4 ms·
Yuk, why is everyone suggesting say-so theories without any suggestions for testing them? Truth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable. Instead, how about: In hin
by andreyf 17y ago
Yuk, why is everyone suggesting say-so theories without any suggestions for testing them? Truth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable. Instead, how about:
In hindsight, length of time is perceived as change in world view. The more your mental state has changed in a given period of time, the longer it seems. The reason the decade from 5 to 15 seem so much longer than 55 to 65 is because of the drastic changes in your world view that occur during childhood. It's the same reason not a lot of 5 year olds are friends with 15 year olds, yet I imagine most 55 year olds can be good friends with most 65 year olds.
This hypothesis would predict several micro and macro phenomena which are testable:
For the micro scale, two groups of subjects are placed into an environment with no way of tracking time (no windows, no clocks) for a month. The control group is provided with books/TV shows/news programmes of their choice, asked to pick ones that they've read/seen and enjoy. The test group is asked to pick books/programmes they think they'll enjoy, but have never read or seen. After about a week, notable events are planned - maybe the light bulb burns out, or the sheets are changed to ones which are bright red, or maybe the food in the cafeteria changes. At the end of the month, the person is asked to estimate the amount of time that passed between certain events. If the hypothesis is correct, the control group should perceive less time having passed between the events compared to the test group.
For the macro scale, my theory would predict people with monotonous, repetitive, jobs to experience the effects of "time passes faster with aging" more than those which expose them to new phenomena. So a Java-only career engineer will experience the effect more than someone who spends time learning new languages.
- eds 17y agoTruth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable. Quite a claim. Is it falsifiable?
- rms 17y agoSounds damn close to undecidable.
- dmm 17y ago>> Truth isn't truth if it isn't falsifiable A truth that isn't falsifiable isn't useful.
- DougWebb 17y agoI disagree. If you know that something is true, but can't really prove that it is true, you can still use the assumed truth to guide you. For example, I believe that Barak Obama is an honorable man. I can't prove it, but I believe it strongly enough to use that 'truth' to guide my voting decision. I'm playing with the definition of 'useful' here, using a much less rigorous meaning than you probably intended. But even scientific frameworks start with axioms that are unprovable but accepted as true. Those are useful truths which the rest of the framework is built upon.
- dmm 17y agoHonor is falsifiable, to the degree is can be defined. An honorable person acts differently that a dishonorable one. Just because I say something is falsifiable doesn't mean I'm asserting I can prove it. It just means that it is meaningful to prove it. For example, I cannot prove that everyone in china is right handed, but that is certainly a falsifiable idea. One could go to china and ask each person: impossible, but meaningful. An example of an idea that is not falsifiable is that my garage is inhabited by undetectable dragons. What use is this idea? What use is it to speak of things which cannot in any way be detected?
- sofal 17y agoThe repercussions of the unfalsifiable idea can be useful and falsifiable to a degree. They aren't always negative, either. For example, "I feel safer and sleep better at night because I believe my garage is inhabited by undetectable dragons."
- warwick 17y agoI disagree. In the absence of axioms logical reasoning amounts to recursion without a base case.
- 17y ago