pic unrelated

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993650]

>If an idea is unfalsifiable (i.e., cannot be proven false through experiment or other such testing), then that idea is assumed to be erroneous.

False. This is a common but nonetheless flawed line of logic.

Unfalsifiability does not preclude truth. The only direct statement that can be made is simply that present testing methods cannot make a statement about an idea's truth value.

Once sufficient testing methods are developed, then we can perform the experiment and conclusively form a theory. Suppose that testing shows the original idea to be true. Here is the critical fact: The idea was not any less true before the experiment than after the experiment. The role of the experiment was to define the truth value for human intellect, not for nature.

[Anonymous No.3993667]

>>3993650
>If an idea is unfalsifiable (i.e., cannot be proven false through experiment or other such testing), then that idea is assumed to be erroneous.

n one ever claimed that what is claimed

>If an idea is unfalsifiable (i.e., cannot be proven false through experiment or other such testing), then that idea can not be distinguished from erroneous ideas.

Thus the idea has no merrit until it can be falsified.

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993724]

>>3993667
Uh, where have you been? This is a frequent thread of argument in many discussions of science--and religion, too.

For instance:

"The multiverse theory is unfalsifiable. Therefore [it is false]." The latter sentence is usually drawn out into several paragraphs, but that's the essential message. Same with the existence of gods or spirits--the same "unfasifiability therefore false" device is evoked.

[Anonymous No.3993734]

An idea that cannot be falsified is useless. If it said anything about the world, it would be falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3993768]

>Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

False. This violates the conservation of expected probability. If we would expect to see a piece of evidence given a theory is correct, not seeing that piece of evidence is evidence for the theory being false.

Revised: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[Anonymous No.3993776]

>>3993734
>An idea that cannot be falsified is useless.
Complete bullshit. This is part of the definition of a hypothesis, for christ's sake.

[Anonymous No.3993784]

>>3993724
The multiverse theory is falsifiable. If (a) quantum theory predicts multiple universes, and quantum theory is falsifiable, then multiple universe theory is falsifiable.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/
"...anyone who tells you that MWI is 'science fiction' is simply ignorant."

[Anonymous No.3993787]

>>3993724
being unfalsifiable doesn't make it erroneous (wrong, false). it means its to be considered fiction until more info is gathered

[Anonymous No.3993788]

>>3993734
this

also, by existentialism, you carry the burden of proving that your theory is true. if there is no possible way to disprove your theory, then there is no way to prove it either. if you don't understand that last sentence, then you don't understand what falsifiability is all about. it has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is actually true.

[Anonymous No.3993791]

>>3993776
a hypothesis needs to be testable. if its not testable. it only be internally consistent. it's just an idea, not a hypothesis

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993794]

>>3993734
>If it said anything about the world, it would be falsifiable.

I guess we should only study planet Earth then.

>>3993768
What if the guy is sick and cannot show up to deliver the proof?

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3993801]

>>3993650
>False. This is a common but nonetheless flawed line of logic.
Hate to be the fallacy fag here, but what you're arguing against really is nothing but a strawman. I mean, I'm sure there are a few people who go by that line of reasoning, but it sure as hell isn't "common".

[Anonymous No.3993802]

>>3993794
"world" is commonly used to refer to more than planet earth, you cunt

[Anonymous No.3993811]

>>3993791
WHO CARES?

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993819]

>>3993784
>If (a) quantum theory predicts multiple universes, and quantum theory is falsifiable, then multiple universe theory is falsifiable

Okay, how do you falsify the *connection* between the quantum theory and the macro-level theory?

[Anonymous No.3993828]

I think OP is confusing falsifiability with positivism.

[Anonymous No.3993835]

OP, can you come up with an unfalsifiable statement which is true?

[Anonymous No.3993841]

If it cannot be proven then logically it should be presumed false until able to be proven true

[Anonymous No.3993862]

>>3993784
A guy who believes in quantum mechanics and a guy who believes in many-worlds are both analyzing data from a particle collider, looking for the Higgs Boson. They run the collider until quantum mechanics predicts a 99.9999% chance they should have seen it.

The guy who believes in quantum mechanics says, "Guess there's no Higgs! Time to revise the Standard Model!"

The many-worlder says, "I'm in the world where there were no Higgs bosons produced!"

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993915]

>>3993835
Okay.

>All matter is composed of particles infinitesimal in size.

My name is Democritus. I live in the year 400 B.C. My claim can neither be falsified nor proven.

[Anonymous No.3993926]

>>3993915
the point was to come up with something unfalsifiable AND true. since yours is admittedly unproven, it is not true.

[Anonymous No.3993937]

>>3993835
OP is a fag

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3993940]

>>3993926
>atoms
>unproven

[Anonymous No.3993952]

>>3993794
>What if the guy is sick and cannot show up to deliver proof?

I said absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[Anonymous No.3993968]

>>3993915
You're right. That's a meaningless statement, Democritus. What's the difference between particles infinitesimal in size and a continuum?