(October 23, 2019 at 5:19 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(October 23, 2019 at 1:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: Is there some objective standard of judgment which tells us that reading about unfalsifiable things is a waste of time?Sure. It's called scientific method.
You've proposed that reading unfalsifiable books is waste of time.
According to the scientific method, we'd need a repeatable empirical way of falsifying the proposition that reading unfalsifiable things is waste of time. If we can't falsify your proposition, then it's not something the scientific method can approach.
So I'm curious what you'd propose. How could we do a repeatable empirical test to show, for example, that reading Proust is not a waste of time? The value of Proust, like so many things in the Liberal Arts, is not obviously falsifiable.
What scientific test can we do to show that Proust is or is not a waste of time?
