Just a thought

[Anonymous No.14130430]

In the last five minutes I've heard like three people say that beliefs can only be true if they are falsifiable. Isn't this self refuting? The idea isn't falsifiable with reference to the empirical world.
Am I retarded?
What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.14130774]

Falsifiability and "justified true belief" are analytic philosophy memes for literal retards who somehow haven't learned from centuries of logicians, let alone real philosophers, coming to terms with the fact that thought-fact correspondence (reference) theories of truth are fundamentally problematic and question-begging, and the farthest thing from self-evident. These fucking actual retards think they can solve hundreds of years of failed attempts to circularly self-ground epistemology by looping around JUST ONE MORE TIME! THIS TIME WE'VE GOT IT FOR REAL, THIS TIME I'M REALLY GONNA EXPLAIN HOW TRUE THINGS ARE ONLY TRUE IF THEY'RE TRUE! WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY (TRUTHFULNESS), AND WITHOUT BEGGING THE QUESTION!

They concoct entire pathetic analytic frameworks like rube fucking goldberg machines, all kinds of intricate justification with whole books written about it, and the whole byzantine apparatus ultimately translates out to:
- naive realism (beliefs are true when they correspond to "atomic facts" "in the world," with no sense of the fact that "fact" and "world" invoke the concept "truth" which is to be defined in the first place)
- naive sense empiricism (the senses give us a "representation" of a ("facts" in) "world"; see above
- variations on the above

If the late 19th century, let alone the 20th century, has taught the West anything it is that understanding, conception, experience, mentation, "taking to be," "taking for true," whatever you want to call it, holistically interwoven and ALWAYS "as if" true. The subjective is always AS IF objective. This was a cliche already in 1925, so we definitely needed another four consecutive generations of dipshit analytics re-forgetting it, thereby forcing their poor cloistered students to (badly) reinvent the wheel yet another time.

If anyone says "justified true belief" to you or talks about "true" beliefs, kill them and any offspring they accidentally had to prevent their dysgenic effect on the species.

[Anonymous No.14130967]

>>14130774
I love this board. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.14130969]

>>14130430
You're not missing anything, people who say this are self-contradictory. They just want to pretend that their 'beliefs' are 'scientific facts'. You will usually hear this point of view from post modernists and scientific materialists.

[Anonymous No.14131019]

>>14130430
If my post end in 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9, then God exists.

[Anonymous No.14131063]

>>14131019
based

[Anonymous No.14131074]

>>14130430
That's one of the main criticisms of logical positivism and Popperian falsification, that it's arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.14131080]

>>14130774
Since it seens the flaw in falsification is intro level philosophy and pretty obvious then why has it persisted so long and with such intensity?

[Anonymous No.14131099]

>>14130430
You make this thread every day.
Don't you have better things to do like read the bible or pray?

[Anonymous No.14131100]

>>14131080
Not sure. Probably what >>14130969 said.
all my beliefs are scientific *twists nipples* I am above all you religious *spits* people.

[Anonymous No.14131104]

>>14131099
nope, I haven't on lit in about four or five months.

[Anonymous No.14131261]

>>14131100
I had a big argument on /sci/ about it and they went into a frenzy

[Anonymous No.14131325]

>>14130774
You're goddamn right