Falsifiability

[pitabread]

no. we can push back the predecessors too. scientists do it all the time.

You need to understand context of the applicable circumstances. You are conflating different scenarios that are not equivalent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no. we can push back the predecessors too. scientists do it all the time.

Nope.

 

[TBDude65]

since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.

What then is it you think would require cats to grow wings via the theory of evolution?

 

[xianghua]

Nope.

so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?

If you could that would disprove evolution. I am betting that at best you misunderstand a source. One warning, valid sources only. Lying creationist sources will be seen as an instant fail on your part.

 

[AV1611VET]

One warning, valid sources only. Lying creationist sources will be seen as an instant fail on your part.

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

And AV rushes in with an instant fail.

 

[pitabread]

so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?

Will this be an example that hasn't already been explained to you why it does not contradict biological evolution? Because that has been the theme of every example you've posted previously.

 

[46AND2]

since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.

Of course it can. According to creationism, the creator can create however he wants.

 

[Larniavc]

since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.

What possibly prevent God from making a winged cat if he wanted to create it?

 

[Jimmy D]

Of course it can. According to creationism, the creator can create however he wants*.

*As long as it appears to be consistent with evolution, funny that.

 

[Sanoy]

Evolution is theoretically, or analytically falsifiable within it's own argument, but it's premises themselves are not falsifiable.

That the external world exists is not falsifiable. In reality what you are doing is merely protecting this group from its own epistemic requirements of falsefiability rather than dividing what is or is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is thus just a heuristic, not an epistemology. Even so, very little of science is falsifiable even under it's self protection, much is overdetermined, much is active hypothesis, and ad hoc acquisition does much to barricade falsifiability.

TLDR - We should request falsifiability where applicable, but if we demand it for knowledge we lose nearly everything.

 

[TBDude65]

Evolution is theoretically, or analytically falsifiable within it's own argument, but it's premises themselves are not falsifiable.

That the external world exists is not falsifiable. In reality what you are doing is merely protecting this group from its own epistemic requirements of falsefiability rather than dividing what is or is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is thus just a heuristic, not an epistemology. Even so, very little of science is falsifiable even under it's self protection, much is overdetermined, much is active hypothesis, and ad hoc acquisition does much to barricade falsifiability.

TLDR - We should request falsifiability where applicable, but if we demand it for knowledge we lose nearly everything.

What premises are not falsifiable, and what does that mean about reality by necessity? How does this negate the ability of falsifiable claims to be advantageous for discovering facts?

 

[Sanoy]

What premises are not falsifiable, and what does that mean about reality by necessity? How does this negate the ability of falsifiable claims to be advantageous for discovering facts?

All of them requiring the existence of the external world, which is itself not falsifiable. (We could be a brain in a vat, or a simulation, or a dream etc).

Falseifiable claims are advantageous. But they are not, nor should be, universally expected to form beliefs, or make moderate claims to knowledge.

 

[TBDude65]

All of them requiring the existence of the external world, which is itself not falsifiable. (We could be a brain in a vat).

Falseifiable claims are advantageous. But they are not, nor should be, universally expected to form beliefs, or make moderate claims to knowledge.

I think the issue is that there is no reason to think that an idea imagined by science fiction is plausible. As such, the inability to falsify "reality" is an arrogant way of assuming the universe only exists for us

 

[Sanoy]

I think the issue is that there is no reason to think that an idea imagined by science fiction is plausible. As such, the inability to falsify "reality" is an arrogant way of assuming the universe only exists for us

However you may feel about the situation, the demand for falseifiability here, but not there is an arbitrary one, and not one required, or even needed, for belief. All that is needed for belief are reasons to believe.

 

[TBDude65]

However you may feel about the situation, the demand for falseifiability here, but not there is an arbitrary one, and not one required or even needed for belief. All that is needed for belief are reasons to believe.

I agree that there are axioms upon which the ability to study reality must be founded, but I am more than open to testing them as the ability arises. Where they are falsifiable, they should be attempted to be falsified. I think it is irrational to leap from these axioms to the plausibility of a god

 

[Sanoy]

I agree that there are axioms upon which the ability to study reality must be founded, but I am more than open to testing them as the ability arises. Where they are falsifiable, they should be attempted to be falsified. I think it is irrational to leap from these axioms to the plausibility of a god

I agree with the first part. However the self evidential belief that the external world is real is unexplained, or untrustworthy without first hypothesizing a source of trust. I know that minds are capable of trust so it seems perfectly reasonable to hypothesize such a solution to this existential problem.

 

[xianghua]

If you could that would disprove evolution.

lets check it. first we need to be clear. i need to show you a series of fossils like 12534 instead of 12345 (the fossil n5 is out of place in that case)- this is impossible according to your criteria and therefore you will admit that evolution is false. am i right?

 

[Speedwell]

I agree with the first part. However the self evidential belief that the external world is real is unexplained, or untrustworthy without first hypothesizing a source of trust. I know that minds are capable of trust so it seems perfectly reasonable to hypothesize such a solution to this existential problem.

Long ago when I was a brash sophomore I walked into my philosophy class and announced, "I've figured it out! All of this, the world and all of you are nothing but a figment of my imagination!" There was dead silence in the class, and after a while the professor, a wise old bird said, "Hmm. Mr. Speedwell, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" At that, seeing his point at once, all I could do was to burst out laughing.