5 ms·

If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, t

If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.

airstrike 2y ago
the science of finding ways to observe it is still science. we couldn't observe many phenomena before we developed the science to do so.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  Sure, and once we can observe something we can science it. But not until then.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?
adrianN 2y ago
If you can’t observe it at all there is no reason to believe that it exists.
- mionhe 2y ago
  No scientific reason, no.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Where did you learn all these things, and how did you determine them to be necessarily true?
- mistermann 2y ago
  > there is no reason You have a method to prove nonexistence do you?
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
      - adrianN 2y ago
        „Is“ is a model that is indistinguishable from truth.
        mistermann 2y ago
        How could you possibly obtain accurate information about the distinguishing abilities of all Humans?
        adrianN 2y ago
        They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. No human can observe unobservable things by definition.
mseepgood 2y ago
Not being observable directly or indirectly is the definition of non-existence.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  The qualia of other people is something I cannot test, but we all presume exists.
  - spurgu 2y ago
    Ding ding ding.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Qualia as executed by the brain are observable in principle. Qualia that are not a brain process, well, what 'spugru said.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > the(!) definition Then what's this? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistent I found several others that don't match your the definition as well if you don't find this convincing. What in tarnation is going on here eh? It's almost like we're in some sort of a simulation.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
If you cannot observe it / falsify it in principle - not using currently economical approaches, but using any possible current or future tests - then it's not science. If you can prove it cannot possibly be observed or falsified, it's not science. It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist. Science claims totality. Anything that affects reality in any way, is in domain of science.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist. This depends on which meaning of "is" you are using, as well as "means". Did you know they are rendered local to the observer, but in a way that appears to be global?

If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.

airstrike 2y ago

the science of finding ways to observe it is still science. we couldn't observe many phenomena before we developed the science to do so.

eikenberry 2y ago
Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
eikenberry 2y ago
Sure, and once we can observe something we can science it. But not until then.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?

adrianN 2y ago

If you can’t observe it at all there is no reason to believe that it exists.

mionhe 2y ago
No scientific reason, no.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Where did you learn all these things, and how did you determine them to be necessarily true?
mistermann 2y ago
> there is no reason You have a method to prove nonexistence do you?
- adrianN 2y ago
  Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
    - adrianN 2y ago
      „Is“ is a model that is indistinguishable from truth.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        How could you possibly obtain accurate information about the distinguishing abilities of all Humans?
        adrianN 2y ago
        They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. No human can observe unobservable things by definition.

mseepgood 2y ago

Not being observable directly or indirectly is the definition of non-existence.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
The qualia of other people is something I cannot test, but we all presume exists.
- spurgu 2y ago
  Ding ding ding.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Qualia as executed by the brain are observable in principle. Qualia that are not a brain process, well, what 'spugru said.
mistermann 2y ago
> the(!) definition Then what's this? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistent I found several others that don't match your the definition as well if you don't find this convincing. What in tarnation is going on here eh? It's almost like we're in some sort of a simulation.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

If you cannot observe it / falsify it in principle - not using currently economical approaches, but using any possible current or future tests - then it's not science. If you can prove it cannot possibly be observed or falsified, it's not science. It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist. Science claims totality. Anything that affects reality in any way, is in domain of science.

mistermann 2y ago
> It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist. This depends on which meaning of "is" you are using, as well as "means". Did you know they are rendered local to the observer, but in a way that appears to be global?