5 ms·
> It's not useful to speculate about things that are unfalsifiable. I disagree. While such speculation obviously won't produce immediately useful data, where w
by dumpsterdiver 6y ago
> It's not useful to speculate about things that are unfalsifiable.
I disagree. While such speculation obviously won't produce immediately useful data, where would we be today if noone had ever speculated about something which at the time could not be falsified? Case in point: the initial speculation on the existence of germs, which at the time was unfalsifiable.
(Edit: adding refs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
From the arcticle: "By the early nineteenth century, smallpox vaccination was commonplace in Europe, though doctors were unaware of how it worked or how to extend the principle to other diseases."
So doctors were saving lives even though they had no idea exactly how or why it worked. They could neither prove nor disprove why it seemed to work, it simply did. The fact that it was unfalsifiable had nothing to do with the truth of the matter - it still saved lives.
- dTal 6y agoI think there's a difference between untestable in practice, right now, and unfalsifiable even in theory. The latter case can never hold any practical value.
- imcoconut 6y agoI think the point dumpsterdiver is making is that determining what is falsifiable or not is context/time dependent. As our understanding of reality changes over time so does our definition of what can be falsifiable.
- garbagetime 6y agoWhat's an example of something that's unfalsifiable in theory?
- pantulis 6y agoThe existence of God.
- garbagetime 6y agoFalsifiable by the observance that there is no God. If we get a view of the supernatural it might be clear that there is no God.
- dspillett 6y agoWill be disproven by the existence of bablefish. Already has been in less backwards parts of the galaxy than ours.
- pantulis 6y agoSorry didn’t understand the bablefish reference, why does that disprove the existence of god? (I could define myself as an atheist anyway so this is really a non issue for me)
- staticman2 6y agoIt's a reference to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy novels.
- dspillett 6y agoWell, the original radio series upon which the first two books were very closely based, to be pedantic!
- dspillett 6y agoIt is from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4#t=2m07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4#t=2m07 for the TV version's rendition of this bit. If you've not yet experienced H2G2 I suggest tracking down the original radio version before the books, TV, or more modern film - it is widely available to buy in various formats. It is justly recognized as a classic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- newsbinator 6y agohttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage > "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" > "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. > "Where's the dragon?" you ask. > "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." > You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. > "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." > Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. > "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." > You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. > "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." > And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. > Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? > If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? > Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. > Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.
- garbagetime 6y agoWell, if the dragon exists it must have the characteristics of a dragon. Let's say it must be an animal with four legs and a tail. Currently it's unknown whether all animals are q-conscious[1]. Let's say it is discovered that all animals are q-conscious. Therefore the invisible dragon is q-conscious. Currently we don't really understand qualia, but one mainstream theory is that qualia are a different kind of thing to anything else we know about (i.e. are non-physical). Let's say this theory is true, and, further, that a method for detecting this different kind of thing is detected. That the dragon is invisible, floats, is heatless, is incorporeal, doesn't matter. The theory that there is a dragon in the garage is falsifiable by the observation that a scan for qualia results negative. You could say "ah, but this dragon is the dragon of any-test-you-can-come-up-with-doesn't-work, therefore you can't come up with any test which would work". But that would be begging the question. [1]That is, all animals have qualia.