<p><strong>What do falsifiability and verifiability actually mean as a precondition of a scientific hypothesis?</strong></p>
<p>I have been hearing from science guys that unlike philosophical hypothesis or theory, to be a scientific hypothesis an educated guess must have to be falsifiable and verifiable. But I cannot comprehend falsifiable and verifiable conditions for some scientific hypotheses especially in astronomy field. For example,</p>
<p>Couple of scientific hypotheses exists about the shape of the universe,</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Universe is positively curved</li>
<li>Universe is negatively curved</li>
<li>Universe is flat</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>These are the well known scientific hypotheses as far as my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong). It seems to me, though I may be wrong, none of the above hypotheses are anyway falsifiable and verifiable because it is never possible for us to measure the geometry as the universe is expanding beyond our scope of study. For example, we can may be able to test on larger amount space as time goes on and technology advances, but to measure the actual shape of the whole universe we need to know theoretically the full picture of the universe which is not possible for us according to current understandings of science.</p>
<p>Now, there might be many such hypotheses which we cannot take under testable and verifiable condition yet we call them scientific hypothesis. My question is,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is a scientific hypothesis really required to be <strong>falsifiable</strong> and <strong>verifiable</strong>? If so, what are the falsifiable and verifiable conditions for above mentioned hypotheses?</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T17:54:34.853Z
The reason I put it here because confusion is limited mostly for astronomy related hypotheses. Also in philosophy site most people try to answer on philosophical aspects where my intention is to get the answer strictly on definition from scientific community and consensus. @tfb
Sazzad Hissain Khan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T21:40:36.097Z
I like your question! To keep it verifiably on-topic here I think you should narrow the scope to hypotheses in Astronomy/Cosmology. I see that you've chosen curvature as the example which is great, but maybe emphasize those specific topics rather than ask about all scientific hypotheses? Astronomy is a little different than some other fields of science in that it's hard to do controlled experiments and to reproduce/repeat them.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T22:02:31.280Z
@SazzadHissainKhan - Your question is fundamentally philosophical and cannot be resolved by empirical research. We can of course poll scientists for how they would answer the question, but that is not going to be a rigorous answer. While it may be informative and important to hear what scientists say about this, remember that their answer will be philosophy of science as done by practitioners of the science, rather than professional philosophers.
Anders Sandberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T03:22:23.260Z
@uhoh you can improve it if you wish.
Sazzad Hissain Khan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T12:34:55.590Z
If you interpret "Universe" as "the entirety of existence, including that beyond all possible observations", then, yes, those aren't really testable hypotheses. But in practice those are treated as hypotheses *about the observable universe*, so there's no problem.
Peter Erwin
<universe><space-geometry><hypothetical>
What do falsifiability and verifiability actually mean as a precondition of a scientific hypothesis?
Sazzad Hissain Khan
# What do falsifiability and verifiability actually mean as a precondition of a scientific hypothesis?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-02)

**What do falsifiability and verifiability actually mean as a precondition of a scientific hypothesis?**

I have been hearing from science guys that unlike philosophical hypothesis or theory, to be a scientific hypothesis an educated guess must have to be falsifiable and verifiable. But I cannot comprehend falsifiable and verifiable conditions for some scientific hypotheses especially in astronomy field. For example,

Couple of scientific hypotheses exists about the shape of the universe,

> 1. Universe is positively curved
> 2. Universe is negatively curved
> 3. Universe is flat

These are the well known scientific hypotheses as far as my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong). It seems to me, though I may be wrong, none of the above hypotheses are anyway falsifiable and verifiable because it is never possible for us to measure the geometry as the universe is expanding beyond our scope of study. For example, we can may be able to test on larger amount space as time goes on and technology advances, but to measure the actual shape of the whole universe we need to know theoretically the full picture of the universe which is not possible for us according to current understandings of science.

Now, there might be many such hypotheses which we cannot take under testable and verifiable condition yet we call them scientific hypothesis. My question is,

> Is a scientific hypothesis really required to be **falsifiable** and **verifiable**? If so, what are the falsifiable and verifiable conditions for above mentioned hypotheses?

**Tags:** universe, space-geometry, hypothetical
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The reason I put it here because confusion is limited mostly for astronomy related hypotheses. Also in philosophy site most people try to answer on philosophical aspects where my intention is to get the answer strictly on definition from scientific community and consensus. @tfb  
> **username_1**: I like your question! To keep it verifiably on-topic here I think you should narrow the scope to hypotheses in Astronomy/Cosmology. I see that you've chosen curvature as the example which is great, but maybe emphasize those specific topics rather than ask about all scientific hypotheses? Astronomy is a little different than some other fields of science in that it's hard to do controlled experiments and to reproduce/repeat them.  
> **username_2**: @SazzadHissainKhan - Your question is fundamentally philosophical and cannot be resolved by empirical research. We can of course poll scientists for how they would answer the question, but that is not going to be a rigorous answer. While it may be informative and important to hear what scientists say about this, remember that their answer will be philosophy of science as done by practitioners of the science, rather than professional philosophers.  
> **username_0**: @uhoh you can improve it if you wish.  
> **username_3**: If you interpret "Universe" as "the entirety of existence, including that beyond all possible observations", then, yes, those aren't really testable hypotheses. But in practice those are treated as hypotheses *about the observable universe*, so there's no problem.  

---

## 0 answers

