[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 20 KB, 636x473, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043096 No.3043096 [Reply] [Original]

Deal with it.

>> No.3043100

>Invisible unicorns are an unfalsifiable claim, thus science cannot prove or disprove it.

Deal with it, scientists!

>> No.3043103

I will dump some nekkid ladies from my stash if /sci/ is stupid enough to fall for this obvious troll (which they will)

>> No.3043111

Agreed, but because we can't disprove it doesn't mean we should believe in it. That makes no sense.

>> No.3043110

By you reasoning nothing makes falsifing claims

>> No.3043120
File: 251 KB, 1920x1280, 1290228827221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043120

>> No.3043116

>>3043103
Implying I'm not trolling by talking to a troll

>> No.3043123

Example: It's impossible to prove objectively if prayer works.

>> No.3043125

>>3043103
Sophisticated looking black heads please.

>> No.3043133

OP:

Just because you believe in something doesn't make it true

Just because you can charge someone to prove a negative doesn't give you a 50/50 chance of being right

The fact that there is uncertainty about the boundary conditions of the universe doesn't guarantee you ANY chance of being right

>> No.3043134

>>3043125

He probably only has fat black women in his collection.

>> No.3043135

>>3043123
That's what I used to think! But then I prayed to God to give me understanding, and He came into my heart.

>> No.3043141

>>3043135

But you can't objectively prove it; just anecdotally.

>> No.3043145

>>3043123

Actually, it might not be possible to prove it works, but its very easy to falsify.

how many people out there pray for world peace?

how many pray for their lives before dying from wounds caused by accident or war?

there are even cases of people denying their children medicine, praying to try heal them, and seeing their children die.

It is blindingly obvious that prayer doesn't work.

>> No.3043151

>>3043135
God orgasmed into your heart fuck that

>> No.3043152

>>3043145

Either it doesn't work at all or it's hit-and-miss.

>> No.3043154

>>3043100
Yeah, researchers of invisible unicorns will be very dissapointed

>> No.3043156

>>3043152
Kinda of like if pray didn't work

>> No.3043157

>>3043135

The feeling you describe is a standard emotional high that can be duplicated by various means including triumph over adversity, pride in yourself or others, induced by a moving story, induced by some act of kindness...

See, these neurological impulses are real, they can be measured, and they occur in the BRAIN.

Ghosts don't exist, and as such they don't fuck around with peoples' blood pumping organs in a way that duplicates the effect of chemical stimulus in the brain.

>> No.3043161

>>3043152

said the ghost hunter when he found out it was just ball lightning

>> No.3043164

>>3043156
But we can't say prayer doesn't work at all. At most we can set a 95% upper confidence limit on its rate of effectiveness in the situations under study.

>> No.3043165

>>3043096
>Religion doesn't make falsifiable claims.
Oh lol no. Haven't you read your bible?

>> No.3043171

>>3043164

Suffice to say that it's totally impossible to prove the effectiveness of prayer objectively.

>> No.3043176

>>3043165

I'm actually an agnostic, so I haven't read much of the Bible. Guess I'd leave that to Christians. They'd know it better than I would.

>> No.3043177

>>3043164

statistical analysis can take you to far greater confidence intervals than 95% with a greater sample size.

And remember, such analyses can be replicated; if one study gives a false negative, others will show that it was an outlier.

>> No.3043181

>>3043171
That's not a scientific attitude! If prayer only works rarely or under certain objective conditions, then we can discover what they are. Of course, that's a long shot, but totally impossible it isn't.

>> No.3043182

>>3043171

That may be what you tell yourself, but will you trust medicine or prayer when you catch malaria?

>> No.3043189
File: 22 KB, 738x465, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043189

>>3043176

You'd think so, but...

>> No.3043193

>>3043164
>But we can't say prayer doesn't work at all. At most we can set a 95% upper confidence limit on its rate of effectiveness in the situations under study.

Sorry. Science and rationalism doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as absolute incontrovertible proof. That is proof by any reasonable standard.

>> No.3043194

>>3043182

That's a question for which there is no answer.

>> No.3043195

>>3043177
95% is a number picked arbitrarily; it can be anything we want regardless of how much data we have. Better statistics lowers the value of the 95% confidence limit.

>> No.3043205

>>3043176
Jesus rose from the dead. That is a scientific claim. It is falsifiable in principle. It is observable. Someone could have checked his pulse, did an EKG, etc., confirmed he was dead, then saw him later alive.

Anything relating to the observable is falsifiable.

>> No.3043206

>>3043194

It does have a fucking answer, one of two possible answers. You will either trust religion or science.

My money's on science, but if you live in some country with a boner for capitalism you may go for religion due to not being able to afford the bills.

>> No.3043212

>>3043205

Correction: WAS observable.

If we want to be rigorous we should pray for a new zombie under controlled experimental conditions.

>> No.3043213

>>3043205
Those books were written long after he supposedly ascended to heaven.

>> No.3043214

>>3043193

Go back to trying to justify having sex with sheep, tripfag. I didn't forget how you were banned for abusing the report function after getting your ass kicked in multiple religion threads.

>> No.3043219

>>3043214
So, going to discuss the topic at hand, or derail the thread? Just wondering, bro.

>> No.3043222

>>3043205

Because I'm sure they had EKGs in 1st century AD Palestine.

Oh right, I forgot I'm talking to a tripfag troll.

>> No.3043224

>>3043214
Butthurt much

>> No.3043227

Truth is not falsifiable (by definition of what it means to be true), therefore science does not give us truth. Falsifiability is ridiculous 'qualification' to have.

>> No.3043228

>>3043222
I said in principle. I said could have. I said it was possible. Checking their pulse was possible.

Thanks for missing the point.

The point remains that someone could have ensured that he was indeed dead using medical science, and then later confirmed he was alive. The resurrection is an example of a scientific, falsifiable (in principle) claim made by a religion, a rather famous one at that.

>> No.3043233

>>3043228

>Checking their pulse was possible.

You do realize that people didn't know about blood circulation until William Harvey in the 17th century.

>> No.3043235

>>3043228
And as observable miracles tend to be, it was a one-time event.

>> No.3043239
File: 45 KB, 734x557, trollwinsflawlessvictory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043239

>>3043096
>fairytale can't be falsified

Over 30 replies

>> No.3043240

>>3043228
Wouldn't even need to do that cause it's far more statically possible that he didn't rise from the dead and someone lied about

>> No.3043242

>>3043219

Is he mad? Yeah, he mad.

>> No.3043243

>>3043235
Sure. Don't be saying that religion doesn't make falsifiable claims though. That is strictly false.

If there were no falsifiable claims in a religion, then it would be indiscoverable by humans, and thus equivalent to deism.

>> No.3043245

>>3043239

Soon to be 100+ replies

>> No.3043246
File: 19 KB, 240x249, troll_thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043246

>>3043228

>> No.3043247

>>3043240
Of course, but my point is that the resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable, scientific, claim about this physical, material, reality.

>> No.3043248
File: 1.15 MB, 4288x2848, 1304070314347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043248

>> No.3043251

>>3043247

But there was no way to test it scientifically when it happened.

>> No.3043253
File: 93 KB, 500x500, troll-web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043253

>>3043247

>> No.3043257

>>3043243
O.p did say he was agnostic

>> No.3043258
File: 28 KB, 300x441, 1267565594690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043258

>> No.3043259

>>3043243
Since it was a one-time event in the distant past, skeptics have no way to check whether it happened as claimed. Making it unfalsifiable.

>> No.3043260

>>3043248

>4288x2848

>> No.3043265

>>3043248

Shaved pubes are shaved.

>> No.3043266

>>3043251
But that's wrong. It is. It's unlikely that we could falsify it, but imagine if Jesus came down now and said "Yo dudes, I totally didn't rise from the dead back then. Oh, now I did, but not back then. Here's some video proof."

>> No.3043267

>>3043259
Yes but this wouldn't make him the son of god even if he did rise from the dead

>> No.3043272

>>3043266
That scenario sounds so much more likely than some faggot putting together a fake video and walking around claiming to be Jesus. The latter would never happen, and the former is certainly not pulled out of your ass.

>> No.3043271
File: 43 KB, 351x345, 1277063088930.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043271

>>3043096
NICE TROLLIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.3043275

>>3043266
Alternatively, to not invoke the supernatural, aliens could come down tomorrow, saying they've been studying us for thousands of years, and they could supply video evidence that Jesus did indeed die, and his followers took the body from the tomb, again disproving the resurrection.

Do not confuse "unlikely to be falsified" with "falsifiable". There's falsifiable in principle, and "likely to be falsified" for want of a better term.

>> No.3043276

>>3043267
>Yes but this wouldn't make him the son of god even if he did rise from the dead
Sure, but his earlier resurrection would still have been falsified.

>> No.3043280
File: 44 KB, 371x351, 1291168950824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043280

>>3043275

>> No.3043282

>>3043276
I agree it is a falsifiable claim

>> No.3043283

I'm agnostic, but once humans create a life form out of nothing other than inorganic materials or bring a clearly dead person back to life, then I will believe that there is no god.

>> No.3043286
File: 64 KB, 600x750, 1290327630544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043286

>>3043096
over 900000 replies

>> No.3043287

>>3043275
And the brain in a vat is falsifiable because one day the Chosen One might come to free us. It isn't likely, but that's not the same as impossible to falsify.

I demand serious scientific study of this proposition now.

>> No.3043289

>>3043283
First one should be possible but the second one might not be

>> No.3043290

>>3043287
Yep. "We don't live in The Matrix" could be falsified if you were unplugged from it, maybe... at that point, I'm not sure you would have enough grip on "reality" to tell what was real and what was virtual. It would be unpleasant.

>> No.3043291
File: 78 KB, 559x850, guys-fucking_4_3658.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043291

>>3043283

>I'm agnostic

Pic related. Typical agnostics.

>> No.3043298

>>3043283
>I'm agnostic, but once humans create a life form out of nothing other than inorganic materials
Difficult, but may happen. I recall reading about someone maybe creating a simple artificial cell, which is amazingly difficult.

I think it will happen, but that's my highly uneducated guess. There's nothing infeasible about it. We just need to develop the techniques to combine the elements into compounds in the right fashion, and arrange them correctly. (A UC would help, lol.)

>> No.3043304

>>3043290
To continue, I can't tell I'm not living in The Matrix. I can't tell if the physical world around me is "real" or whatever. The best I can do is that physical reality is an exceedingly useful model for me to accomplish my aims of not being a dick and staying happy. Fuck if I really care if the world is "real" at this point.

>> No.3043307

Sure it does and sure we can.

>> No.3043320
File: 13 KB, 320x224, survey-dumb-fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3043320

>>3043298
What is the point in trying to logically debate someone who has no logic to begin with? THEY LITERALLY BELIEVE IN FUCKING FAIRYTALES!

Why are you trying to reason with them? They gave up on reason a very long time ago.

>> No.3043328

>>3043320
Entertainment?

>> No.3043335

>>3043328
>>3043320
To better my own arguments. And in case I'm wrong. I usually don't waste my time on blatant trolls, and only if it strikes my fancy as interesting and actual science.

In this case, this isn't religion vs science. This is science. The OP is mistaken about what falsifiable means, and so I corrected him.