3 ms·
> Here's a hint, if you want to refute an idea, refute the actual idea, Science doesn't work that way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en
by jstx1 5y ago
> Here's a hint, if you want to refute an idea, refute the actual idea,
Science doesn't work that way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- tpoacher 5y agoDefinitions don't fall under falsifiability though. If I define "zorg" as colour #ff45b3, arguing "this is not the case because it can't be disproven" is rather silly. Similarly if I say AI is "slightly conscious" as per my definition of consciousness, and a critic says it's not given their definition, they're both right (but in a totally uninteresting manner).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- candiodari 5y agoWhich science is that, that requires falsifiability? English? A made up word that gets used certainly is a worthy object of study in that science. Similar points can be made about all humanist sciences. Natural sciences? Say, Biology. Fictional, and therefore unfalsifiable, biological systems, in the context of the search for extraterrestrial life or just generally (e.g. can we have living silicon-based life?) are objects of study. Physics? Only experimental physics requires falsifiability. That a large part of it is in fact searching for falsifiability illustrates, I hope, that falsifiability is not a requirement for 99% of Physics. String theory is famous for being unfalsifiable. Math? Unfalsifiable theories are seen as a good thing in math, and are certainly objects of study. That we don't have a good unfalsifiable set theory for over a century is one of the great problems in math. You might say I'm a utilitarian. But so is everyone else, despite a few people being confused. Of course, that's exactly what a utilitarian would say.