I have some questions on the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses.A Troubled Man wrote: Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.
The Inflation Theory Hypothesis
If falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible, why then is Inflation Theory considered to be a credible scientific hypothesis? Is there any known way to falsify Inflation Theory?
The Multi-verse Hypothesis
Similarly, many credible scientists have hypothesized the existence of multiple universes. In fact, this has become a quite popular scientific hypothesis. It is often used as an excuse for why our universe has such extraordinary properties. The argument that is often given in the name of science is that there are simply infinitely many universes and this is why it should not be surprising that we live in one that just happens to be compatible with the evolution of living sentient beings. But it is also claimed that there is absolutely no possible way that we could ever detect these hypothetical multiple universes. Therefore this hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, yet it is often being held out as being scientifically rational hypothesis.
Why is this non-falsifiable hypothesis of multiple universes considered credible in science?
The String Theory Hypothesis
Everyone knows that String Theory is a widely held hypothesis in science. Yet many scientists point out that because of the small sizes of these strings this theory too may very well be non-falsifiable. Therefore there are many scientists who have openly argued that it's mere philosophy, and not science at all.
Why does so much scientific funding go toward research on a hypothesis that may ultimately not be falsifiable?
The Higher-Dimensional Hypothesis
It is also being hypothesized that our universe may consistent of as many as 11 dimensions that are curled up so tiny that they are virtually impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to falsify. Yet this hypothesis is being taken very seriously and given credibility as a scientific hypothesis.
Why is this hypothesis being seriously considered by so many scientists when it ultimately may not be falsifiable and certainly no one knows how to currently falsify it?
The M-Theory Hypothesis
M-theorists are imagining that our universe exists on the surface of some sort of higher-dimensional membrane. No one currently knows how this theory could be falsified. They even go further to hypothesis that there exist many of these membranes that are separate from our universe, and they have proposed that our membrane may have collided with another hypothetical membrane to produce what we see as a "Big Bang". Yet none of this is falsifiable at this time.
Why are scientists considering a hypothesis of imaginary higher-dimensional membranes that no one has ever seen, and insofar as we currently know cannot even be falsified?
~~~~~
So my question is this:
In modern science does a hypothesis actually need to actually be falsifiable? Or is it sufficient to merely suggest that it may someday potentially be falsifiable? Is it also sufficient to give other grounds for why a hypothesis might be feasible? (i.e. purely mathematical grounds?), even though it can never be falsified?
And how does this work for something like the multi-verse hypothesis where there is no reason to believe that multiple universes should ever be detectable, and therefore the theory can never be confirmed nor falsified ever.
In other words, the scientific community itself doesn't appear to be taking the idea that their hypotheses must be falsifiable very seriously.
So I'm questioning why it should be held out in science that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, when much of modern science today is based on research around theories that are not currently falsifiable. And even in some cases such as the multiple universe hypothesis, they never will be falsifiable. Yet this hypothesis is taken so seriously that it is actually being used as an excuse to explain why our universe is so miraculous.
There seems to be some inconsistency here between the demand that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable to be credible, and the behavior of the scientific community to constantly be offering hypotheses that are not falsifiable, and in some cases, such as the multiple universe hypothesis, actually using these non-falsifiable hypotheses as an argument for why our universe is so special.
Where is there any consistency in their position here?
They don't appear to be following their own rules.