5 ms·

You haven't proven that it's not testable.

by mozumder 9y ago

sombremesa 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- cgore 9y ago
  That's kind of missing his point. "Russell's Teapot" is a mental exercise that states the person making the claim that is nonstandard of current thought needs to provide proof. He's suggesting that there IS some way to provide proof perhaps, one way or the other.
- mozumder 9y ago
  Doesn't work here, since Erlangolem made the statement that it's not testable. Erlangolem made that explicit assertion, and now has to back up that statement up.
  - Erlangolem 9y ago
    I don’t, because this is nothing new and all of the ground has been covered. The argument over an ability to test, or not, spiritual matters is older than us, and I doubt that this site wants theological arguments. In short, I replied to someone restating an ancient concept, and I replied with a very old rejoinder. Souls and gods are not rational, and the argument inevitably is just a matter of one side finding gaps in knowledge to shoehorn beliefs, and the other tightening the screws. It literally never ends, and it’s the opposite of intellectual stimulation. If you really want that argument, life and the internet are overloaded with opportunities to have it until all parties are dead. Very little ever moves or happens, but occasionally someone gets a book deal.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      That's a lot of words just to say "I can't really prove my statement or back it up with facts." And, no, this isn't "ancient arguments" Fundamental forces of nature weren't all known until about 80 years ago, and there are plenty of unknown in science, including things like dark energy and whether the universe is a simulation. We don't even know if string-theory can be tested or not. It might take too much energy, or it might involve new science discoveries to test. Who knows. In the end just don't make self-congratulatory assertions you can't actually back up, otherwise people like me will call you out on it. Thanks.
SolarNet 9y ago
It's non-falsifiable, which is the actual standard of science, because we don't have a test for it yet. We'd have to have something to observe and measure, something to test. As some quick examples for this specific case: * There are mental disorders, drugs, experiences that seem to imply dualism; those are entirely inside those people's mind with no way to prove those experiences are true, or simply products of the brain. * Damage to a brain seems to change consciousness (this is falsifiable, and proven) which seems to suggest that it is where our consciousness is; damaging the receiver damages the connection, it's obvious that something must bind the consciousness. This is a well thought about topic. If you have some sort of falsifiable test, please suggest it, otherwise, far wiser people have tried and failed to think of one (and as a note, it's up to you to prove that your hypothesis can be falsified, it's your claim).
- mozumder 9y ago
  > It's non-falsifiable You just made an assertion. Now you have to prove it. If the idea that the spirit is another fundamental force of nature is true, then it can be tested and be falsifiable.
  - skolemtotem 9y ago
    If you think it's testable, then you should write up a test and, hopefully, carry it out.
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    I can't think of a test, many people haven't been able to, and neither can you apparently, until someone has a test it is effectively non-falsifiable. Science isn't about proof, if observations change (primarily improve) then we change what we think we know. Which is why the above is all the "proof" I need. you can falsify it very simply. Provide a test. I have met my burden.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up.

You haven't proven that it's not testable.

sombremesa 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

cgore 9y ago
That's kind of missing his point. "Russell's Teapot" is a mental exercise that states the person making the claim that is nonstandard of current thought needs to provide proof. He's suggesting that there IS some way to provide proof perhaps, one way or the other.
mozumder 9y ago
Doesn't work here, since Erlangolem made the statement that it's not testable. Erlangolem made that explicit assertion, and now has to back up that statement up.
- Erlangolem 9y ago
  I don’t, because this is nothing new and all of the ground has been covered. The argument over an ability to test, or not, spiritual matters is older than us, and I doubt that this site wants theological arguments. In short, I replied to someone restating an ancient concept, and I replied with a very old rejoinder. Souls and gods are not rational, and the argument inevitably is just a matter of one side finding gaps in knowledge to shoehorn beliefs, and the other tightening the screws. It literally never ends, and it’s the opposite of intellectual stimulation. If you really want that argument, life and the internet are overloaded with opportunities to have it until all parties are dead. Very little ever moves or happens, but occasionally someone gets a book deal.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    That's a lot of words just to say "I can't really prove my statement or back it up with facts." And, no, this isn't "ancient arguments" Fundamental forces of nature weren't all known until about 80 years ago, and there are plenty of unknown in science, including things like dark energy and whether the universe is a simulation. We don't even know if string-theory can be tested or not. It might take too much energy, or it might involve new science discoveries to test. Who knows. In the end just don't make self-congratulatory assertions you can't actually back up, otherwise people like me will call you out on it. Thanks.

SolarNet 9y ago

It's non-falsifiable, which is the actual standard of science, because we don't have a test for it yet. We'd have to have something to observe and measure, something to test. As some quick examples for this specific case: * There are mental disorders, drugs, experiences that seem to imply dualism; those are entirely inside those people's mind with no way to prove those experiences are true, or simply products of the brain. * Damage to a brain seems to change consciousness (this is falsifiable, and proven) which seems to suggest that it is where our consciousness is; damaging the receiver damages the connection, it's obvious that something must bind the consciousness. This is a well thought about topic. If you have some sort of falsifiable test, please suggest it, otherwise, far wiser people have tried and failed to think of one (and as a note, it's up to you to prove that your hypothesis can be falsified, it's your claim).

mozumder 9y ago
> It's non-falsifiable You just made an assertion. Now you have to prove it. If the idea that the spirit is another fundamental force of nature is true, then it can be tested and be falsifiable.
- skolemtotem 9y ago
  If you think it's testable, then you should write up a test and, hopefully, carry it out.
- SolarNet 9y ago
  I can't think of a test, many people haven't been able to, and neither can you apparently, until someone has a test it is effectively non-falsifiable. Science isn't about proof, if observations change (primarily improve) then we change what we think we know. Which is why the above is all the "proof" I need. you can falsify it very simply. Provide a test. I have met my burden.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up.