RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
March 29, 2020 at 7:48 am
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2020 at 7:49 am by Belacqua.)
(March 29, 2020 at 7:40 am)Mr Greene Wrote: If you were truly desperate for the definitive answer the Loch could be drained, so the claim is falsifiable.
That would be a very good way to look around and come to a reasonable conclusion.
That's not what "falsifiable" means.
It's still not a single finding which proves non-existence. Die hards can still claim that the monster is buried in the mud, or has a secret tunnel to a neighboring loch, etc.
For something to be falsifiable, in Popper's sense, there has to be a possible discovery which shows that the proposition is false. "There is a monster" is not falsifiable, for the reasons stated above. "There is not a monster" is falsifiable, because finding a monster would falsify it.
No one expects to find a monster. A reasonable conclusion has been reached, through the patient accumulation of evidence. This is not what "falsifiable" means.
A recent example was when you claimed that no Muslim country allows charging interest. By showing you that Bangladesh charges interest, I falsified your claim.
