/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6644143]

Daily reminder that if something isn't falsifiable, it's not true.

[Anonymous No.6644146]

>>6644143
do you have any evidence supporting this claim?

[Anonymous No.6644175]

>>6644146
Meme: he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6644185]

>>6644146
You could try reading Karl Popper instead of making an ass of yourself.

[Anonymous No.6644217]

>>6644143
Does anyone feel like the shit posting has gone up a notch lately?

Lot of...sagacious...fedora tippers

[Anonymous No.6644254]

sagacious... my sides... in orbit...

[Anonymous No.6644261]

>>6644217
Someone linked a Christian thread from /lit/ a couple of days ago on Redditt. They poured in

[Anonymous No.6644263]

>>6644185
is this empirically verifiable?

[Anonymous No.6644269]

Tolkien looked like a fooking Hobbit.

[Anonymous No.6644287]

>>6644143
is that claim itself falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.6644308]

>>6644269
Can you justify that assertion?

[Anonymous No.6644317]

>>6644261
>reddit

Some of the smaller subs are ok, but that site overall is one of the most anti-intellectual sites I know; it's not uncommon to run across stem circle-jerking in ostensibly unrelated threads over there.

[Anonymous No.6644343]

>>6644317
I go there for porn

[Anonymous No.6644349]

His idea on falsification wasn't "if something isn't falsifiable, it's not true", it was if something isn't falsifiable it's not scientific.

Regardless his idea still isn't perfect, his argument a theory is just a conjuction of hypotheses so

T1 = H1 & H2 & H3 & ... Hn

using De Morgans theorem we know that

NOT T1 = (NOT H1) OR (NOT H2) OR (NOT H3) OR ... (NOT Hn)

If one assumption or background belief that makes up a theory is proven false it doesn't mean the entire theory should be thrown out.

Not that Popper wasn't incredibly influential, clearly him shifting the conversation on the demarcation problem from verification to falsification was a game-changer in philosophy of science, but I've seen people on both /lit/ and /sci/ quote him as if his opinion is the end-all on what's scientific and what's not which is silly.

[Anonymous No.6644357]

His idea on falsification wasn't "if something isn't falsifiable, it's not true", it was if something isn't falsifiable it's not scientific.

Regardless his idea still isn't perfect, a theory is just a conjuction of hypotheses so

T1 = H1 & H2 & H3 & ... Hn

using De Morgans theorem we know that

NOT T1 = (NOT H1) OR (NOT H2) OR (NOT H3) OR ... (NOT Hn)

If one assumption or background belief that makes up a theory is proven false it doesn't mean the entire theory should be thrown out.

Not that Popper wasn't incredibly influential, clearly him shifting the conversation on the demarcation problem from verification to falsification was a game-changer in philosophy of science, but I've seen people on both /lit/ and /sci/ quote him as if his opinion is the end-all on what's scientific and what's not which is silly.

[Anonymous No.6644368]

>>6644143

Can you falsify this statement?

If you can't then the statement is false.
If you can then there are potential examples where the statement is false.
In those cases the statement is false.
Your statement applies to everything and every time, not just particular cases.
Therefore the statement itself is false.

[Anonymous No.6644491]

this isn't even Popper's position wtf

[Anonymous No.6644512]

>>6644143
by your logic... if something is false, it's unfalsifiable

FUCKING GENIUS

[Anonymous No.6644515]

>>6644287
negatory good buddy

[Anonymous No.6644517]

if something isn't falsifiable, we may postulate its existence anyway based on the postulate's usefulness

[Anonymous No.6644524]

>>6644512
lrn2logic faggit

[Anonymous No.6644527]

if something is falsifiable, it's not true
the truth is always infallible

[Anonymous No.6644533]

Law of the uniformity of nature is an assumption nerd.

[Anonymous No.6645239]

>>6644143

nice! are you doing philosophy a level as well:)?