Koyaanisqatsi

Tercel, why are you so afraid of science? It's nothing more than a tool; a process; a method of approaching critical analysis.

"Historical investigation" not requiring a degree of "falsifiability?" You mean like merely accepting the arguments from authority you so cherish?

So when an "historian" claims something like, "The holocaust never existed," or "Hitler never directly ordered the holocaust," you're arguing that no degree of falsifiability should be applied to such claims?

It's a tool to be used when the conditions merit the use of that tool. Why does that terrify you so that you have to constantly build these pointless and transparent straw men?

Perfect example! You know damn well that such personal information falls under a completely different set of criteria until such time as that information is challenged by somebody, in which case you would naturally then employ higher levels (more complex levels) of scrutiny! That's the only purpose of the so called "scientific method" that you're so frightened by as evidenced by the repeated lengths you here go to in order to build these stupid straw men!

It certainly does "render it" meaningless in regard to the verification of any claim being made that is duly challenged.

If we're sitting around having a beer and I claim I had sex with Cindy Crawford last night, then obviously you are going to counter such a claim with some degree of scrutiny to verify whether or not I am lying or telling the truth, yes?

Falsifiability is nothing more than a higher level of scrutiny, used when the conditional claim requires its use. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

You theists and your constant equivocation of disparate contextual meanings of words! Really, what's the point?

Again, you know damn well that when "science" renders something to be "meaningless" it is a literal application of the technical definition of that term, obviously not to be confused or equated with a colloquial definition of that term that we use in every day speech.

If I say, "Your dream about being killed by a dragon that had your mother's voice was meaningless," it obviously does not carry with it the technical, literal, contextual meaning of the word "meaningless" that it would if a scientist were to say to you, "Your claim that parsimony is a legitimate argument to the reversion to a pre-Copernican understanding of physics is meaningless," yes?

You know this, so why are you doing it, if not to build these stupid straw men?

Such a transparent and pragmatically worthless straw man! Are you that incapable of making your own decisions and applying whatever standards you wish to apply? Are you that pathetic that you can't take it upon yourself to evaluate and comprehend anything without pretending that a mythological creature grants you this ability?

Everybody knows that "objective meaning" is a cheat; a mutually agreed upon construct of society. The big lie, if that's what you want to call it, because you're right; once deconstructed far enough it (like every single other aspect to existence including your god concepts) can be rendered meaningless.

Welcome to Existence 101. See if you can catch up, but kindly stop taking such simplistic shortcuts to "goddidit," because the rest of us are trying to actually apply our critical analysis to the question, not just shoot up christian heroin and nod off from birth to grave.

Sheer straw man stuffing. Nobody but you and your goddidit junkies think this way, I can assure you.

Bullshit. Sell it walking. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

Like you .

Sorry, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. After all, without pretending that a mystical fairy god king magically fiats that which is simply a mutually beneficial and mutually accepted conceit of social interaction (i.e., objectivity), my subjective invective remains convective.

Don't be afraid of life, Tercel. It's not out to get you. There are no demons; there is no hell except the one you let others condition you to fear.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Pomp

Tercel,

But historical events have a tendency to be once-only and hence not particularly easy to falsify. To adopt a method of requiring falsifiability would seem to wreck all natural historical investigation - not merely that of professional historians, but that which we do ourselves when friends tell us what they did the other night.

Not at all. All historical statements are, in principle, falsifiable by new data. The claim that Abraham Lincoln died in 1865 can be falsified by any evidence of Lincoln's continued life after 1865. The claim that humans and chimps diverged from a relatively recent common ancestor can be falsified by any evidence that humans and chimps are too genetically different to have diverged recently. The claim that my friend went to a party at a particular address last night can be falsified by evidence that there was no party at that address at that time, or by a report that my friend was elsewhere last night, etc.

Or what about subjective feelings? Feelings can't be falsified, but very few people would be willing to agree their (or others) feelings are meaningless. (I suppose you could argue that by "meaningless" you really meant "objectively meaningless". Fine: Now you need to begin the monumental task of convincing me why I should care if something I find subjectively meaningful is "objectively meaningful" or not!)

Not at all. Your subjective feelings are probably not open to falsification, but I don;t need to "convince" you that they are not objectively meaningful. They are, by definition, not objectively meaningful. In fact, the term "objectively meaningful" is, IMO, nonsensical. Meaning requires a meaner. AT any rate, if you claim to feel the sensation of "godliness" that's a subjective claim, and not subject to falsifiability. If you draw the conslusion that you subjective feeling entails a god that exists independently of your brian, that is an objective claim and subject to falsifiability.

Pomp

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas,

Falsification loses applicability when used in the real world, however. Notice I can't prove 'Judy likes me.' If I cannot prove it...I cannot falsify it.

Completely wrong. You've been around here long enough to know better. You don't have to "prove" a statement in order to falsify it. In fact, many of us here hold that nothing at all can be proven outside of deductive logic.

To address your example, the proposition "Judy likes me" is falsifiable by any evidence that Judy doesn't like you. She could snub you, or kick you in the shins, or simply say, "SOMMS, I don't care for you." I'm not sure how you can hold that it is an unfalsifiable statement.

However, people need not 'prove' God's existence at all. Just like they need not 'prove' that the Mona Lisa is a painting of a woman. We see a pattern...we see the evidence. If the pattern and evidence are strong enough we have valid reason to believe.

I highly doubt that any serious atheist has claimed that you must "prove" the existence of yoru god. What most of us do ask for is some evidence that the partterns you see are best explained by the existence of your god.

Notice one cannot falsify that the Mona Lisa is a painting of a woman. Yet no one claims that it isn't a painting of a woman simply because it can't be falsified.

Oh, please. If you suggest that the Mona Lisa is a painting of a woman, I can go look at the Mona Lisa and see whether or not it is, in fact, a painting of a woman. If it were, for example, a painting of a walrus, then your claim would be falsified.

Pomp

Howay the Toon!,

Firstly it is of course Karl Popper you are talking about unless there is a major philosopher named John Popper I haven't heard of.



I completely missed that. John Popper or, at least, the John Popper I'm familiar with, is the singer from Blues Traveller.

Happy Wonderer

I like the imagary of Mona Lisa as a walrus. Do you think it could be photoshopped? Calling Missus_Gumby!

HW

Tercel

I disagree. I have a question though: Do you think axioms in general are exempt from the principle? ('cos it would seem to render all axioms meaningless if it was allowed to be applied to them)

I suppose that's as close as I can expect to agreement from you. So thanks!

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Howay the Toon

To be perfectly honest I haven't read anything by either Feyarabend or Kitcher. My general impression from second hand and brief descriptions regarding Feyarabend is that he criticised Popper because Popper's falsificationism is not in fact how science operates.

If this is a fair summary, and I repeat my knowledge of Feyarabend is very limited, then I think it misses the point. Popper wasn't writing a description of scientific methodology, he was elaborating the LOGIC of scientific knowledge.

"The logic of Scientific Discovery" is a work of epistemology not a scientists manual on method. The falsification principle is a clear and necessary criterion for something being a useful description of reality, and hence an example of knowledge.

The reason is that if something is unfalsifiable, then it is by definition consistent with any conceivable state of affairs and hence adds no new understanding or knowledge about what actually exists. This essentially was Popper's point and the fact that real scientists don't follow the idealised logical methodology Popper sketched out is really neither here nor there.

free12thinker

No proof
No evidence
Too much mystery
Too many contradictions
I'm rational
I'm reasonable
I'm logical
I don't require the strength that people draw from the legend of god
I don't have faith (blind trust) in anything that doesn't carry physical or mental attributes of any seeable sort

These are all good reasons.

Thanks
free12thinker

Mithrandir

Thank you all for your replies,

Mithrandir

Technos

For me it's a simple question. I've NEVER in my entire life believed in any god what-so-ever, I was raised in a rather secular family and never influenced a great deal by any one culture until I was 12, by which time I knew that I was an atheist. My mother is a former hindu and my father has been an atheist all of my life, and I was exposed to more than one culture at an early age so the cult of christianity never got it's monopolistic choke hold on me. Now I ask, why do you believe in a god and which god do you believe in?