falsifying the idea of falsification

[Belacqua]

Well there was supposed to be a crash and physical evidence left behind that was covered up by the "man".
If the evidence for the crash turns out to be wrong and the physical evidence proves to be something else then it would be falsifiable.

Enough unfettered research could falsify the claim is what I'm saying.

I think the article I quoted was using "falsifiable" in a different way. (Which I take to be the standard way that scientists use it.) The article was saying that there needs to be one question which, if answered in a certain way, would show the theory to be false. 

In the Roswell case, people could accumulate a mountain of evidence but none of it would definitively show that the theory was false. For example, evidence that there was a crash of a secret military vehicle (from Earth) would merely show that there was such a crash, not that there was never an alien. 

I agree with you that among reasonable people, mountains of evidence should eventually lead to a fairly certain conclusion. But I think that's different from what we mean when we talk about falsification. 

Each claim has to be taken on its own merits and investigated if one had sufficient evidence then it would be taken seriously.

That's certainly true. And that's why patient accumulation of evidence is the best way. To falsify a claim would require only one piece of reliable evidence that showed the claim was false. The usual "Precambrian rabbit" example. 

Arguments are not evidence.

"Evidence," to me, is anything that increases the believability of a proposition. So if there are lots of very good arguments for something, I would say that the believability is increased. 

Maybe you're using "evidence" to mean empirical evidence of the kind that science uses. The philosophy of science explains pretty clearly why science restricts itself to that kind of evidence, and why it's right to do so. But that doesn't mean that logical arguments are incapable of being persuasive in non-scientific subjects.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

When Drich is right about something it’s mostly by accident.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

It can still be true. It just can’t be demonstrated.

[LadyForCamus]

Drich, Why are you garbage?

Lmao

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Indeed by saying it cant be falsified he has basically admitted its not true.

It can still be true. It just can’t be demonstrated.

And statements which can’t be demonstrated don’t have a lot of utility.

‘In a cave on a planet 1000 light years from Earth, natural processes have carved an astonishingly accurate facsimile of the words “Boru Was Here” (in Sanskrit) on a rock outcrop that resembles a rudely shaped turnip.’

The above statement may be true, it may be false. But since we obviously can’t go and look, the statement is worthless. What are we supposed to do with it?

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

Nope. Those are merely unevidenced claims. I could claim that the multiverse was created by universe creating pixies who perished in the effort. Prove me wrong.

And you cannot.

Any claim can be made. But nobody is required to accept it without supporting evidence. Nor even if it is possible.

For someone who claims to be familiar with philosophy, you seem unbelievably naive in such matters.
To give you an example, your very next post will be written not by you, but by the demons of satan whom you serve. Prove me wrong.

[Paleophyte]

Drich, Why are you garbage?

Lmao

Garbage makes more sense.

Q: Why is there garbage?
A: Somebody was lazy, thoughtless and stupid.

Q: Why is there Drich?
A: No idea but it rules out the possibility of a Loving God.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not really clear that any true existential claim can be unfalsifiable.

Unfalsified, certainly - but the two aren't exactly the same kettle of fish. Boru offered a claim with sufficient and specific detail for falsification, for example. We could call it unfalsified, but not unfalsifiable. It's falsifiable by rather boring means, as far as thought experiments are concerned. We could go and look, we just haven't.

When you think about it in that context, the claim that god beliefs are somehow unfalsifiable..rather than just unfalsified - at least to the person making the claim, is astounding. Leave it up to a believer to willingly make their own gods less credible than a monument to boru on the planet xenu.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's not really clear that any true existential claim can be unfalsifiable.  

Unfalsified, certainly - but the two aren't exactly the same kettle of fish.  Boru offered a claim with sufficient and specific detail for falsification, for example.  We could call it unfalsified, but not unfalsifiable.  It's falsifiable by rather boring means, as far as thought experiments are concerned.  We could go and look, we just haven't.  

When you think about it in that context, the claim that god beliefs are somehow unfalsifiable..rather than just unfalsified - at least to the person making the claim, is astounding.  Leave it up to a believer to willingly make their own gods less credible than a monument to boru on the planet xenu.

I wasn’t speaking about falsifiability, but demonstrability.

Boru

[Belacqua]

It can still be true. It just can’t be demonstrated.

And statements which can’t be demonstrated don’t have a lot of utility.

‘In a cave on a planet 1000 light years from Earth, natural processes have carved an astonishingly accurate facsimile of the words “Boru Was Here” (in Sanskrit) on a rock outcrop that resembles a rudely shaped turnip.’

The above statement may be true, it may be false. But since we obviously can’t go and look, the statement is worthless. What are we supposed to do with it?

Boru

I think if we make your example a little less specific, it will demonstrate the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable.

If we say "such an inscription exists somewhere in the multiverse," this is unfalsifiable. Because the multiverse is a big place, and it's impossible to check everywhere.

However if we say "no such inscription exists anywhere in the multiverse," this is falsifiable. Because if we found such an inscription the statement would be falsified. 

What's at issue with falsifiability is not whether we practically will be able to find such a thing. It's that in principle the statement could be proven wrong.

Likewise no serious person expects the theory of evolution to be falsified. It is as proven as something can be. But we know in principle how it could be falsified -- by finding a rabbit from the Precambrian era. If it is possible in principle to show something is false, it's falsifiable.