falsifying the idea of falsification

[Mr Greene]

Except in a multiverse there an infinite number of worlds where the inscription does exist (assuming the multiverse hypothesis to be correct).

[The Architect Of Fate]

So it's just Dirch bitching his beliefs don't get special treatment and Bel milly mouthing to sound smart 

[GUBU]

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.

And isn't it amazing that one of the claims that belaqua says can't be falsified, has? The Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

And isn't it amazing that one of the claims that belaqua says can't be falsified, has?  The Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

The Highland Tourism Council are going to fuck you up for that. 

Boru

[Belacqua]

And isn't it amazing that one of the claims that belaqua says can't be falsified, has?  The Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

The Highland Tourism Council are going to fuck you up for that. 

Boru

I don't doubt that researchers have used sonar and submarines and everything else to search Loch Ness. At this point it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there's no monster. 

This is not what scientists mean by the term "falsifiable." 

To be falsifiable, there would have to be one piece of evidence which conclusively shows that there is no monster. And that's not what happened.

[Mr Greene]

If you were truly desperate for the definitive answer the Loch could be drained, so the claim is falsifiable.

[Belacqua]

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.

[Mr Greene]

If you drained it you could check the mud and caves....

What was stated in the other thread was that Interest is not legal under Islamic Law (Sharia) as stated in the Qu'ran and this was adopted by Pakistan when it became an Islamic Republic with serious consequences.
That Bangladeshi banks now allow the charging of interest does not alter the fact that they were governed by the Sharia rules previously with all attendant outcomes.

[Belacqua]

If you drained it you could check the mud and caves....

What was stated in the other thread was that Interest is not legal under Islamic Law (Sharia) as stated in the Qu'ran and this was adopted by Pakistan when it became an Islamic Republic with serious consequences.
That Bangladeshi banks now allow the charging of interest does not alter the fact that they were governed by the Sharia rules previously with all attendant outcomes.

You still don't understand what the term "falsify" means. 

You've continued your Gish Gallop on the subject of interest in Muslim countries. Now you're claiming that at some time in the past they couldn't charge interest. Before you were saying that they can't. You're sliding around and changing things.

---

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Popper was profoundly impressed by the differences between the allegedly ‘scientific’ theories of Freud and Adler and the revolution effected by Einstein’s theory of relativity in physics in the first two decades of this century. The main difference between them, as Popper saw it, was that while Einstein’s theory was highly ‘risky’, in the sense that it was possible to deduce consequences from it which were, in the light of the then dominant Newtonian physics, highly improbable (e.g., that light is deflected towards solid bodies—confirmed by Eddington’s experiments in 1919), and which would, if they turned out to be false, falsify the whole theory, nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories. These latter, Popper came to feel, have more in common with primitive myths than with genuine science. That is to say, he saw that what is apparently the chief source of strength of psychoanalysis, and the principal basis on which its claim to scientific status is grounded, viz. its capability to accommodate, and explain, every possible form of human behaviour, is in fact a critical weakness, for it entails that it is not, and could not be, genuinely predictive. Psychoanalytic theories by their nature are insufficiently precise to have negative implications, and so are immunised from experiential falsification.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I don't doubt that researchers have used sonar and submarines and everything else to search Loch Ness. At this point it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there's no monster. 

This is not what scientists mean by the term "falsifiable." 

To be falsifiable, there would have to be one piece of evidence which conclusively shows that there is no monster. And that's not what happened.

For the Loch Ness monster to be falsifiable, there only needs to be one piece of evidence which could prove it false.  It's a falsifiable claim - I'd say there are plenty of pieces of such evidence...but a person arguing otherwise is only arguing that these pieces of evidence aren't -those- pieces of evidence.

At it's core, though..it's the claim that a dragon exists at the bottom of a lake. I guess falsification applies for monuments to boru and to dragons - but not for god.