[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.08 MB, 2808x1900, The Selfish Meme HD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921170 No.5921170 [Reply] [Original]

Is "falsifiable" the new /lit/ buzzword?

>> No.5921174

>>5921170
if its falsifiable
why not?

>> No.5921242

>>5921170

Today's meme. It'll last through January, then disappear when someone comes up with the next one.

>> No.5921256
File: 239 KB, 840x630, id8rsoup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921256

>>5921242
Thank goodness no one says "pleb" or bring us Rand or Wallace anymore!

>> No.5921291

>>5921256
You don't even know how to read you fucking retard. What are you two chapters into de beauviors book? Not even?

>> No.5921293
File: 60 KB, 584x307, Karl-Popper-Quotes-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921293

>>5921170
It is a bunch of Continentals and Analytics who are butthurt at how brilliant Karl Popper's ideas are.

>> No.5921305

>>5921170
How about "Cultural Capitalism."?
Now THAT'S falsifiable.

>> No.5921312

Doesn't unfalsifiable just mean correct?

>> No.5921320

>>5921312
No. Are you seriously retarded. I'll give you an article that may be more up, or should I say down, to your speed.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html

>> No.5921327
File: 161 KB, 800x1067, j14iiqct.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921327

>>5921291
I finished the first volume. Will get back to it after Moby Dick and maybe Cervantes. But now I'm trying to finish the other books I've started. Orwell, Borges, Herzen, Armenia, a study on Demeter, etc.
Work's been hell too. How have you been?

>> No.5921373

>>5921327
pure cancer

>> No.5921405

>>5921320
But the example statement in the article was unfalsifiable and correct.

If something can be correct and unfalsifiable, then why does it even matter if it is falsifiable or not?

>> No.5921413 [DELETED] 

>>5921405

You can't have truth without falsifiability

>> No.5921414

>>5921405
>But the example statement in the article was unfalsifiable and correct.
How so?

>> No.5921427

>>5921414
Because it said it was.

>> No.5921431

>>5921413
but the statement in the example is true and it isn't falsifiable.

>> No.5921437

>>5921427
Kill yourself.

>> No.5921451

>>5921437
Are you claiming that the example of an unfalsifiable statement in the article was in fact a lie?

Would that mean that the statement is actually falsifiable?

>> No.5921455
File: 2.42 MB, 1174x851, neil degrasse tyson quote.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921455

But is he right?

>> No.5921465

>>5921451
No, I'm saying that the statement was not correct.

>> No.5921472

>>5921455
does he define homosexual in terms of attraction, identity, or activity?

The question is raised because Mr. Tyson is a member of the African American community, and within that subculture there exists something known as the "down-low" in which an African American male may participate in homosexual activity in exchange for financial rewards and maintain an outward semblance of heterosexuality.

Mr. Tyson is not right because he gives a command based on criteria which is not adequately defined and so he does not deserve to have his request complied with.

>> No.5921478

>>5921291
>replying to trips
just don't. It's not like they'll leave or contribute a valid opinion.

>> No.5921479

>>5921465
does it lack the component of either truth or falsifiability?

>> No.5921482
File: 86 KB, 650x560, BSG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921482

>>5921455

>> No.5921484

>>5921479
I assume you're referring to 'no humans live forever', which relies on the assumption that we cannot develop technology as far as to make men immortal. It also assumes total knowledge where it cannot.

>> No.5921498

>>5921484
You didn't even read the article. The statement is in the present tense and the criteria of unfalsifiability has nothing to do with the historic development of technology but rather that it does not seem possible to prove it wrong.

>> No.5921512

>>5921498
>You didn't even read the article
Why would I, I read more advanced work.
> rather that it does not seem possible to prove it wrong.
And it is possible to prove wrong. You only have to imagine a scenario in which it can be proven false for it to be falsifiable.

>> No.5921523

>>5921512
The second greentext is verbatim from the article.

Any idea can then be said to be falsifiable if all one has to do is to imagine a scenario in which it can be proven false.

>> No.5921528

>>5921523
>Any idea can then be said to be falsifiable if all one has to do is to imagine a scenario in which it can be proven false.
Some ideas cannot be falsified in any possible world.

>> No.5921591

>>5921528
The possibility or impossibility of all worlds cannot be imagined, which is the criteria of falsifiability you stated before.

>> No.5921604

>>5921478
> It's not like they'll leave or contribute a valid opinion.
To:
>Is "falsifiable" the new /lit/ buzzword?

Why are you so full of yourself?

>> No.5921615

>>5921591
>The possibility or impossibility of all worlds cannot be imagined
Totally false.

>> No.5921631

>>5921591
That sentence is meaningless.

>> No.5921632

I'm excited that we have a new buzzword.

>> No.5921633

>>5921615
wrong, it is unfalsifiable.

>> No.5921641

>>5921478
I have to agree with this. Most trips are either trolls or else they're incredibly stupid. The one you replied to can be found on this board all the time, yet hasn't read enough to contribute anything.

>> No.5921669

>>5921633
No, I don't think you understand what is meant by possible worlds.

>> No.5921673

Most people find the claim that not-p completely obvious and when I assert p they give me an incredulous stare. But the fact that they find not- p obvious is no argument that it is true; and I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare. Therefore, p.

>> No.5921678

>>5921256
I never see anybody else quite as butthurt as you are about IJ being too hard for them. Both Rand and Wallace are hyper famous outside of your internet bubble, to reduce their influence to memes is absurd, not that I agree with Rand's ideologies.

>> No.5921684

>>5921669
possible worlds are logical structures. It makes no sense to say that they are true or false, they are merely consistent. A theory or model must be falsifiable to be about the world.

>> No.5921703

>>5921312
retard

>> No.5921727

>>5921684
Yep, you don't get it.

>> No.5921733
File: 190 KB, 678x808, 1400314751963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921733

>>5921678
I once asked about the book, but no one could say a word. I'm not being butthurt here either. I was just saying the meme isn't going to die.

The comparison was rushed. (Damn typos: "...or brings up Rand...") Pardon.

Pleb.

>> No.5921748

>>5921733
>browsing /lit/
>hasn't read IJ
What are you even doing here? Go read it, then maybe we'll let you keep your trip m8

>> No.5921752

>>5921727
Please explain why you believe that I am in error.

>> No.5921753
File: 60 KB, 500x500, 1276049831940.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921753

>>5921748
>ROFL

>> No.5921754

>>5921752
Because you made a false statement regarding possible worlds.

>> No.5921757

>>5921293
>self contradicting statement
Was that on purpose?

>> No.5921765

>>5921754
Why was the claim false?

>> No.5921794

>>5921765
Because it isn't consistent with what possible worlds are.

>> No.5921804

>>5921794
Why not?

>> No.5921813

>>5921804
Because you believe a possible world must be true or false rather than something be true in a possible world.

>> No.5921822

>>5921813
A possible world is not true or false. It is consistent. For something to be true (ignoring formal truths) it must describe a property of the natural world.

>> No.5921840

>>5921822
It just needs to be what it says, a possible world. You may as well say 'theoretically'. Something must be possible in a possible world or it is impossible.

>> No.5922148
File: 107 KB, 375x500, 1350325021001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5922148

>>5921757
Ok I'll bite. What's the contradiction ?

>> No.5922152

>>5921170
No, only a minority will ever fall for it. Some people seem to believe it's fucking magic, though.

>> No.5922188

>>5922148
Science isn't unfalsifiable.

>> No.5923320
File: 93 KB, 1000x288, ykk01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5923320

>>5922188
True, science is not falsifiable because the Universe is not falsifiable. But somehow the Universe (and thus science, the empirical framework built on it) are treated as special cases, so falsifiability or not, it won't matter to most people because we seem to be stuck with this world. That's different from other systems like, for instance, Solipsism, where the un-falsifiability makes it a dead end.

>> No.5923893

>>5921405
Because if it's falsifiable, you can tell if it's wrong or not. Obviously, this only matters for statements about the world, where our knowledge is limited and many people are sure of the truth of false statements.