I've just recorded this video, about a subject I've been meaning to talk about for a long time. I discuss the importance of falsifiability, when it comes to making claims about reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdP5GpCeuE

Another good one Rob. Let's see, Rob says: You prayed for gods help and nothing happened. Mark says: Yes it did, god said no.

On another note, is that an electron gun on your counter?

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it

Electron gun? Probably, I can't keep up with all these hippies.

You're a secret evil genius aren't you. Dr. Doom, Dr Octavious, Dr. Strange ....... What's you hidden name?

Dr. Who...

---

Dr. Hook

Great! I've wanted to know why this is important for quite a while but always forgot to search it up, thanks.

But is it realistic to *only* believe things that are falsifiable (and can the standard of falsifiability be drawn in such a way that itself is falsifiable)?

(July 16, 2016 at 9:58 pm)joseph_ Wrote: But is it realistic to *only* believe things that are falsifiable (and can the standard of falsifiability be drawn in such a way that itself is falsifiable)?

Disclaimer: I haven't watched the vid yet (maybe tomorrow).

The first question - I think we necessarily have to make assumptions about the world serving as working hypotheses, so to say, that aren't falsifiable, but more or less educated guesses. I make the assumption that my wife isn't a philosophical zombie but has conscious experience like me. I assume that I don't live in a perfect simulation and the world is "real". I assume that the laws of gravity aren't suddenly suspended if I decide to jump off of a tower tomorrow and therfore don't do it. Those are all unfalsifiable assumptions that one might call beliefs. They are founded on evidence, although they are all non trivial questions- the one about the gravity e.g. goes to the heart of Hume's problem of induction (that there is no strictly logical way to derive anything about what happens in the future from what happened in the past)

Nor can the validity of the standard of falsifiability , afaik, be made into a falsifiable hypothesis.

Joseph: You're right. It's a point I should have covered in my video. There are some things that are unfalsifiable but are pragmatic to believe. A person who is interested in learning the truth should aim to make as few assumptions as possible. They should therefor only be assumptions that are crucial in some way. For example, the existence of God and the idea prayers are being answered are certainly not crucial. Obviously atheists can function perfectly well without them. My video was mainly addressing further scientific claims, once you've made some fundamental assumptions.

Life, and science, is probabilistic as Alex says. We decide our actions based on what we appear to have learned so far. Science isn't about proving things for certain, it's about coming to conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. So in this way, life itself is a running experiment.

I don't know if it's actually necessary to make any assumptions that aren't based on evidence, though. The biggest primary assumption is that what I experience maps to some sort of objective reality, which other independent intelligences also experience. However, I can function perfectly fine without making this assumption. I still have to remain in this experience whether it's "real" or not, so I'll be dealing with the consequences of my actions.