Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Un-falsifiable means it can't be falsified, but falsifiable means it can be falsified.

That's not a definition of either word. It's a definition of "un," which we see is the equivalent of "not." And there is no indication of what falsifiable means. It's like writing that antidisestablishmentarianism means opposed to disestablishmentarianism. Not a very useful definition, like Kramer's definition of quone:

Also, I don't see what point you think @SkepticThinker confirmed, or how she confirmed it. Was it, "Missing Links everywhere, but oops, it was falsifiable"? Or was it that, "there's lists and lists of falsified stuff from the scientific community"? Or maybe, "if I provided you with said evidence, would you believe your eyes, or your heart, or your mind - if you even knew the nature of your mind, or your heart and eyes. You do not know, and the sciences do not know, but currently it's all guesswork; jab it, poke it, cut it."

The person claimed to want, "falsifiable evidence," which means: evidence that can be falsified.

I posted earlier that this phrase is a category error, like claiming that a law has been fulfilled*. Evidence can't be falsified. It can only be observed and interpreted. Only statements can be falsified, not objects or processes. Evidence can falsify a statement, but cannot itself be falsified. If the theory of evolution is ever falsified, what will be falsified is the narrative of the theory, not the evidence used to form the theory, nor the falsifying find, all of which is still truly evidence, now needing a narrative to account for. Thus falsifying evidence makes sense, but falsifiable evidence does not.

*[Laws can be enacted, obeyed, modified, flouted, etc., but they cannot be fulfilled (or smelled or painted, for example). Promises and dreams can be fulfilled, but not laws, just as evidence can be discovered, interpreted, etc., but not falsified. That's what's meant by category error. I'm sure you recognize where the claim that laws can and have been fulfilled comes from.]

If you make an unfalsifiable claim, then you are making a claim that cannot be demonstrated to be false/wrong. It's something of a useless claim that doesn't get us anywhere. If you make a falsifiable claim, you are making a claim that can be demonstrated to be false\wrong. These claims are actually useful ones that can get us somewhere.

I agree with this, but would quibble with the wording here and in "Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." Falsifiability as I understand means that if a statement is incorrect, then a certain kind of evidence can show that to be the case if it exists and can be found. It isn't necessary that that evidence ever be found for the statement to be called falsifiable, just that one can conceive of evidence that if found would disprove (falsify) the statement. Evolution is falsifiable, but will never be falsified, because it is correct, thus falsifiability doesn't mean that the statement can be falsified. The statement might be correct.

Thus, both metaphysical statements and correct statements cannot be falsified, but for different reasons, and the former are called unfalsifiable while the latter are falsifiable even though not false. You can see my objection to the wording above. Evolution is falsifiable, but there is no 'capacity for it to be proven wrong' if it is correct.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Its a question about how people look at things.

Many people insist that they trust science, but not anything requiring any belief, yet much of science requires a level of trust, belief faith etc.

Trust science to do what, though?
There aren't too many who see science as the answer to all things, in my experience.
And anyone suggesting they hold no beliefs is delusional or a straw man.

 

[Sheldon]

So how does one determine the truth of a given event.

Well I can only speak for myself of course, but I believe things if sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated they are valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not a definition of either word. It's a definition of "un," which we see is the equivalent of "not." And there is no indication of what falsifiable means. It's like writing that antidisestablishmentarianism means opposed to disestablishmentarianism. Not a very useful definition, like Kramer's definition of quone:

Also, I don't see what point you think @SkepticThinker confirmed, or how she confirmed it. Was it, "Missing Links everywhere, but oops, it was falsifiable"? Or was it that, "there's lists and lists of falsified stuff from the scientific community"? Or maybe, "if I provided you with said evidence, would you believe your eyes, or your heart, or your mind - if you even knew the nature of your mind, or your heart and eyes. You do not know, and the sciences do not know, but currently it's all guesswork; jab it, poke it, cut it."



I posted earlier that this phrase is a category error, like claiming that a law has been fulfilled*. Evidence can't be falsified. It can only be observed and interpreted. Only statements can be falsified, not objects or processes. Evidence can falsify a statement, but cannot itself be falsified. If the theory of evolution is ever falsified, what will be falsified is the narrative of the theory, not the evidence used to form the theory, nor the falsifying find, all of which is still truly evidence, now needing a narrative to account for. Thus falsifying evidence makes sense, but falsifiable evidence does not.

*[Laws can be enacted, obeyed, modified, flouted, etc., but they cannot be fulfilled (or smelled or painted, for example). Promises and dreams can be fulfilled, but not laws, just as evidence can be discovered, interpreted, etc., but not falsified. That's what's meant by category error. I'm sure you recognize where the claim that laws can and have been fulfilled comes from.]
If he keeps this up we may have to quone him.


I agree with this, but would quibble with the wording here and in "Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." Falsifiability as I understand means that if a statement is incorrect, then a certain kind of evidence can show that to be the case if it exists and can be found. It isn't necessary that that evidence ever be found for the statement to be called falsifiable, just that one can conceive of evidence that if found would disprove (falsify) the statement. Evolution is falsifiable, but will never be falsified, because it is correct, thus falsifiability doesn't mean that the statement can be falsified. The statement might be correct.

Thus, both metaphysical statements and correct statements cannot be falsified, but for different reasons, and the former are called unfalsifiable while the latter are falsifiable even though not false. You can see my objection to the wording above. Evolution is falsifiable, but there is no 'capacity for it to be proven wrong' if it is correct.

If he keeps this up we may have to quone him.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a tad simple of an example.

People love evidence fair enough so do I. I often hear people dismissing the evidence of others. Denying that its worth the time to conduct the experiment. Prove it first mentality. But nothing works that way.

We did not prove the Higgs is a thing and then build CERN.

Belief precedes the action. Action leads to the situation where the evidence can be seen.

Part of the method of science is to design ways to test an hypothesis, some scientists might be confident this hypothesis it valid, but until they can demonstrate this conclusively it is nothing more than an hypothesis. What's more all scientific ideas must be falsifiable, this means there must be at least one way to falsify the idea, if indeed it is false. The core belief in a deity is often an unfalsifiable concept, it couldn't be falsified even were it to be false. Though this is not true of all religious claims of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, but your electromagnetic does not work without power. Set conditions must be met in order for it to function. The same can be said of faith. Yet one is embraced and the other ridiculed. Why?

One is testable and falsifiable, and can be supported by objective evidence, and the other cannot. Faith is just strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not a definition of either word. It's a definition of "un," which we see is the equivalent of "not." And there is no indication of what falsifiable means. It's like writing that antidisestablishmentarianism means opposed to disestablishmentarianism. Not a very useful definition, like Kramer's definition of quone:

Also, I don't see what point you think @SkepticThinker confirmed, or how she confirmed it. Was it, "Missing Links everywhere, but oops, it was falsifiable"? Or was it that, "there's lists and lists of falsified stuff from the scientific community"? Or maybe, "if I provided you with said evidence, would you believe your eyes, or your heart, or your mind - if you even knew the nature of your mind, or your heart and eyes. You do not know, and the sciences do not know, but currently it's all guesswork; jab it, poke it, cut it."



I posted earlier that this phrase is a category error, like claiming that a law has been fulfilled*. Evidence can't be falsified. It can only be observed and interpreted. Only statements can be falsified, not objects or processes. Evidence can falsify a statement, but cannot itself be falsified. If the theory of evolution is ever falsified, what will be falsified is the narrative of the theory, not the evidence used to form the theory, nor the falsifying find, all of which is still truly evidence, now needing a narrative to account for. Thus falsifying evidence makes sense, but falsifiable evidence does not.

*[Laws can be enacted, obeyed, modified, flouted, etc., but they cannot be fulfilled (or smelled or painted, for example). Promises and dreams can be fulfilled, but not laws, just as evidence can be discovered, interpreted, etc., but not falsified. That's what's meant by category error. I'm sure you recognize where the claim that laws can and have been fulfilled comes from.]

Another excellent post! I love how you always include a great Seinfeld reference.

I agree with this, but would quibble with the wording here and in "Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." Falsifiability as I understand means that if a statement is incorrect, then a certain kind of evidence can show that to be the case if it exists and can be found. It isn't necessary that that evidence ever be found for the statement to be called falsifiable, just that one can conceive of evidence that if found would disprove (falsify) the statement. Evolution is falsifiable, but will never be falsified, because it is correct, thus falsifiability doesn't mean that the statement can be falsified. The statement might be correct.

Thus, both metaphysical statements and correct statements cannot be falsified, but for different reasons, and the former are called unfalsifiable while the latter are falsifiable even though not false. You can see my objection to the wording above. Evolution is falsifiable, but there is no 'capacity for it to be proven wrong' if it is correct.

Agreed. I was actually thinking this right after I posted it. Thank you!

 

[Sheldon]

"Truth does not demand belief." Actually it does. All action requires some level of belief. if I did not believe that drink water would help my thrust I would not take that action.

I don't think that is what he meant, but rather that something is true or not, independently of whether anyone believes it.

In short the differences between believers and non believers is not a broad as many pretend,

The difference is theistic belief clearly. Beyond that your comparison of trusting science, as somehow analogous to religious faith, seems disingenuous. I can believe the world is not flat, and I can believe red is a far better colour than blue, they are both beliefs, but they clearly differ in that one is also an objective fact, while the other solely a subjective opinion.

but many on the non believing side will not accept the reality that they need to believe in order to try to learn science and also religion.

No I don't, I am not obliged to believe any hypothesis science has not properly validated, anymore than I am obliged to believe in any deity, when no objective evidence can be demonstrated they exist. A scientist would be unlikely to dedicate time and energy to a project or hypothesis if they did not believe they had some chance of success, but this is not remotely the same.

 

[Sheldon]

Falsifiable means that if it is wrong it can be shown to be wrong. Unfalsifiable means that even if the concept is wrong there is no way to show that it is wrong. In other words it is irrational.

Invisible green fairies tied my shoes this morning. Prove me wrong.

What some scientists call "not even wrong", an unfalsifiable claim is meaningless, at least to science. Some philosophers seem to enjoy such ideas. Demonstrating that a hypothesis is wrong in science has some value, as it has advanced science's understanding of the natural world or physical universe. This is why science rewards those who test and falsify ideas as much as those who validate them.

No scientific fact, no matter how well established or how irrefutable it is is beyond critical scrutiny, they must always remain tentative in the light of new evidence, even if the likelihood is effectively nil.

 

[1213]

Out of curiosity: do you sincerely think that this is a good argument that ought to convince an atheist?

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

 

[Sheldon]

Un-falsifiable means it can't be falsified, but falsifiable means it can be falsified. The person claimed to want, "falsifiable evidence," which means: evidence that can be falsified. In other words, make up something - anything you like - and present it. I must remember though, this is 2022, lol.

Unfalsifiable means there is no way to falsify something even were it to be false. It does not just mean it can't be falsified, plenty of falsifiable ideas can't be falsified, because they're correct.

 

[ppp]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

I think that deep inside you know that is not true, and that your belief is more about you and your desires than the beliefs of anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

I think all people know deep inside them that God is a man made creation, some just want to make one up, like Christians, because they need an invisible friend. That is why I don't really need to convince theists to believe that God is made up.

 

[Qwin]

That's not a definition of either word. It's a definition of "un," which we see is the equivalent of "not." And there is no indication of what falsifiable means. It's like writing that antidisestablishmentarianism means opposed to disestablishmentarianism. Not a very useful definition, like Kramer's definition of quone:

Also, I don't see what point you think @SkepticThinker confirmed, or how she confirmed it. Was it, "Missing Links everywhere, but oops, it was falsifiable"? Or was it that, "there's lists and lists of falsified stuff from the scientific community"? Or maybe, "if I provided you with said evidence, would you believe your eyes, or your heart, or your mind - if you even knew the nature of your mind, or your heart and eyes. You do not know, and the sciences do not know, but currently it's all guesswork; jab it, poke it, cut it."

I posted earlier that this phrase is a category error, like claiming that a law has been fulfilled*. Evidence can't be falsified. It can only be observed and interpreted. Only statements can be falsified, not objects or processes. Evidence can falsify a statement, but cannot itself be falsified. If the theory of evolution is ever falsified, what will be falsified is the narrative of the theory, not the evidence used to form the theory, nor the falsifying find, all of which is still truly evidence, now needing a narrative to account for. Thus falsifying evidence makes sense, but falsifiable evidence does not.

*[Laws can be enacted, obeyed, modified, flouted, etc., but they cannot be fulfilled (or smelled or painted, for example). Promises and dreams can be fulfilled, but not laws, just as evidence can be discovered, interpreted, etc., but not falsified. That's what's meant by category error. I'm sure you recognize where the claim that laws can and have been fulfilled comes from.]

I agree with this, but would quibble with the wording here and in "Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong." Falsifiability as I understand means that if a statement is incorrect, then a certain kind of evidence can show that to be the case if it exists and can be found. It isn't necessary that that evidence ever be found for the statement to be called falsifiable, just that one can conceive of evidence that if found would disprove (falsify) the statement. Evolution is falsifiable, but will never be falsified, because it is correct, thus falsifiability doesn't mean that the statement can be falsified. The statement might be correct.

Thus, both metaphysical statements and correct statements cannot be falsified, but for different reasons, and the former are called unfalsifiable while the latter are falsifiable even though not false. You can see my objection to the wording above. Evolution is falsifiable, but there is no 'capacity for it to be proven wrong' if it is correct.

I agree, evidence is an object, and I also agree that latterly the interpretation of that evidence can be according to whatever rules a hypothesis has for said object. Objects, or evidence, can be falsified inasmuch: missing links have been constructed, which are objects, but they are falsified objects, or falsified evidence. Therefore evidence can be falsified, so in that sense, I also agree with you.

Falsified evidence firstly means: evidence that is false, and secondly that some manipulation has made it false. Next, as you stated, there can be an interpretation of that evidence, and which I've already mentioned above, and you have also mentioned in great detail, and with you I concur. Therefore, someone wanting to be presented with falsified evidence, wants to be presented with false evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Falsifiable means that if it is wrong it can be shown to be wrong.

I think that we're all on the same page, and I know that you understand what this word means, but for the sake of clarity and at the risk of seeming to be a bit of a pedant and a quibberdick (humor intentional), I would change "can be shown to be wrong" to something that indicates that all one need do to call something falsifiable is to imagine a finding that would falsify the statement. Suppose evolutionary theory is incorrect. I've commented on what would happen if the theory were falsified. We'd need to posit a deceptive intelligent designer to account for the old evidence in the light of the falsifying find, some superhuman force that tried to make us think evolution had transpired naturalistically, but perhaps made a mistake that was found revealing the deception. Now imagine that that same scenario is the case, but no mistake was made by the aliens to be discovered, so there is no falsification possible.

Yet the theory's narrative remains falsifiable even though it can never be shown to be wrong, but one can imagine a finding that would falsify it, like a dog naturally giving birth to a cat. It's enough that I can conceive of a falsifying find to call something falsifiable, not that if it is wrong that that will necessarily be demonstrable.

Another excellent post! I love how you always include a great Seinfeld reference.

Thanks. I'm obviously a fan, and suspect that you are as well. It's remarkable how citable the show is - how many scenes are relevant to discussion, and how many lines are quotable, if not quonable.

 

[Qwin]

Unfalsifiable means there is no way to falsify something even were it to be false. It does not just mean it can't be falsified, plenty of falsifiable ideas can't be falsified, because they're correct.

Yep, what you say is true. And...?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, evidence is an object, and I also agree that latterly the interpretation of that evidence can be according to whatever rules a hypothesis has for said object. Objects, or evidence, can be falsified inasmuch: missing links have been constructed, which are objects, but they are falsified objects, or falsified evidence. Therefore evidence can be falsified, so in that sense, I also agree with you.

Falsified evidence firstly means: evidence that is false, and secondly that some manipulation has made it false. Next, as you stated, there can be an interpretation of that evidence, and which I've already mentioned above, and you have also mentioned in great detail, and with you I concur. Therefore, someone wanting to be presented with falsified evidence, wants to be presented with false evidence.

I see that you are still stuck on "missing links". I can only think of one that was falsified. I can think of another that was never accepted. The vast majority of our hominid ancestors and relatives are still in existence, at least as legitimate transitional forms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to deny it like atheists, because they don't want it to be true. That is why I don't really need to convince atheists to believe God is real.

It seems like this is a long-winded way of saying "no" with a justification. Do I understand you correctly?

Edit: so just to confirm, your earlier post I quoted wasn't meant to be convincing... right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, what you say is true. And...?

Your use of "unfalsifiable" was incorrect. And unfalsifiable belief is an irrational one.

 

[Truth in love]

You have no way to demonstrate a distinction between the truth and falsity of your claim.

????