Critique of falsification criteria of Popper

[questfortruth]

Humans are not non-animal.

The God-induced evolution has the following stages:
1. Nothing (absence of matter and space and time),
2. Non-living nature (stars, ice, air, dust,...)
3. Living nature (cats, microbes, dogs, trees, rose,....)
4. People.
5. God. Namely: God-like saints.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems that my problem is a lack of mental constructs.

Well, problem is a mental construct, since problem has no objective referent. So it is lack in some cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not necessarily. You forgot to ask what would be "better". But even if it is subjective that is not necessarily a flaw. I think that you merely wish that there was a valid competitor to the scientific method.

But that is subjective and not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that is subjective and not science.

I never said that it is science. Who is trying to misapply science now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, problem is a mental construct, since problem has no objective referent. So it is lack in some cases.

A vicious circle, eh.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said that it is science. Who is trying to misapply science now?

If better is not science, then how can you use science to show that science is the better method? Neither better nor worse have objective referents and can't be measured using science.
When I do some parts of my life, I am better off not using science, because it doesn't work there. In other aspects are I am better off using science.
That is it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A vicious circle, eh.

Do you know what vicious is? You get only one try!

 

[Subduction Zone]

If better is not science, then how can you use science to show that science is the better method? Neither better nor worse have objective referents and can't be measured using science.
When I do some parts of my life, I am better off not using science, because it doesn't work there. In other aspects are I am better off using science.
That is it.

No one is using science to determine which is the better method. I did not even imply that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know what vicious is? You get only one try!

Of course!
It's an opinion (specifically a value judgement).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No one is using science to determine which is the better method. I did not even imply that.

And for some parts of my life I can't use science, so science is not better for that. That you subjectively evaluate, what you can do subjectively and objectively, and subjectively decide, that science is better, is subjective.

Science is subjectively good at understanding parts of the world, but that is it. And it is not better, because better is subjective.
I wish science worked on everything, because that would be easier, but it doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course!
It's an opinion (specifically a value judgement).

And that is mental.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And for some parts of my life I can't use science, so science is not better for that. That you subjectively evaluate, what you can do subjectively and objectively, and subjectively decide, that science is better, is subjective.

Science is subjectively good at understanding parts of the world, but that is it. And it is not better, because better is subjective.
I wish science worked on everything, because that would be easier, but it doesn't.

Well of course if one misapplies science it is of no use. You appear to be guilty of what you are accusing others of doing. Science has its place. Oddly enough it is the detractors of science that try to over apply it.

And no, the comparison is not necessarily subjective. It is the basis for comparison that would be subjective, but once that was decided upon what works best could be determined objectively.

Your objections would leave us with nothing. A rather useless nihilistic approach to life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well of course if one misapplies science it is of no use. You appear to be guilty of what you are accusing others of doing. Science has its place. Oddly enough it is the detractors of science that try to over apply it.

And no, the comparison is not necessarily subjective. It is the basis for comparison that would be subjective, but once that was decided upon what works best could be determined objectively.

Your objections would leave us with nothing. A rather useless nihilistic approach to life.

Correct. So science is good at saving children and good at killing children depending on the subjective standard. Once we decide on which, that science can do both. It means, it is neutral. It is a neutral method.

 

[questfortruth]

Correct. So science is good at saving children and good at killing children depending on the subjective standard. Once we decide on which, that science can do both. It means, it is neutral. It is a neutral method.

I suggest the scientists in Hitler's countries to call "ptisers". Look: there is no single common word between God and satan. So, let Science be the Name of God, but Ptiser - name of satan.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that is mental.

I've been called that.

 

[Kooky]

Science itself can't be falsified.

It doesn't need to be, since the falsification principle only applies to inductive theories based on empirical observation to begin with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus, it is a positive circumstance. How such a positive fact would take away the scientific status? I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven, or General Relativity can not be disproven. Is it bad for them? God can not be disproven.

You seem to not understand what "falsifiable" means.

God is an unfalsifiable claim.
Relativity is not.

That doesn't mean that relativity has been falsified. It just means that it is falsifiable in principle. That it makes verifiable / testable predictions which can either confirm or falsify the idea.
God is not. It makes no verifiable or testable predictions. There is no test that can confirm or falsify the idea. Not even in principle.

Unfalsifiable claims are meritless and infinite in number.

I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism

Humans are apes.
Regardless of Darwinism / evolution.

Just like they are mammals.
Evolution can be disproven later today and humans would still be mammals. And apes.

By definition of the words "mammal" and "ape".

As in: it is impossible to come up with a definition of "ape" or "mammal" which includes all apes / mammals but excludes humans, without arbitrarily adding "but not humans".

Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.

So, there is no evolution from animal to non-animal.

This makes zero sense and exposes deep rooted ignorance on how evolution works.
If an animal would produce a non-animal, evolution would be falsified.

But there is the transition from non-living to life.

The God-induced evolution has the following stages:
1. Nothing (absence of matter and space and time),
2. Non-living nature (stars, ice, air, dust,...)
3. Living nature (cats, microbes, dogs, trees, rose,....)
4. People.
5. God. Namely: God-like saints.

Preaching.

ANOTHER TOPIC: Will there be money in Heaven?

I argue, that the world ruled by Love needs no money.

ANOTHER TOPICS

A. Sinning does not make one an Atheist?!
Sin is the door for any bad spirit, including the spirit of atheism.

B. The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation for any theist because knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God. The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name. Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

C. You might think: "So science is good at saving children and good at killing children depending on the subjective standard. Once we decide on which, that science can do both. It means, it is neutral. It is a neutral method."

Word salad and more ignorance.

I suggest the scientists in Hitler's countries to call "ptisers". Look: there is no single common word between God and satan. So, let Science be the Name of God, but Ptiser - name of satan.[/QUOTE]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't need to be, since the falsification principle only applies to inductive theories based on empirical observation to begin with.

That it doesn't need to be, is not science, since need is not an empirical observation.

 

[Kooky]

That it doesn't need to be, is not science, since need is not an empirical observation.

What do you mean by "science" in this context?
I would contend that it is not simply empirical observation.

 

[questfortruth]

If an animal would produce a non-animal, evolution would be falsified.

God-less evolution is falsified by this thread, but God-induced evolution is proven.

Humans are not non-animal.

Humans are not birds? Yes. Humans are not bears? Yes. The humans are not cats? Yes. Humans are apes? Yes. I see no logic here.

That's an assertion, not an explanation.

God explains all. Because knowledge is what God knows. Such definition the knowledge has.
In particular, that definition proves the existence of God.

falsification principle only applies to inductive theories

Who is telling that? You? Or Donald Trump? Or Richard Dawkins? I obey no god-less authority.
Science itself can't be falsified.

God is an unfalsifiable claim.
Relativity is not.

That doesn't mean that relativity has been falsified. It just means that it is falsifiable in principle.

Who has told you, that General Relativity can be falsified? It is not an obvious statement.
I mean, if GR is true, it is not possible to make it false. Even in principle.

Unfalsifiable claims are meritless and infinite in number.

The way to find true claims is the way of Church Fathers. That is why abortion is sin,