3 ms·

So if a true statement can never be falsified then according to you it can still be falsifiable? If your way of defining it is true then it's just a bad formal

So if a true statement can never be falsified then according to you it can still be falsifiable? If your way of defining it is true then it's just a bad formal definition of falsifiability because you can make a sentence that sounds nonsensical like the one I made above. It means falsify and falsifiability are two different words with different definitions. When you look at the words they appear to be the same word with just different suffixes. Let's examine the implications of your definition more carefully. If I falsify something. I either failed or succeeded at falsifying it. If there exists a thing that where all possible attempts at falsification will fail then it is still "falsifiable" because the attempt to falsify was possible?? If you are impossible to kill then you are still killable? If numbers cannot be divided by zero but it is still "divisible" by zero because I can make a fool hardy attempt at it? From this I will say that my colloquial use of the term is actually better than your claim about the formal definition of falsifiability. Better to use the word "observability". One cannot gather observable evidence to conduct an experiment. That's the key differentiator here.

jjk166 3y ago
No, falsifiability is referring to the nature of the test, not the end result. Falsifiability means you can conduct a test that, if it gave a negative result, would mean the claim has to be false. The claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is falsifiable; the claim the sun will rise eventually is not falsifiable. Both claims are true, both will be observed, but only for the first would a negative result contradict the claim.
- corethree 3y ago
  My point if you followed carefully is that "falsifiability" is inconsistent with the term "falsify" because "falsify" refers to the result of the test. Think carefully: a statement that is falsified means the result of the test is false. So falsify refers to the result but falsifiability does not? Reread my post, I don't think you read it fully. If falsifiability is defined as your claim then such a statement can be true: "The Pythagorean theorem cannot be falsified but it is falsifiable" Which sounds obviously nonsensical. This is inconsistent with how we use the -able suffix in other words: "The code cannot be extended but it is extendable" I'm not referring to any official definition here, just pointing out the language problem that arises if we assume what you say is true. But here is the official definition anyway: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/falsifiability https://www.dictionary.com/browse/falsifiability Which basically is pretty solid evidence for you being wrong. But at the same time I think you all are pulling some formalized definition from philosophy or something which probably has a different meaning defined for it. My argument is that the formalized definition is worse than the colloquial one in the English dictionary because the English definition is more logically consistent with the rest of the English language. It's debatable which definition is more appropriate for this context. But assuming not everyone is a philosophy major I would say the definition in the English dictionary is more relevant.
  - philipov 3y ago
    > So falsify refers to the result but falsifiability does not? falsifiability - the ability to be proven false. That's what it says in the dictionary.com link as well. It is not necessary for something to be false for the ability to prove it false to exist. That's "The chance of it happening was 100% because it actually happened" levels of word-twisting. I think it's a variety of begging the question, where you assume the outcome in your premises. If the coin flip lands on tails, the chance of it landing on heads was not 0%. EDIT: Try this - substitute 'testable' for 'falsifiable' and see if that helps ease the dissonance.
    - corethree 3y ago
      >falsifiability - the ability to be proven false. That's what it says in the dictionary.com link as well. No if something is true, it does not have the ability to be proven false. That's the obvious meaning at face value. Your definition is the one that's twisting things up here. A person with no legs does not have the ability to walk. The implication of your logic is that a person with no legs can walk. Just like how a true statement can be proven false. The statement also doesn't deal with probabilities. So your probabilistic analogy isn't relevant. When you say something can be falsified that is entirely different from saying that there's a probability something can be falsified. >EDIT: Try this - substitute 'testable' for 'falsifiable' and see if that helps ease the dissonance. Why? Of course it helps. Because you chose a word with a different definition. I already know what you mean. You can leave the word as is, I still know what you mean and it's still logically consistent with your point. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency with the linguistic aspect of your word choice that leaves it amenable for other people to interpret it differently. The original point is moot. We're talking about a linguistic problem here. Replacing the word is side stepping the original linguistic issue.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    Let's look at this a little differently. Did you win the lottery yesterday? I presume not. Did that mean the lottery yesterday was not winnable? No. Winnable means that you could have won, even if you didn't. Falsifiable doesn't mean proven false, it means able to be proven false, even if it isn't. True statements happen not to be false, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be shown to be false if they were. If I say "there are no dogs in my house" you can determine that this is a falsifiable claim despite not knowing whether the statement is true or false, because it doesn't depend on that. The pythagorean theorem is not an example of a falsifiable claim. It is a provable claim, the opposite of falsifiable. Though again, this has nothing to do with it being true or false. Bigfoot married Elvis is likewise a provable claim, a claim where evidence could be presented that would prove it true if it were true. The inverse, Bigfoot did not marry Elvis, is falsifiable, because evidence could be presented that would prove it false if it were false. There's nothing nonsensical about it. Lots of things are extendable even when they're not extended, foldable when not folded, recyclable when not recycled, and falsifiable when not falsified. The colloquial definition is the same as the formal, you're the only one using it your way.

jjk166 3y ago

No, falsifiability is referring to the nature of the test, not the end result. Falsifiability means you can conduct a test that, if it gave a negative result, would mean the claim has to be false. The claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is falsifiable; the claim the sun will rise eventually is not falsifiable. Both claims are true, both will be observed, but only for the first would a negative result contradict the claim.

corethree 3y ago
My point if you followed carefully is that "falsifiability" is inconsistent with the term "falsify" because "falsify" refers to the result of the test. Think carefully: a statement that is falsified means the result of the test is false. So falsify refers to the result but falsifiability does not? Reread my post, I don't think you read it fully. If falsifiability is defined as your claim then such a statement can be true: "The Pythagorean theorem cannot be falsified but it is falsifiable" Which sounds obviously nonsensical. This is inconsistent with how we use the -able suffix in other words: "The code cannot be extended but it is extendable" I'm not referring to any official definition here, just pointing out the language problem that arises if we assume what you say is true. But here is the official definition anyway: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/falsifiability https://www.dictionary.com/browse/falsifiability Which basically is pretty solid evidence for you being wrong. But at the same time I think you all are pulling some formalized definition from philosophy or something which probably has a different meaning defined for it. My argument is that the formalized definition is worse than the colloquial one in the English dictionary because the English definition is more logically consistent with the rest of the English language. It's debatable which definition is more appropriate for this context. But assuming not everyone is a philosophy major I would say the definition in the English dictionary is more relevant.
- philipov 3y ago
  > So falsify refers to the result but falsifiability does not? falsifiability - the ability to be proven false. That's what it says in the dictionary.com link as well. It is not necessary for something to be false for the ability to prove it false to exist. That's "The chance of it happening was 100% because it actually happened" levels of word-twisting. I think it's a variety of begging the question, where you assume the outcome in your premises. If the coin flip lands on tails, the chance of it landing on heads was not 0%. EDIT: Try this - substitute 'testable' for 'falsifiable' and see if that helps ease the dissonance.
  - corethree 3y ago
    >falsifiability - the ability to be proven false. That's what it says in the dictionary.com link as well. No if something is true, it does not have the ability to be proven false. That's the obvious meaning at face value. Your definition is the one that's twisting things up here. A person with no legs does not have the ability to walk. The implication of your logic is that a person with no legs can walk. Just like how a true statement can be proven false. The statement also doesn't deal with probabilities. So your probabilistic analogy isn't relevant. When you say something can be falsified that is entirely different from saying that there's a probability something can be falsified. >EDIT: Try this - substitute 'testable' for 'falsifiable' and see if that helps ease the dissonance. Why? Of course it helps. Because you chose a word with a different definition. I already know what you mean. You can leave the word as is, I still know what you mean and it's still logically consistent with your point. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency with the linguistic aspect of your word choice that leaves it amenable for other people to interpret it differently. The original point is moot. We're talking about a linguistic problem here. Replacing the word is side stepping the original linguistic issue.
- jjk166 3y ago
  Let's look at this a little differently. Did you win the lottery yesterday? I presume not. Did that mean the lottery yesterday was not winnable? No. Winnable means that you could have won, even if you didn't. Falsifiable doesn't mean proven false, it means able to be proven false, even if it isn't. True statements happen not to be false, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be shown to be false if they were. If I say "there are no dogs in my house" you can determine that this is a falsifiable claim despite not knowing whether the statement is true or false, because it doesn't depend on that. The pythagorean theorem is not an example of a falsifiable claim. It is a provable claim, the opposite of falsifiable. Though again, this has nothing to do with it being true or false. Bigfoot married Elvis is likewise a provable claim, a claim where evidence could be presented that would prove it true if it were true. The inverse, Bigfoot did not marry Elvis, is falsifiable, because evidence could be presented that would prove it false if it were false. There's nothing nonsensical about it. Lots of things are extendable even when they're not extended, foldable when not folded, recyclable when not recycled, and falsifiable when not falsified. The colloquial definition is the same as the formal, you're the only one using it your way.