2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.