The Falsifiability Criterion

[AV1611VET]

It's less about wanting an answer and more making you and your ilk realise that you're not really arguing from a logical perspective, either when you argue for creation or ague against evolution. You never do, you especially.

Okay, thanks.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Earth, you have an OP that's about a foot and a half of text.

You end it with this statement:

For debate: Any arguments theists could give to justify the acceptance of unfalsifiable religious claims about divine creation in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination.

Do you mind repeating that in words that are easy to understand?

The specific request in the post above was reasonable and relevant, so, I will at least make a good-faith effort to address it:

Consider, for example, the theistic claim that a god answers prayer. When you ask most theists if an unanswered prayer would function to falsify the claim, they almost always and consistently argue that such an outcome would not disprove their claim. So, what reasonably obtainable evidence would those theists expect to find if their claim about a god answering prayer is false? There is not an answer to the question because the claim is unfalsifiable.

Well, if the theist has no way to ever discover if their claim about a god answering prayer is false, what is the justification for believing it is true?

To understand why these unfalsifiable claims are problematic, let's return to the "all swans are white" claim to simplify the explanation. Prior to the discovery of a black swan, European naturalists had only ever observed the existence of white swans. So, the evidence for the "all swans are white claim" was their prior observations of wild swans in Europe that were always white in color. Therefore, all the available evidence seemed to confirm the "all swans are white" claim. Of course, given the benefit of our hindsight, it is relatively easy for us to understand where the universal problem of confirmation bias existed in their argument for the "all swans are white" claim. However, from the limited perspective of the European naturalists who weren't aware of a black swan existing in Australia at the time, they thought it was perfectly reasonable for them to believe that all swans were white given the supporting evidence.

Furthermore, the European naturalists felt it was reasonable for them to inductively infer from all of their previous observations of white swans that the next swan someone observed in the wild would also necessarily be white. Again, given the benefit of our hindsight, it is easy for us to understand where the logical fallacy exists in their inductive inference at the time. Obviously, if the next observation of a swan happened to occur in Australia, it would not have been white but black in color. That outcome demonstrates the universal problem of induction.

Last but not least, the universal problems of confirmation bias and induction demonstrate how evidence for a claim will always underdetermine what should be believed about it. Despite all the available evidence seeming to confirm the "all swans are white" claim and the expectation that the next swan observed in the wild would be white as well, the idea was false nonetheless. So, the supporting evidence on its own was never sufficient to justify the belief in the corresponding claim. What eventually resolved these problems for the European naturalists was the fact that the claim turned-out to be falsifiable by the observation of a black swan in Australia. Had it not been falsifiable, what logical justication could the European naturalists have provided for accepting the "all swans are white" claim if they could never observe every swan in existence on the planet at the time?

Arguments for unfalsifiable theistic claims are fallacious for the same reasons unless you or any other theist can provide a logical justification for accepting them in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination. I hope this explanation was sufficiently simplistic to provide some clarity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The specific request in the post above was reasonable and relevant, so, I will at least make a good-faith effort to address it:

Consider, for example, the theistic claim that a god answers prayer. When you ask most theists if an unanswered prayer would function to falsify the claim, they almost always and consistently argue that such an outcome would not disprove their claim. So, what reasonably obtainable evidence would those theists expect to find if their claim about a god answering prayer is false? There is not answer to the question because the claim is unfalsifiable.

Well, if the theist has no way to ever discover if their claim about a god answering prayer is false, what is the justification for believing it is true?

To understand why unfalsifiable claims are problematic, let's return to the "all swans are white" claim to simplify the explanation. Prior to the discovery of a black swan, European naturalists had only ever observed the existence of white swans. So, the evidence for the "all swans are white claim" was their prior observations of wild swans in Europe that were always white in color. Therefore, all the available evidence seemed to confirm the "all swans are white" claim. Of course, given the benefit of our hindsight, it is relatively easy for us to understand where the universal problem of confirmation bias existed in their argument for the "all swans are white" claim. However, from the limited perspective of the European naturalists who weren't aware of a black swan existing in Australia at the time, they thought it was perfectly reasonable for them to believe that all swans were white.

Furthermore, the European naturalists felt it was reasonable for them to inductively infer from all of their previous observations of white swans that the next swan someone observed in the wild would also necessarily be white. Again, given the benefit of our hindsight, it is easy for us to understand where the logical fallacy exists in their inductive inference at the time. Obviously, if the next observation of a swan happened to occur in Australia, it would not have been white but black in color. That outcome demonstrates the universal problem of induction.

Last but not least, the universal problems of confirmation bias and induction demonstrate how evidence for a claim will always underdetermine what should be believed about it. Despite the fact that all the available evidence seemed to confirm the "all swans are white" claim and to expect the next swan to be white as well, the idea was false nonetheless. So, the supporting evidence on its own was never sufficient to justify the belief in the corresponding claim. What eventually resolved these problems for the European naturalists was the fact that the claim turned-out to be falsifiable by the observation of a black swan in Australia. Had it not been falsifiable, what logical justication could the European naturalists have provided for accepting the "all swans are white" claim if they could never observe every swan in existence on the planet at the time?

Arguments for unfalsifiable theistic claims are fallacious for the same reasons unless you or any other theist can provide a logical justification for accepting them in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination. I hope this explanation was sufficiently simplistic to provide some clarity.

I wouldn't compare the doxastic nature of Christian prayer to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If anything, I'd contrast their respective epistemic domains being that prayer resides within the conceptual structures of Christian Theology and the other within the Nature (and Philosophy) of Science. We shouldn't expect to apply the same metrics or tests, or modes of interpretation, in both domains and get results or indications of falsification.

To think we can is a gross equivocation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Arguments for unfalsifiable theistic claims are fallacious for the same reasons unless you or any other theist can provide a logical justification for accepting them in the absence of a solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination. I hope this explanation was sufficiently simplistic to provide some clarity.

Thank you for the clarification.

All I can say, BG, is that you're setting your standards too high.

To expect God to provide you (or anyone) personal justification for His claims is not how He operates in this dispensation.

Sure, He honored Gideon's request to have the dew fall on a fleece one day, and on the ground but not on the fleece another day.

But that was a different time and place, under different circumstances.

I feel confident that if God were to show up in Person and grant you (or anyone) a personal interview, complete with shows of miracles and whatever else, it wouldn't prove to you He is God.

You could just say He's an alien from space or something.

To use your white swan example, I'm sure you're under the impression that no one -- and I mean no one -- has ever come back from the grave after being dead for three days.

Yet that is exactly what Jesus did, and it was confirmed through eyewitness testimony of more than five hundred people who lived at the time.

It was settled back then.

A done deal.

Even Jesus' enemies didn't contest it.

So, yes, I think you're setting your standards a bit too high when it comes to the God of the universe.

And I pray you take this as an honest plea to reconsider some things.

 

[AV1611VET]

web: Nevertheless, the falsifiability criterion remains a widely accepted principle for evaluating the scientific status of theories.
In other words, it is falseifiable and utterly meaningless without value except to further trick people with money as the motive.

The falsifiable criteria applies to science.

But where miracles are concerned, falsifiable criteria walks on shaky ground.

In other words, it must tone down its criteria, lest it sets its standards too high to be effective.

Case in point: the resurrection of Christ.

The evidence is an empty tomb.

To falsify the claims of the apostles, all one would have had to do is go get Jesus' body and show it.

But they couldn't.

Their falsifiable criteria was walking around alive and well.

 

[Ophiolite]

To think we can is a gross equivocation.

Which is the equivalent of saying in science we deal with facts, in religion we deal with fancy, or more tactfully with faith. Good of you to acknowledge that.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I wouldn't compare the doxastic nature of Christian prayer to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If anything, I'd contrast their respective epistemic domains being that prayer resides within the conceptual structures of Christian Theology and the other within the Nature (and Philosophy) of Science. We shouldn't expect to apply the same metrics or tests, or modes of interpretation, in both domains and get results or indications of falsification.

To think we can is a gross equivocation.

Opinion noted. Also, an equivocation fallacy occurs when a word with multiple meanings is deceptively used in an argument. You'll find no such verbal deception in my explanation. Nevertheless, I wasn't comparing the doxastic nature of Christian prayer to the Theory of Evolution in the way you implied. The claim that a god answers prayer was used to demonstrate the concept of unfalsifiability. Presumably, you will agree that such a claim is unfalsifiable. If the example is throwing you off, then replace it with any other unfalsifiable claim you like.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Thank you for the clarification.

All I can say, BG, is that you're setting your standards too high.

To expect God to provide you (or anyone) personal justification for His claims is not how He operates in this dispensation.

Sure, He honored Gideon's request to have the dew fall on a fleece one day, and on the ground but not on the fleece another day.

But that was a different time and place, under different circumstances.

I feel confident that if God were to show up in Person and grant you (or anyone) a personal interview, complete with shows of miracles and whatever else, it wouldn't prove to you He is God.

You could just say He's an alien from space or something.

To use your white swan example, I'm sure you're under the impression that no one -- and I mean no one -- has ever come back from the grave after being dead for three days.

Yet that is exactly what Jesus did, and it was confirmed through eyewitness testimony of more than five hundred people who lived at the time.

It was settled back then.

A done deal.

Even Jesus' enemies didn't contest it.

So, yes, I think you're setting your standards a bit too high when it comes to the God of the universe.

And I pray you take this as an honest plea to reconsider some things.

Opinion noted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Opinion noted. Also, an equivocation fallacy occurs when a word with multiple meanings is deceptively used in an argument. You'll find no such verbal deception in my explanation. Nevertheless, I wasn't comparing the doxastic nature of Christian prayer to the Theory of Evolution in the way you implied. The claim that a god answers prayer was used to demonstrate the concept of unfalsifiability. Presumably, you will agree that such a claim is unfalsifiable. If the example is throwing you off, then replace it with any other unfalsifiable claim you like.

I stand corrected. I should have said you seem to have insinuated a False Equivalency.

My apologies if that isn't what you were doing with your example of prayer, laid out at it seems to be in parallel with the actual locus of your OP.

I've seen my share of atheists or other critics of the christian faith insist that "Christian prayer" can be scientifically tested and it almost sounded to me like you were repeating their mistake and/or perhaps gaslighting theists here.

Again, my apologies for my dual error.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is the equivalent of saying in science we deal with facts, in religion we deal with fancy, or more tactfully with faith. Good of you to acknowledge that.

I wouldn't say it like that. However, I understand what you're implying and if I thought Christianity was mere fancy as well, I'd in no way invest in it like so many of you have already chosen not to. I'm not joking when I say I'm an Existentialist, an Evolutionist, an Evidentialist and a Realist.

I appreciate your candor and tactfulness, even if I disagree with your apparent view of the nature of "faith."

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for almost all of your posts that I have on purpose or in passing read.
Realizing that on this forum it is not possible to prevent falsehoods , as they are encouraged to post.

Well, as the old saying goes:

An ounce of prevention is worth a plethora of posts!

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Yes, for those who are seeking truth, it is good to have at least an ounce (a few posts) of truth and hope that God gives the increase for those few who seek truth.

Friendly Reminder: This debate thread is intended for the intellectually honest evaluation of arguments to determine where any logical fallacies may exist, not for proselytizing non-negotiable personal perspectives. If you find a reasoning error in someone's posted argument, you are welcome engage accordingly. Otherwise, please respect the terms of this thread or find another thread more suited to your needs. Thank you.

 

[The Barbarian]

It would basically mean the end of that discipline and inquiry or study of it. Why learn something new about a subject if you already know it all?

A science with nothing left to learn is dead. Just engineering after that. Engineering is critical, of course. But it's not science.

 

[Jerry N.]

A science with nothing left to learn is dead. Just engineering after that. Engineering is critical, of course. But it's not science.

No offense, but engineering is science and engineers discover new scientific things all of the time. The difference is the intent. Engineers discover things while solving practical problems. Scientist who are not engineers discover things out of curiosity of new information. I know what you mean, but I'm a little sensitive to "it's not science."

 

[The Barbarian]

No offense, but engineering is science and engineers discover new scientific things all of the time. The difference is the intent. Engineers discover things while solving practical problems.

4 Simple Ways to Explain the Difference Between Science and Engineering​

4 Simple Ways to Explain the Difference Between Science and Engineering

Four questions that will help educators explain the differences between engineering and science.

blog.eie.org

Scientists are often engineers, but there were engineers long before there were scientists. And engineers do often make scientific discoveries. Archimedes, for example. So you have some justification. After all, accountants are to some degree, mathematicians.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian checks) Possibly the greatest accountant mathematician was Leo Pisano Bigolio (Fibonacci) of Fibonacci sequence fame.