she misused her power. :rolling:

Unfortunately, your claim has not been about the primary meaning but a ridiculous assertion about a meaning that "invariably" holds true. The dictionary references as well as the scientific references clearly falsify your assertion. You are, as I said, demonstrably wrong. :wave:

avi

With regard to Sir John Eccles' introduction to electrical synaptic transmission (juxtaposed to more conventional chemically mediated transmission),
It is clear then, that Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize winner in 1963, student of Sir Charles Sherrington, himself a Nobel Prize winner in 1932, (also educated at Cambridge,) NEVER ACCEPTED the possibility that the Isochronism model could explain synaptic transmission, hence, that theory had ALWAYS been DISCREDITED, i.e. FALSE. It was, in essence, fraudulent science to even propose this theory, hence, Eccles wrote "falsified", here meaning both discredited AND fraudulent, NOT DISPROVEN, for it was never considered a viable explanation, worthy of testing, from the very outset.

I will accept this particular entry (though it was written more than half a century ago...) as a repudiation of my contention that "falsify" always indicates fraud, rather than simply "repudiation", but only because of fond memories of having met John in Copenhagen in 1976, where we may have disagreed about other topics, but not about isochronism.....

With regard to the second reference, it is an abstract, written in response to an investigation published by another team of archaeologists apparently from China. The abstract may or may not have been reviewed. It may or may not have originated from a research laboratory. I am unfamiliar with any of these authors. Based upon spin's extract, I guess this is a study employing a scanning electron microscope, and apparently the authors are using "falsified" PRECISELY the same way as spin, and contrary to my advocacy of reserving this word for situations embracing FRAUD. These authors are evidently challenging the interpretation of the Chinese team, which may have proposed a change in classification of some fossil genera, based upon the images from scanning EM, and this group writing "falsified", remain convinced that no adjustment in the taxonomy is warranted.
Here again, spin is correct, and this represents a second illustration of using "falsify" contrary to my thinking. I would have preferred to see this word, "falsified" used in a more substantive scenario, i.e. resident in an article which had enjoyed EDITORIAL review, rather than as a submission, similar to sending off a message to this forum, without editorial scrutiny, as this abstract appears to represent.
Still, I agree, spin is correct, in both cases.

The third example, of spin's, is from Science, in the year 2000, and corresponds precisely to the definition I have insisted upon:
Yes, that is exactly the way I believe the word should be used, "falsify" meaning, FALSE, with the underlying concept of FRAUD, as opposed to "refute", or "disprove": FALSE, by virtue of testing various scenarios, and demonstrating the invalidity of various hypotheses, BUT WITHOUT any hint of FRAUD.
To my way of thinking, "falsification" ALWAYS indicates fraudulent activity. Simple repudiation, or refutation of results, or hypotheses, in my view, OUGHT NOT BE represented by the word "falsification", as its use in the latter situation can then only confound those whose native language is not English.

The fourth illustration is also from Science, and as with the Nature reply above, represents AN UNEDITED, NON-PEER REVIEWED submission.

The PNAS article, written by an anthropologist, clearly uses the word falsify, as spin employs it, meaning, DISPROVE, WITHOUT any hint of fraud. I would have rejected this submission, and insisted that the author change that word, if it had been given to me to review.

The final article, also from PNAS, also written by another anthropologist, seeking to employ molecular genetic evidence to disprove another taxonomic question, again repudiates my contention that "falsify" should ONLY be used to represent non-fraudulent situations.

I have been shown to be incorrect, as these five examples illustrate, my thinking is evidently considerably at variance with the academic community at large. Notwithstanding these illustrations, or a thousand more, by another group of a thousand more anthropologists and politicians and psychologists, I will NEVER agree to use of the word "falsify" as a synonym for refute, absent fraud. "Falsify", in my mind, if no one else's, is ALWAYS associated with fraud.

Well, I won't deny that I am completely opposed to Governor Palin and her ilk. I do consider her previous action an illustration of abuse of power. I also consider her an ignorant and dishonest person, and very much ill-suited to lead a horse to pasture, let alone run the government of the USA.

spin

One out of six in the rush doesn't evince the technical meaning seen in the other five. There are many more I've linked to which have been ignored. The notion of falsification, or invalidation, of theories and hypotheses is clearly in evidence in scholarly literature, as can be seen by following the google links I provided. Case closed.


spin

Doug Shaver

I suppose that would be eminently relevant, if this were a French-speaking forum.

So what? Every word in the language was new at some time.