RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
March 26, 2020 at 10:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2020 at 11:15 pm by Paleophyte.)
(March 26, 2020 at 6:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Simply because a statement cannot be demonstrated does not necessarily mean that the statement is untrue.
No, it doesn't mean that it's untrue. It does mean that it can't be demonstrated to be untrue. Or true. It might be true or it might not but with no way to tell it's just epistemological white noise.
(March 26, 2020 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote:(March 25, 2020 at 9:40 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Falsification is not simply for science. A statement that cannot be falsified cannot be demonstrated. At that point the argument devolves to:citation please.
The next words that you type.
Quote:as i pointed out the word was coined by karl popper to support his philosophy of science which all scientific discovery and study are conducted under. HE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS FALSIFICATION TO PROVE SUBJECTS NOT SCIENCE/Covered under the philosophy of science.
Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.
Quote:A: I believe in fairies.
b: belief is not a scientific measure.
A:You can not prove they do not exist.
B: not with science but there maybe proof of them is another discipline history for example may have recorded fairies or something referred to as fairies but there is no physical evidence for science to study/science is not equipt to make a definitive ruling.
Except you went and defined it as unfalsifiable, so it can't be shown to be true. Not by science. Not by any field of philosophy. That's what unfalsifiable means.
Quote:i think once someone explains this too you and you finally get the implications, you will get to see what i see in how cute you all are to me when you unknowingly ask for falsification, and have no understanding how you just ended your own arguments.
Your argument is that god is irrelevant to the discussion. Isn't that cute.
