4 ms·

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, some

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.
    - SolarNet 9y ago
      > So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. I have backed up the assertion. I have pointed to the existing literature, and the many people who have tried and failed to write a test. I have a very basic hypothesis, one that could be broken by a very simple piece of evidence: a test. But here is the real problem. You are treating this as an argument. And I am not. This isn't about winning or loosing to me, I am just trying to understand the universe better (as are the people above saying this isn't falsifiable), and you want to win. Besides if this were a proper argument, you'd have a clearly stated position I could argue against, and you don't seem to have one (outside of 'dualism can be proven', which is a ridiculous assertion, easily refuted). > Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? How do you know there isn't a fifth now? We have no clue how we would test for it, but there are unexplained phenomena which might involve a fifth force (dark matter and the perplexing way that gravity works for example). Saying something is non-falsifiable doesn't mean it's "proven" to be wrong. Just that science can't say anything about it yet. With more knowledge and more time we learn that our previous understanding was wrong, and that we can test for new things we couldn't even imagine before (and some that we could). > Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up. You're right, it's not. Which is why I have been able to back it up, by pointing out that many very smart people (scientists among them) have tried to think of a way to test this and failed. My assertion stands with the caveat all science has: given what we know now. Science is wrong all the time - I don't mind being wrong about this - but for the time being it appears true. And that is what is useful.

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.
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    > So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. I have backed up the assertion. I have pointed to the existing literature, and the many people who have tried and failed to write a test. I have a very basic hypothesis, one that could be broken by a very simple piece of evidence: a test. But here is the real problem. You are treating this as an argument. And I am not. This isn't about winning or loosing to me, I am just trying to understand the universe better (as are the people above saying this isn't falsifiable), and you want to win. Besides if this were a proper argument, you'd have a clearly stated position I could argue against, and you don't seem to have one (outside of 'dualism can be proven', which is a ridiculous assertion, easily refuted). > Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? How do you know there isn't a fifth now? We have no clue how we would test for it, but there are unexplained phenomena which might involve a fifth force (dark matter and the perplexing way that gravity works for example). Saying something is non-falsifiable doesn't mean it's "proven" to be wrong. Just that science can't say anything about it yet. With more knowledge and more time we learn that our previous understanding was wrong, and that we can test for new things we couldn't even imagine before (and some that we could). > Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up. You're right, it's not. Which is why I have been able to back it up, by pointing out that many very smart people (scientists among them) have tried to think of a way to test this and failed. My assertion stands with the caveat all science has: given what we know now. Science is wrong all the time - I don't mind being wrong about this - but for the time being it appears true. And that is what is useful.