4 ms·

There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (tho

by tntn 8y ago

There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (those regarding spirituality, miracles, etc). That is an important and worthwhile distinction. Incidentally, a lot of the problem of the anti-vaccine movement is not the facts (though there is a lot of that, too) but rather risk analysis. It is extremely probable (pretty much certain) that some vaccines have been associated with harm to some people in the past (and some maybe still do today) but the risk of that is so much ridiculously lower than the risk of not getting the vaccine that it is irrelevant.

scarejunba 8y ago
The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.
- tntn 8y ago
  I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Oh. Right. We have no disagreement. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
  - lisper 8y ago
    But Thetans can be detected: they cause psychological problems, which is why people pay large sums of money to the CoS to exorcise them.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

by tntn 8y ago

scarejunba 8y ago

The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.

tntn 8y ago
I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Oh. Right. We have no disagreement. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
- lisper 8y ago
  But Thetans can be detected: they cause psychological problems, which is why people pay large sums of money to the CoS to exorcise them.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]