(April 2, 2020 at 7:08 am)Agnostico Wrote: Hope it wasn't boring... LoL

Not at all! It's a pleasure to see someone make a case, with quotes and links. There's way too many posts that just say, "Wrong, stupid." 

I'm not knowledgable enough to evaluate what he said about the need to rethink evolution. Naturally it's a mine field, because anyone who said "maybe we should look again" would stimulate the creationists to jump to conclusions. I see it as one of the most important goals of philosophy, however, to remind us that we don't know as much as we think we do, and that what people hold to be true is likely to change more than we can currently imagine (if we don't wipe out the whole planet first). Some people look down on philosophy because it doesn't seem to offer practical benefits, but I don't see that as its job. It's more about keeping us uncertain -- or being very strict about where certainty isn't warranted -- and Popper was good at that. 

The case of contrasting Einstein with Freud is really instructive. I'm a big fan of Freud, and while Popper was certainly right in saying that Freud's theories aren't science, this is for me part of their charm. Again, they force uncertainty on us, which is a good thing. 

This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia:

Quote:For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

I'm a big fan of the "mythogenic." So I'm pleased to see that for Popper, calling something unscientific isn't calling it worthless. He was a broad-minded thinker.

(April 2, 2020 at 7:08 am)Agnostico Wrote: Popper did say evolution was not falsifiable

J.B.S. Haldane said it was: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian'.

Climate Change, Cosmology, and Evolution. One of these things is not like the others. Two involve theories (well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment), one is a pile of competing plausible hypotheses that can't be tested yet.

Imagine the smoke coming out of our resident nutballs ears right now, trying to decide which one of the three they most need to take a shit on.

---

(April 1, 2020 at 5:35 pm)Agnostico Wrote: What you are skeptical with is soft science. Theory of evolution, cosmology, climate change.
These are theoretical sciences. They operate on a far lower standard of evidence and are often driven by peoples beliefs.

Modern synth is the unifying theory of biology.  Soft science my ass, lol.

Quote:He basically says that if a claim cannot be tested (falsifiable) then it isn't scientific
We cannot test if there is or isn't a God, therefore it's not scientific to claim either

We can..and in point of mere fact, the bible purports to be just such a test, as well as the events it recounts being just such a test.  They either happened, or they did not.  If they did not, the god of your magic book is not just falsifiable, it's falsified.

Spoiler alert, god has failed those tests. Guess what hasn't? The "soft" science of evolutionary biology.

(April 2, 2020 at 10:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Imagine the smoke coming out of our resident nutballs ears right now, trying to decide which one of the three they most need to take a shit on.

---

(April 1, 2020 at 5:35 pm)Agnostico Wrote: What you are skeptical with is soft science. Theory of evolution, cosmology, climate change.
These are theoretical sciences. They operate on a far lower standard of evidence and are often driven by peoples beliefs.

Modern synth is the unifying theory of biology.  Soft science my ass, lol.

Quote:He basically says that if a claim cannot be tested (falsifiable) then it isn't scientific
We cannot test if there is or isn't a God, therefore it's not scientific to claim either

We can..and in point of mere fact, the bible purports to be just such a test, as well as the events it recounts being just such a test.  They either happened, or they did not.  If they did not, the god of your magic book is not just falsifiable, it's falsified.

Spoiler alert, god has failed those tests.  Guess what hasn't?  The "soft" science of evolutionary biology.

you can do this but again this is not how the term is used in the philosophy of science. This term falsifiability is an attempt to remove non scientific study from the title or umbrella of science. Now what you propose is the opposite of what this mainstream philosophy suggests. this is you being obstinate, this is you who can not admit how wrong you are, nor have been. This is your blind faith in a measure far greater than a mustard seed, Adhoc-ing what you want to believe and making up shite to support your self. this is you using a term intended for segregation science and scientific study, from pseudoscience to your purpose of incorporating pseudoscience into mainstream science in order to gain legitimacy. Which again is the WHOLE PURPOSE of philosophy of science and it's use of falsifiability! To eliminate the BS people like you want to pretend fall under a scientific subject.

This is what I mean by only having one tool (science) in your intellectual tool box (your mind) if that tool is a hammer you will only see nails so you can use that tool. 

Popper saw this and was to separate other intellectual disciplines that were not science from true scientific study. falsifiability was that tool. it meant that if a subject could not be falsified then you need another tool besides a hammer to address the subject.

Now each intellectual discipline has it's own set of checks and balances to vet whatever topic it is used to study. even theology with God. IE this is using a specific discipline rules and regs to "falsify" it's own subjects and subject matter.

I don't need science as a tool to make any of the statements that I do, lol. Here again you show that you're just bitching about science. Your god is falsifiable. In fact, your god is even more falsifiable than the general notion of a god that science, as a tool, has falsified.

Your god is falsifiable..and falsified...everytime someone "A/S/Ks" and hears nothing.

That's an existential claim that you've saddled the great fairy with. I don't need to know the first thing about science to know whether or not there are voices in my head.

-proceed with your mindless bitching about a body of facts that has demonstrably falsified your silly god.

(April 2, 2020 at 11:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't need science as a tool to make any of the statements that I do, lol.  Here again you show that you're just bitching about science.  Your god is falsifiable.   In fact, your god is even more falsifiable than the general notion of a god that science, as a tool, has falsified.  

Your god is falsifiable..and falsified...everytime someone "A/S/Ks" and hears nothing.

That's an existential claim that you've saddled the great fairy with.  I don't need to know the first thing about science to know whether or not there are voices in my head.

-proceed with your mindless bitching about a body of facts that has demonstrably falsified your silly god.

hey slow mo.. are you even reading what people are trying to tell you?
Or are you so... 'smart' you still don't get it...

Falsifiability is a tool used to determine whether something like a theory, is testable by the scientific method. God can not be experimented on. you can not put God in a controlled environment and add stimuli to evoke a predictable response. so God or the subject of God is not a discernible topic that the scientific method can be used to conclude. This means because falsifiability is the term Popper used to vet a subject's ability to be scrutinized by the scientific method, If God was able to be experimented on he would not be God. so THAT again disqualifies basically ALL of theological subjects from the grubby hands of those trying to force the subject of theology through the very limited scope and understanding of science.

Falsifiability is used to determine whether or not a subject can be scrutinized by the scientific method.
popper came up with this philosophy which he deemed the philosophy of science which all modern scientific discovery is segregated by.

All this means is that popper narrowed the definition of science to a point where if it can not be vetted by the scientific method it is not pure science. things not pure science? history, grammer, theology, topography, music, poetry, they are their own subset/intellectual persuit.

So all falsifiability is, is a way to determine if a subject can be considered pure science. if not it does not mean the subject is not legitimate, it just means pure science is not the tool need for this discussion.

IE you are using the term wrong. You are using the definition of the word and the authority of scientific discovery as a way of testing a subject worthiness. again can't do that because poppers influence on science says this subject is not subject to the rules of a scientific discussion this is another intellectual discipline all together, science is worthless here.

---

riddle me this fudger.. do you at least understand my argument?

You do not have an argument. You are bitching about science because it keeps slapping your silly god in the mouth..and you know it, lol.

All that falsifiablility is, is whether or not a claim contains elements which must be true - that could be found to be false. It's philosophy, not science. A check on logical positivism of any kind, not science. Certainly not a stay of execution for your falsified god. A god which you decided to make falsifiable all of your own accord.

For your god claims to be true, it must answer supplicants. That could be found to be false, and indeed has been found to be false. Falsifiable, and falsified - it doesn't matter that your god claims aren't science, have nothing to do with science, and positively reject science. On your claims own ground, god is falsifiable.

If you insist that being falsifiable would make god "not god" - then that's what you've done. Gratz.

(April 2, 2020 at 12:47 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You do not have an argument.  You are bitching about science because it keeps slapping your silly god in the mouth..and you know it, lol.

All that falsifiablility is, is whether or not a claim contains elements which must be true - that could be found to be false.  It's philosophy, not science.  A check on logical positivism of any kind, not science.  Certainly not a stay of execution for your falsified god.  A god which you decided to make falsifiable all of your own accord.

For your god claims to be true, it must answer supplicants.  That could be found to be false, and indeed has been found to be false.  Falsifiable, and falsified - it doesn't matter that your god claims aren't science, have nothing to do with science, and positively reject  science.  On your claims own ground, god is falsifiable.  

If you insist that being falsifiable would make god "not god" - then that's what you've done.  Gratz.

do you understand my argument?

I understand yours.

You have no argument, you are bitching about science. In the process of doing that you've managed to get literally every detail of your rant as wrong as you could have gotten it. Wrong about popper, wrong about falsifiability, wrong about gods, wrong about theology, wrong about yourself... ffs....

Your god is falsifiable - and if making a god falsifiable is a problem, then you've created the problem for yourself. Maybe stop doing that and you won't find yourself compelled to bitch about science as often?