3 ms·

>I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible t

• zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of tolerance. No, it is unfalsifiable because there is no way to prove it wrong even if it is wrong, that is the definition of unfalsifiability, and has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance. > There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. We should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system. I agree with all of that. But none of that gets you to "and therefore, this is false". The position that it is false is equally unsupported by evidence, and hence that no rational person should believe it does apply to that claim as well. > I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad ideas to persist. Except you don't know it to be wrong, and making that unsubstantiated claim unnecessarily puts you in a weaker position, because a believer will in many cases notice that your position is just as unsubstantiated as theirs and say things like "but your position also requires faith!", which is indeed correct, and thus allows them to defend their position against your argument. The idea of reincarnation is not "merely unfalsifiable", it is unfalsifiable. It is irrational to believe unfalsifiable claims. When you try to argue that their position is wrong, you are taking on a burden of proof that you simply aren't responsible for and that you also cannot meet. You are essentially shifting the topic in their favour: The question is whether they know that reincarnation is real, and instead of showing that they don't know that, you shift the discussion to whether you know that reincarnation is not real. Whether you know that reincarnation is not real is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. They don't know what they are claiming to know, and that is why their position is irrational and not worth consideration. If anything, the idea that you have to disprove all unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable bullshit before it should be considered irrational nonsense is what allows those ideas to persist, because it erects a barrier that is impossible to overcome. Showing that a claim is unsubstantiated and/or unfalsifiable should be enough to undermine the credibilitiy of any such claim. > And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic denial of truth. And you know why? Because one requirement for a belief to be considered scientific is that is has to be falsifiable. Being unfalsifiable disqualifies any claim from being considered scientific.