• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The question of faith (and Bertrand Russell quote)

Togo said:
This idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be acceptible? How do you falsify that?
Click to expand...

By supplying evidence that an unfalsifiable idea is false. Using Unicorn Existence as an example... what evidence could theoretically exist that 'proves' no Unicorns exist? We consider the idea of non-existence unfalsifiable... all you need to do is prove that false by proving no Unicorns exist. Have at it.
 
Malintent said:
Togo said:
This idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be acceptible? How do you falsify that?
Click to expand...

By supplying evidence that an unfalsifiable idea is false.
Click to expand...

That's invalid reasoning. I asked how you falsify the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifieable to be acceptible. What you've given me is a proposal for demonstrating that an unfalsifiable idea can be falsified.

Can you have a go at the question I asked, or explain why it's inappropriate?

(It's quite a famous question, as a variation of it brought down the philosophical school of Logical Positivism in the 1950s)
 
Togo said:
I asked how you falsify the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifieable to be acceptible. What you've given me is a proposal for demonstrating that an unfalsifiable idea can be falsified.
Click to expand...
That's easy- the idea is already false, because not all hypotheses are scientific hypotheses.
 
Kharakov said:
Juma said:
No, just depressing. It is depressing to see the low standard you bring to this forum.
Click to expand...
A statement (which is either true or false) cannot actually be in the form of a rhetorical question. Better?

If you look at the exchange between bilby and I, you will notice the following.
Kharakov said:
bilby said:
How could you possibly be unaware that a statement can take the form of a rhetorical question?
Click to expand...
It's amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Ask yourself this amazing thing: how can I be unaware of something that is untrue?

Here is a similar question: How could you possibly be unaware that 2+2=13.7?

Here is the same response, to that equally fucked up rhetorical question: It's amazing, isn't it?

How could you possibly be unaware that 2+2=13.7?
It's amazing, isn't it?


Get it? In other words, I am unaware of 2+2 = 13.7 and I am unaware that a rhetorical question can be a statement, because it can't.
Click to expand...

You are playing som weird game here dude.

retorical questions are just disgused statements.
That is why they are called "rhetorical". They are no real questions.
 
Kharakov said:
Togo said:
I asked how you falsify the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifieable to be acceptible. What you've given me is a proposal for demonstrating that an unfalsifiable idea can be falsified.
Click to expand...
That's easy- the idea is already false, because not all hypotheses are scientific hypotheses.
Click to expand...
Wether its "scientific" or not doesnt matter.
If there is no way to notice that the hypotesis is wrong then it carries no information.
 
Juma said:
You are playing som weird game here dude.

retorical questions are just disgused statements.
That is why they are called "rhetorical". They are no real questions.
Click to expand...
A rhetorical question can imply a statement but is not a statement. In other words, it's a question, isn't it?
 
Kharakov said:
Juma said:
You are playing som weird game here dude.

retorical questions are just disgused statements.
That is why they are called "rhetorical". They are no real questions.
Click to expand...
A rhetorical question can imply a statement but is not a statement. In other words, it's a question, isn't it?
Click to expand...
A question is a request for an answer. So, no, retorical questions are no questions.
 
In science less a hypothesis is capable of potential falsification then it has
zero merit since they must be tested to determine their validity. This does
not mean all untestable or non falsifiable ones are false just that they can
not be demonstrated to be. For in point of fact could just as easily be true
 
''Epistemic luck is a generic notion used to describe any of a number of ways in which it can be accidental, coincidental, or fortuitous that a person has a true''..... faith being one of these coincidental ways.
 
Juma said:
Kharakov said:
A rhetorical question can imply a statement but is not a statement. In other words, it's a question, isn't it?
Click to expand...
A question is a request for an answer. So, no, retorical questions are no questions.
Click to expand...
"Ohh, really?" implies the statement "no they aren't" although it is the question "are they really?"

One asks a rhetorical question to imply a statement (the answer is assumed to be known, and obvious).

Does a bear shit in the woods? Is grass green? Is Kharakov bullshitting?

All questions. All with an already known answer value: Yes, yes, and why would I do that?
 
Kharakov said:
Juma said:
A question is a request for an answer. So, no, retorical questions are no questions.
Click to expand...
"Ohh, really?" implies the statement "no they aren't" although it is the question "are they really?"

One asks a rhetorical question to imply a statement (the answer is assumed to be known, and obvious).

Does a bear shit in the woods? Is grass green? Is Kharakov bullshitting?

All questions. All with an already known answer value: Yes, yes, and why would I do that?
Click to expand...

Jesus... Whatever.

Now, how do you falsify your hypotesis about a creator?
 
Juma said:
Kharakov said:
Does a bear shit in the woods? Is grass green? Is Kharakov bullshitting?

All questions. All with an already known answer value: Yes, yes, and why would I do that?
Click to expand...
Jesus... Whatever.
Click to expand...
Is that a rhetorical statement, that implies the rhetorical question: Do I really care whether or not a rhetorical question is actually a statement?
Juma said:
Now, how do you falsify your hypotesis about a creator?
Click to expand...
Juma- it was a definition of God for bilby. It is not possible to falsify the existence of God, much like it is not possible for me to falsify the existence of the universe. Although the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.
 
Juma said:
Kharakov said:
Juma- it was a definition of God for bilby. It is not possible to falsify the existence of God.
Click to expand...
So there goes your hypotesis...
Click to expand...
You mean "there goes the definition of God you provided for bilby."

It is not possible to falsify the existence of any real being, nor is it pragmatic to worry about some 60+ year old kid who thinks God doesn't exist because they are caught up in their experience of learning about the natural world.
 
Juma said:
Kharakov said:
You mean "there goes the definition of God you provided for bilby."
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
So you don't understand the conversation. I'll explain it to you.

Someone made a claim about belief that God exists which they could not back up. I asked the following about their claim:
"What reason and evidence contradicts belief that God exists?"

Bilby said I can only say things like that because "you refuse to clearly define what you mean by God", so I provided a definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom