Some philosophers and Scientists try to get around Karl Popper’s falsification explanation, which is simple a Modus Tollens. This Denying the consequent is a valid form of logic. Karl points out that science is based upon the fallacy of affirming the consequent and thus all scientific experimentation is logically invalid. The only logically valid option is to falsify a theory with Modus Tollens.
That is , “If hypothesis X is true, then necessarily G will result. G does not result. Therefore, X is false.”
Scientist try to escape this, by saying experimentation is not a simple , If [ X is true] , then [necessarily G results],” argument; rather it has a conjunction in the antecedent). (P() If [theory X, which is supported by auxiliary theory Y is truth], (Q) then [G necessarily will result].
What they do to avoid a Modus Tollens falsifying their main theory X, is to make the antecedent a conjunction, IF [X & Y], then [G results.].
This way if the consequent is falsified, they get throw out the auxiliary theory rather than their main theory of X: (example: evolution/Big bang). However, I do not believe ontology will allow them this logical arrangement. That is, if the auxiliary theory Y—ontologically speaking—is a necessary result of the main theory X, then their argument is not a conjunction in the antecedent, but rather, it is a chain argument with multiple, “If… then’s.”( If X, then Y. &. If Y then G. ) That being said, some instances would be an honest use of a conjunction, but if the category is ontology and ontology, and one is a sub-category of the other, then a conjunction is not a true logical reflection of that is happening.
In this logical form the original X would be falsified if G is shown to be false. If the smaller auxiliary theory X (that is, a smaller sub-ontology) is not a necessary result of their bigger theory of the Big Bang (that is, it is not contained in their bigger ontology), then what ontological antecedent “necessarily” makes it so, God? We are dealing with ontology, because we are going from result to cause. Thus, If X is a necessary ontology of Y, then Big Bang is falsified. If sub-ontologies are “not necessary,” or not necessarily contained in and result from the biggest X ontology of Evolution/Big Bang, then why even bother making an argument in the first place to try and prove your theory? Without necessity or a necessary connection there is no logic.
1.) If Big Bang (B) is true, then this necessarily results in inflation(I) .
2.) If inflation(I) is true, then necessarily (O) quasars will be far away.
3.) Not O.
4.) Thus, not B
Also, secular scientists attempt to escape this falsification with huge fudge factors like Dark Matter and Energy. Apart from issue of using an invisible untestable fudge factor every time you are wrong, is this issue: some scientist might say, “the big bang is not falsified because our other, other auxiliary theory (dark matter) effected quasars to be closer than thought.” And thus, if this is true, then “inflation” does not “necessarily” result to quasars being far away.
However, if so, then the scientist has no knowledge about the ontology of the cosmos, for he has no necessary connections to tell how ontology really works. He has no argument, he has no truth. But if his “argument” truly is a claim about “necessary” connections within ontology, then if (O) is falsified, then so to is their (B). The scientist must pick one or the other; either he has a truth clam about necessarily connections of ontology (if so, then falsification would falsify their (B)), or they must admit they have nothing to say about ontology to begin with.
We are now at the beginning of the issue of science to begin with; it commits a triple fallacy with, (1) empiricism, (2) inductive observation and (3) inductive, affirming the consequent. Thus, science is systematically, and habitually irrational. It has no knowledge about anything. In order to be true, it must be false at the same time. Science has no truth claim about reality. It’s epistemology foundation and logical argumentation makes it impossible for it to know anything about reality.