Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:57 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
falsifying the idea of falsification
#21
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 25, 2020 at 2:18 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 1:58 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: This is not Chinese flu you fucking idiot.  

Everyone can stop reading at that line.

Don't you need to go to DC?  I think there may be a spot on Trump's ass that hasn't been kissed in the last few minutes.

it is the chinese flu as they will be paying for this global shut down and if and when they start cutting checks make sure you give yours back. because it is not china's fault, it was not covered up by their propaganda minister who let this wild fire burn for over a month before it was even  considered a possible threat.

THEN they said is was American military engineered flu... which has a far deeper implication and a more likely fanatical chance of a retaliatory strike from a biological perspective if chinese nations began to believe that narrative.

Plus it is most certainly not a beer brewers fault. I hear their business has been devastated by stupid people who stopped calling it the chinese flu because of the devastation it was causing to chinese people is now being focused on the corona beer company because those type of people who can not be trusted to say chinese flu without killing chinese people must also be the one boycotting the beer..

(March 25, 2020 at 2:04 pm)no one Wrote: Wow! Do you get more and more stupid with each word you utter?

said no one of consequence.

Everything you just posted was wrong. And you don't care.
Reply
#22
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 25, 2020 at 2:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But falsification is STILL only used in a scientific context. It’s original point was and still is to separate science from non-science. 

If you make the statement ‘God exists’ and I can’t falsify it, it doesn’t mean that the statement is or isn’t true, it simply means that it is not a scientific statement and not amenable to scientific investigation.

I should think this would delight you.

Boru

it does as the God exists statement is based in theology.

one of the final straws on the other forum was the use of falsification as a means to dismiss the intellectual merrit of a theological dicussion as it was not a matter of science. the assumption being that only science or what science could discern could be considered truth or fact.

the point of the video is to show that science is a very limited discipline or field of study, and just because something can not be quantified by science does not mean it can be disregaurded.

(March 25, 2020 at 2:53 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Killing trillions?

Considering there isn't ONE trillion people on the globe (no yet - but if the RCC and other such droolbags have their way - there soon will be) we can assume the rest of your post to be non-factual as well.

Ignore engaged.

trillions of health lung cells causing scar tissue to form and difficult breathing which if combined with another pre existing condition could cause death of those infected in this pandemic.

Point being your perception is not always mine. this doesn't make you wrong or me right till you assume you think you have a full understanding of everything being said.

(March 25, 2020 at 6:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: So much spam.  Whats the point of posting anything you refuse to discuss?

what am i refusing to discuss?
Reply
#23
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
Drich, Why are you garbage?
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming"  -The Prophet Boiardi-

      Conservative trigger warning.
[Image: s-l640.jpg]
                                                                                         
Reply
#24
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 25, 2020 at 6:37 pm)chimp3 Wrote: A claim that something exists (god) is a claim about reality. Falsification is applicable. No special pleading for religious morons (Drich?).

no. to claim God exist through the frame work of scripture (as this is the only way we know God exists) is called Theology. falsification is not applicable. As science is the measure of rule of the observable world. if one can not experiment and observe repeatable results the subject matter is not observable/unknowable to science. Therefore it fall to another intellectual discipline to proof a concept. in this case proof God through the discipline of theology. Again that what a call to falsification is. to see if a subject is of a scientific nature or not.

Claims of God can not be falsified, therefore it is not up to science to proof God/Science is out of it's scope, science does not have the tools to proof God if God does not fit the scientific method.

So again to ask for falsification is to disqualify science as a tool to discuss matters of God or theology.
Reply
#25
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: [Image: trash-pile-1.jpg]

Post fixed for accuracy.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming"  -The Prophet Boiardi-

      Conservative trigger warning.
[Image: s-l640.jpg]
                                                                                         
Reply
#26
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 25, 2020 at 9:40 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote: the title pretty much says it. with this chinese flu killing trillions I'm been writing scripts and making videos.

OLB already called you on this but it's so impressively bad that it needs more scorn. My condolences to all the greenbacks that have suffered and died.

"Chinese Flu" is imbecilic as it is neither Chinese nor influenza.
i'm ok with wu-han sars. it makes a sharper point, but im ok with that.


Quote:Falsification is not simply for science. A statement that cannot be falsified cannot be demonstrated. At that point the argument devolves to:
citation please.
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.

In effect Karl is doing the opposite you are trying to do.
Quote:A: I believe in Fairies.
B: I don't.
A: You can't prove that they don't exist!
B: So you can't prove that they do and until then I see no reason to believe your foolishness.
Karl's version:
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.

Quote:If your best defense is that your beliefs can't be falsified then my only reply need be, "Well isn't that cute."
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.

(March 26, 2020 at 4:57 am)Nomad Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Many use it as a panic stop button in any theological argument that is getting out of hand. "well oh'yeah your idea can't be falsified."

The correct response to that is not discussing a scientific theory is , so what.

But the thing is drippy we're discuusing an assertion which puroprts to describe reality.  That makes it subject to falsification and vigorous testing.  Just because you don't want to deal with the twin facts that your worldview has a) no evidence for it and b) a lot of evidence suggesting it's supefluous, doesn't absolve it from needing evidence to be accepted.

woo loo loo see the post above.

(March 26, 2020 at 5:03 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 9:40 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: OLB already called you on this but it's so impressively bad that it needs more scorn. My condolences to all the greenbacks that have suffered and died.

"Chinese Flu" is imbecilic as it is neither Chinese nor influenza.


Falsification is not simply for science. A statement that cannot be falsified cannot be demonstrated. At that point the argument devolves to:

A: I believe in Fairies.
B: I don't.
A: You can't prove that they don't exist!
B: So you can't prove that they do and until then I see no reason to believe your foolishness.

If your best defense is that your beliefs can't be falsified then my only reply need be, "Well isn't that cute."

Indeed by saying it cant be falsified he has basically admitted its not true.
see two posts above...

if it can't be falsified science is not the tool needed for the discussion. That is Karl poppers philosophy of science sport, The implication is science doesn't have the tools to speak on the subject if it can not be falsified. get it now?

(March 26, 2020 at 8:29 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 2:18 pm)Drich Wrote: it is the chinese flu as they will be paying for this global shut down and if and when they start cutting checks make sure you give yours back. because it is not china's fault, it was not covered up by their propaganda minister who let this wild fire burn for over a month before it was even  considered a possible threat.

THEN they said is was American military engineered flu... which has a far deeper implication and a more likely fanatical chance of a retaliatory strike from a biological perspective if chinese nations began to believe that narrative.

Plus it is most certainly not a beer brewers fault. I hear their business has been devastated by stupid people who stopped calling it the chinese flu because of the devastation it was causing to chinese people is now being focused on the corona beer company because those type of people who can not be trusted to say chinese flu without killing chinese people must also be the one boycotting the beer..


said no one of consequence.

Everything you just posted was wrong. And you don't care.
I am right, from a certain point of view.

(March 26, 2020 at 12:03 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Drich, Why are you garbage?

because that is what you mama is into.

(March 26, 2020 at 12:26 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:
(March 26, 2020 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: [Image: trash-pile-1.jpg]

Post fixed for accuracy.

i see she has cleaned up since last i visited.. Hehe
Reply
#27
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 25, 2020 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote: I will not be debating the philosophy of science as that is a matter of your ignorance or belief in modern science, and i will not be arguing how this term was intended verse your personal use. again that is a ignorance based on your belief in modern science.

-Oh, just that.  

Whole bunch of bullshit and time to get the op title completely wrong.  This isn't about falsifying the idea of falsification.  You haven't done that.  It isn't about philosophy in general or the philosophy of science.  You won't be discussing that.  

You're just complaining about your beliefs being subjected to any such criterion.  Who knows why.  If your god's existence represents a true existential claim, some other existential claim or circumstance must be false.  At least one, who knows how many in total.  You already believe this.  

You already believe and would refer to such claims, and this is what falsification is.  So..yes, ofc it can be applied to theology.  You apply it as well.  Consider your attempts to rehabilitate god with biology.  The theological assertion is that a tinkergod played with mud in a magic garden.  God's claim..in this....simply cannot be true if the relevant facts are false.  It's not a scientific issue at all, Popper criticized logical positivism.  His idea was that any possible claim about anything might find at least one set of data that at least appears to support the premise of it's truth.   

Like your idea that falsification can't be applied to theology, for example.  I'm sure you have at least one point of nonsensical data rattling around your empty skull that leads you to believe that this is true.  You spam the forums with videos entirely premised on them. Let's apply some falsification to that idea, though.  For it to be true..you would have to have gotten any relevant fact in your op right.  

You didn't...but ofc, you won't be discussing any of that, now will you.  Jerkoff
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#28
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 2:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote: I will not be debating the philosophy of science as that is a matter of your ignorance or belief in modern science, and i will not be arguing how this term was intended verse your personal use. again that is a ignorance based on your belief in modern science.

-Oh, just that.  

Whole bunch of bullshit and time to get the op title completely wrong.
if you think the title is wrong the primis went over your head. I am proving wrong the idea for the need of falsification.
Quote:  This isn't about falsifying the idea of falsification.  You haven't done that.  It isn't about philosophy in general or the philosophy of science.  You won't be discussing that. 
kinda have, and if you understood the nature of the subject you would also understand the reason i won't be discussing those reason is because the nature of the philosophy of science would not allow for it. (I would be on your side of the discussion if you understood the purpose) which again falsifies this need to vet everything through a scientific process. rather the whole process is designed to dismiss subject not with in the scope of science.

IE you can't have a discussion on the falsification process if you understand it because it disqualifies subjects and theory as not being with in the wheel house of science. there for nothing to discuss under the rule of falsification as a point philosophy of science.

Quote:You're just complaining about your beliefs being subjected to any such criterion.  Who knows why.  If your god's existence represents a true existential claim, some other existential claim or circumstance must be false.  At least one, who knows how many in total.  You already believe this. 
again this is not how scientific falsification process works in conjunction with poppers philosophy of science. Falsification is simply a question to determine a subject scientific viability. popper was trying to narrow the scope and field of science. the primary idea was to ask if a theory or principle could be evaluated by the scientific method. if not then the subject was dismissed from further 'scientific' review. that is all this process is. it says science has not the tools to make a judgement here.

Quote:You already believe and would refer to such claims, and this is what falsification is.  So..yes, ofc it can be applied to theology.
no you are completely outside the understanding of the poppler philosophy of science and the call for falsifiability. the mere mention of theology would be deemed outside the scope and field of scientific review. the actual element of study the process of theology could be discussed or arranged scientifically, but the subject mater is not scientifically compatible.

Quote: You apply it as well.  Consider your attempts to rehabilitate god with biology.  The theological assertion is that a tinkergod played with mud in a magic garden.  God's claim..in this....simply cannot be true if the relevant facts are false.  It's not a scientific issue at all, Popper criticized logical positivism.  His idea was that any possible claim about anything might find at least one set of data that at least appears to support the premise of it's truth.   

Like your idea that falsification can't be applied to theology, for example.  I'm sure you have at least one point of nonsensical data rattling around your empty skull that leads you to believe that this is true.  You spam the forums with videos entirely premised on them.  Let's apply some falsification to that idea, though.  For it to be true..you would have to have gotten any relevant fact in your op right.  

You didn't...but ofc, you won't be discussing any of that, now will you.  Jerkoff

none of this shows you understand the nature of the topic. Only if there was a short video you could watch maybe not yelling at the screen so you can hear what is being said. if only someone took the time to make and record this point so you could hear it rather than 1/2 read and then fill in the blanks with your own thoughts... maybe the words would tell you what you think and what is being said are not the same thing.
Reply
#29
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 25, 2020 at 6:37 pm)chimp3 Wrote: A claim that something exists (god) is a claim about reality. Falsification is applicable. No special pleading for religious morons (Drich?).

no. to claim God exist through the frame work of scripture (as this is the only way we know God exists) is called Theology. falsification is not applicable. As science is the measure of rule of the observable world. if one can not experiment and observe repeatable results the subject matter is not observable/unknowable to science. Therefore it fall to another intellectual discipline to proof a concept. in this case proof God through the discipline of theology. Again that what a call to falsification is. to see if a subject is of a scientific nature or not.

Claims of God can not be falsified, therefore it is not up to science to proof God/Science is out of it's scope, science does not have the tools to proof God if God does not fit the scientific method.

So again to ask for falsification is to disqualify science as a tool to discuss matters of God or theology.

Wrong again!
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#30
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Tongue I have an idea! Tea Earl Grey Hot 57 23699 April 26, 2018 at 5:15 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Where do Christians get this idea that atheists defend Islam GoHalos1993 39 11144 December 8, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  fundamentalist idea of hell drfuzzy 34 8020 August 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
Last Post: Drich
  General questions about the Christian idea of God and love Mudhammam 148 26270 October 2, 2014 at 9:16 am
Last Post: Tonus
  The idea of God BrokenQuill92 4 1240 February 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Last Post: truthBtold
  The idea of God always existing Voltair 200 77380 December 18, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: pocaracas
  Hell - Where is the idea of justice? Voltair 201 71562 November 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Last Post: IATIA
  Idea for a prank everythingafter 12 4149 March 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Last Post: Faith No More



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)