Falsifiability and God

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Ponder This @night912 @Hubert Farnsworth @epronovost @Evangelicalhumanist

Now I will construct an “you” to debate based on some characteristics and not state whether I assume those to apply to you, the reader.

You: I only accept knowledge as valid per the principle of falsifiability.
Me: I don’t.
You: You are wrong.
Me: I know. You have with evidence as per the principle of falsifiability established that I am wrong. Not in the moral sense, but as a fact using science. It is a fact that I am wrong. So, let us test that using common sense.
You: What do you mean?
Me: Is it correct, that if you make a claim about something in the universe, you only do so with evidence?
You: Yes!!!
Me: So, the claim, that I am wrong, is with evidence and thus a fact?
You: What are you trying to get at?
Me: Then it is natural and a part of how the universe works, that I am wrong, so what is the problem? What I have done, is not unnatural or supernatural. It is natural as a part of the universe, so what is the problem? You have established as a fact, that I don’t accept knowledge as valid only per the principle of falsifiability and you have established that I am wrong. Yes???
You: You are not making sense, what is it you are trying to get at?!!
Me: What is the problem with me being wrong because what I have done it is natural???


Hi!

Now here is a dirty little secret about epistemology or knowledge as used above. It is normative, that when I use the word “knowledge” I ought to follow some rule for knowledge. The principle of falsifiability is a rule. And what I have done is to test that rule and see if that is the only rule that the “you” used? And it is not! The hidden rule is that everything in the universe can be answered in the positive using observation and all other behavior is wrong.

Let me spell it out. Everything as all that takes place in the universe can be tested with observation and produce positive answers. The problem is that it can’t and that the negative result is not accepted as a valid limit, because only positive results are accepted:
I.e. everything can be positively explained using science.


That is the game, so if false is to be meaningful and useful, then a false result should be accepted. That is the idea behind falsifiability. You and I mean you, you must accept that there can be a limit, i.e. a false result, when you test something, otherwise you are not doing science.
That is what makes me a skeptic. If I find, when testing something. a false result, I accept that. So, when I test the test in science, I get a false result. I can’t test everything using science, because sometimes I get the false result back in that, I can’t use science on everything and only get a positive result.

So here it is. Most humans doing this as e.g. here on this forum: Debating the correct answer to what the universe is with knowledge will not accept that this is not possible for humans even in principle.
Now I must tackle in principle and that is simple. In principle means that it can be done without a contradiction.
I will then with science and philosophy in combination reduce the universe down to the following cause and effect and test that. The rest of the universe is the cause of me, and I am the effect. If I then test if I am the cause of the rest of the universe I get a negative result. I can’t cause the universe to do as I want because I can’t think it differently. E.g. I can’t close my eyes and think away the monitor in front of me.

But there is more. Empiricism states that all I know is based on my experiences, so it follows that I can’t know something not based on my experiences, because that is a contradiction. I.e. I know based on and not based on my experiences.
If I then combine the 2, cause and effect and knowledge based on experiences, I can then test if I can know the cause as the cause and not just the effect. I.e. can I know the rest of universe as being in itself and independent of me as for objective here: having reality independent of the mind. But this is not possible even in principle if you want to keep the law of non-contradiction.
How? Because then you are the cause and not the effect. To know the cause itself, you must be the cause itself and not the effect, but you are the effect as your experiences and not the cause of your experiences.

So back to God and how that relates to faith. My God is me and the rest of the universe for the following belief. There are no other Gods, this universe is not a Boltzmann Brain universe and what not. I act everyday with complete trust and confidence in that and that is faith. Further that I believe that independent of me the rest of the universe is as it appears to me, is without evidence, truth, proof, reason, logic, objectivity and what not.

So back to falsifiability in the absurd sense. I know in the everyday sense how that works. But you, but the “you”:
You: That is so absurd, senseless, nonsense, meaningless…
Me: I know. You are right and I am wrong, but apparently, we are both here, so what comes next?

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[epronovost]

Let me spell it out. Everything as all that takes place in the universe can be tested with observation and produce positive answers. The problem is that it can’t and that the negative result is not accepted as a valid limit, because only positive results are accepted:
I.e. everything can be positively explained using science.So, when I test the test in science, I get a false result. I can’t test everything using science, because sometimes I get the false result back in that, I can’t use science on everything and only get a positive result.

Indeed, logical positivism has long been demonstrated to be self-refuting and circular, but the greatest irony is that the thrust of its main argument has not and continues to hold increasingly solidlly. That's why logical positivism being nearly completely abandonned as an epystemology has spawned many inheritor and related branches in philosophy and other domains.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed, logical positivism has long been demonstrated to be self-refuting and circular, but the greatest irony is that the thrust of its main argument has not and continues to hold increasingly solidlly. That's why logical positivism being nearly completely abandonned as an epystemology has spawned many inheritor and related branches in philosophy and other domains.

Yeah. Now I will roll correspondence, coherence, pragmatism, deflationary theories of truth and phenomenological use of bracketing "the world" and state this. As long as we all play the game of combing all of these it doesn't matter what "the world" is, because the game is "the world". We only run into trouble the moment someone says: "My model of "the world" is the world and not a model that apparently works". It connects to the assumption that the world is natural in methodological naturalism and only breaks down the moment you turn into a positive metaphysical/philosophical claim of naturalism. That has nothing to do with metaphysical/philosophical naturalism per se, the same happens with any other positive metaphysical claim.

In other words, as long as someone doesn't mix science as the objective, philosophy as the inter-subjective checking of our thinking and religion as the subjective meaning of the universe, life and everything, we can find common ground. But if someone goes from "the world" to the world and claims knowledge about that, that someone is doing something subjective for which I answer: You are right and I am wrong. What is next?

 

[night912]

Apparently, the only one here who has a problem with you being wrong is you, hence this thread.

Sorry that feel hurt when I or someone else point out your errors regarding philosophy. It's apparent that it's something you hold in high regards, thinking you are knowledgeable in it. But the truth is, you're not the only one. So whenever I object and/or point out your errors, I do understand what you are trying to say but disagree with you. There's no need to reference things are taught in an "intro to philosophy" class, even if it's something that you've just learned and excited about. And there's no need to pretend that you are not assuming, this whole thread shows that you are assuming. In past conversations, you would give a comments about if going into philosophy and that you won't be so nice in such discussions, well, sorry to break it for you, but the conversation was already engaged in philosophy. You just don't realize it because the discussion isn't broken down into topics and bullet points like in class.

Then where do we go from here? How about having debates/discussions relating to this forum section. But if you are not too sensitive about it, I'll go ahead put you on ignore. Hopefully you learn to accept debates/discussions, it being philosophy or not, as being something that helps you gain more knowledge and understanding and not be too upset when others disagree with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apparently, the only one here who has a problem with you being wrong is you, hence this thread.

Sorry that feel hurt when I or someone else point out your errors regarding philosophy. It's apparent that it's something you hold in high regards, thinking you are knowledgeable in it. But the truth is, you're not the only one. So whenever I object and/or point out your errors, I do understand what you are trying to say but disagree with you. There's no need to reference things are taught in an "intro to philosophy" class, even if it's something that you've just learned and excited about. And there's no need to pretend that you are not assuming, this whole thread shows that you are assuming. In past conversations, you would give a comments about if going into philosophy and that you won't be so nice in such discussions, well, sorry to break it for you, but the conversation was already engaged in philosophy. You just don't realize it because the discussion isn't broken down into topics and bullet points like in class.

Then where do we go from here? How about having debates/discussions relating to this forum section. But if you are not too sensitive about it, I'll go ahead put you on ignore. Hopefully you learn to accept debates/discussions, it being philosophy or not, as being something that helps you gain more knowledge and understanding and not be too upset when others disagree with you.

Fair enough. Just put me on ignore, then I won't exist anymore, right?

Now you could do something and realize that in practice human knowledge is just limited as human mobility. It is that simple.
As for being "wrong", nobody is wrong, just because somebody says so. "Wrong" in this version is wrong.

Now of course philosophy is interconnected over the different main topics and it always end up in practice being about "what we ought to do". Well, I am social warrior, so I don't do as the neurotypicals and normies, because I am 55 years old now and I can't be bothered any more to try to fake that I have to be normal.
So I have used over 20 years now and I have figured out, that for how I understand reality, I am wrong and I am proud of that, because I am still here and have learned to do that.

So we are back to being wrong. You can disagree all you like and I accept that. And I accept that you don't understand me. But I won't humor you and try to match your world view. Sorry! So just put me on ignore.
If you in end can't accept cognitive relativism and that there is no Truth, Evidence, Reason, Logic, Proof, Objectivity and what not for Reality, I will still just do that and be cognitive relative and you can just put me on ignore.

Mikkel

 

[King Phenomenon]

@Ponder This @night912 @Hubert Farnsworth @epronovost @Evangelicalhumanist

Now I will construct an “you” to debate based on some characteristics and not state whether I assume those to apply to you, the reader.

You: I only accept knowledge as valid per the principle of falsifiability.
Me: I don’t.
You: You are wrong.
Me: I know. You have with evidence as per the principle of falsifiability established that I am wrong. Not in the moral sense, but as a fact using science. It is a fact that I am wrong. So, let us test that using common sense.
You: What do you mean?
Me: Is it correct, that if you make a claim about something in the universe, you only do so with evidence?
You: Yes!!!
Me: So, the claim, that I am wrong, is with evidence and thus a fact?
You: What are you trying to get at?
Me: Then it is natural and a part of how the universe works, that I am wrong, so what is the problem? What I have done, is not unnatural or supernatural. It is natural as a part of the universe, so what is the problem? You have established as a fact, that I don’t accept knowledge as valid only per the principle of falsifiability and you have established that I am wrong. Yes???
You: You are not making sense, what is it you are trying to get at?!!
Me: What is the problem with me being wrong because what I have done it is natural???


Hi!

Now here is a dirty little secret about epistemology or knowledge as used above. It is normative, that when I use the word “knowledge” I ought to follow some rule for knowledge. The principle of falsifiability is a rule. And what I have done is to test that rule and see if that is the only rule that the “you” used? And it is not! The hidden rule is that everything in the universe can be answered in the positive using observation and all other behavior is wrong.

Let me spell it out. Everything as all that takes place in the universe can be tested with observation and produce positive answers. The problem is that it can’t and that the negative result is not accepted as a valid limit, because only positive results are accepted:
I.e. everything can be positively explained using science.


That is the game, so if false is to be meaningful and useful, then a false result should be accepted. That is the idea behind falsifiability. You and I mean you, you must accept that there can be a limit, i.e. a false result, when you test something, otherwise you are not doing science.
That is what makes me a skeptic. If I find, when testing something. a false result, I accept that. So, when I test the test in science, I get a false result. I can’t test everything using science, because sometimes I get the false result back in that, I can’t use science on everything and only get a positive result.

So here it is. Most humans doing this as e.g. here on this forum: Debating the correct answer to what the universe is with knowledge will not accept that this is not possible for humans even in principle.
Now I must tackle in principle and that is simple. In principle means that it can be done without a contradiction.
I will then with science and philosophy in combination reduce the universe down to the following cause and effect and test that. The rest of the universe is the cause of me, and I am the effect. If I then test if I am the cause of the rest of the universe I get a negative result. I can’t cause the universe to do as I want because I can’t think it differently. E.g. I can’t close my eyes and think away the monitor in front of me.

But there is more. Empiricism states that all I know is based on my experiences, so it follows that I can’t know something not based on my experiences, because that is a contradiction. I.e. I know based on and not based on my experiences.
If I then combine the 2, cause and effect and knowledge based on experiences, I can then test if I can know the cause as the cause and not just the effect. I.e. can I know the rest of universe as being in itself and independent of me as for objective here: having reality independent of the mind. But this is not possible even in principle if you want to keep the law of non-contradiction.
How? Because then you are the cause and not the effect. To know the cause itself, you must be the cause itself and not the effect, but you are the effect as your experiences and not the cause of your experiences.

So back to God and how that relates to faith. My God is me and the rest of the universe for the following belief. There are no other Gods, this universe is not a Boltzmann Brain universe and what not. I act everyday with complete trust and confidence in that and that is faith. Further that I believe that independent of me the rest of the universe is as it appears to me, is without evidence, truth, proof, reason, logic, objectivity and what not.

So back to falsifiability in the absurd sense. I know in the everyday sense how that works. But you, but the “you”:
You: That is so absurd, senseless, nonsense, meaningless…
Me: I know. You are right and I am wrong, but apparently, we are both here, so what comes next?

Regards and love
Mikkel

There's nothing wrong with believing or even knowing something without proof. I don't think it's that big of a deal really. Well for me anyway. It may lead some to do bad things but even if nobody believed anything people would still do bad things I think.

 

[epronovost]

You are right and I am wrong. What is next?

You can of course claim that new and forever, but that doesn't mean your model has any value. This is a statement of value, but holding on to a model with no use is profoundly cretinous. Let's not pretend that since all philosophical schools are models and that pefect and total knowledge is impossible that all models are equals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can of course claim that new and forever, but that doesn't mean your model has any value. This is a statement of value, but holding on to a model with no use is profoundly cretinous. Let's not pretend that since all philosophical schools are models and that perfect and total knowledge is impossible that all models are equals.

What we are playing, is a game of the absurd. Now off course the absurd is a value, but it is a negative value at the face of it.
So your meta-model of models in effect says, that all models are equal as models, but different for the results they produce and thus based on your individual model, my model is useless. I accept that. I accept your result as your result and that it is true for you. As a conditional truth for a specific context your result is true, but only conditionally and in a limited context; i.e. it is true for you.

So let us go deeper: It is objective as without personal evaluation that all models produce values, but that they produce different value. I agree with you on that. But the actual evaluation of the result of 2 different models requires itself a model and that model produces a result, model X is meaningful and model Y is cretinous. I accept that. That is how it works. And I accept it is true for you. And then I test your result against my result using reductio ad absurdum. And I arrive at an absurd result using your model as for what you take for granted as your words stand. Because your model is true for you and absurd for me and in reverse the same; my model is absurd for you and true for me.
And then I try to make a model that can explain that result. But I do that in an absurd sense, because I ask the following question with a "hidden context".
Premise 1: Your model is true (accepted as sound).
Premise 2: My model is cretinous (accepted as sound).
Therefore: ?

So my question to you is what follows from that? Where do we go from there, if we want to find common ground?
Well, as far as I can tell your model doesn't allow for common ground, because you don't include me in the common ground. It appears to me that you exclude from the common ground, yet I am still here, because you keep answering me.
So what is next?

Mikkel

 

[epronovost]

Premise 1: Your model is true (accepted as sound).
Premise 2: My model is cretinous (accepted as sound).
Therefore: ?

So my question to you is what follows from that? Where do we go from there, if we want to find common ground?
Well, as far as I can tell your model doesn't allow for common ground, because you don't include me in the common ground. It appears to me that you exclude from the common ground, yet I am still here, because you keep answering me.
So what is next?

Mikkel

You change your model for more a useful one thus becomming capable of a greater understanding of the world, while not being total and perfect of course, or you don't and the rest of the world drags you around for the ride.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You change your model for more a useful one thus becomming capable of a greater understanding of the world, while not being total and perfect of course, or you don't and the rest of the world drags you around for the ride.

Useful to whom and in what sense?

 

[epronovost]

Useful to whom and in what sense?

Useful in the sense that it has a use. You can always consult a philosophical dictionnary for the term useful in that context, but broadly speaking the usefulness of a model is it's capacity to be used by other fields of inquiry to produce results and push the boundaries of human knowledge.

 

[Ponder This]

I only accept knowledge as valid per the principle of falsifiability.

Nope.

It is normative, that when I use the word “knowledge” I ought to follow some rule for knowledge

Not at all.

There is what-things-are and there is how-things-are and they are not the same.

The Principle of Falsifiability applies to a Method, not a definition. And a rule for knowledge is an expression of how you know something as opposed to what it means to know.

That said, generally speaking, we know things by awareness or familiarity. And that which people know constitutes knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope.



Not at all.

There is what-things-are and there is how-things-are and they are not the same.

The Principle of Falsifiability applies to a Method, not a definition. And a rule for knowledge is an expression of how you know something as opposed to what it means to know.

That said, generally speaking, we know things by awareness or familiarity. And that which people know constitutes knowledge.

Okay, but all we know is not about things in the material or concrete sense. You can't reify everything to concrete or only one version of real.
Or if you like not all experience can be reduced to external sensory experience or physical bodily experience. The Principle of Falsifiability doesn't apply to the mental and as a method it has a mental component.

 

[Hawkins]

You: I only accept knowledge as valid per the principle of falsifiability.

Apples and oranges.

Something must be repeatably available in order to be falsifiable. Most truth don't behave so. Only science which is about a repeatable phenomenon has this characteristic. History for example doesn't fall into the category.

What did you eat for lunch just yesterday?

Whatever you said is a piece of testimony which can hardly falsifiable, say after 1 month. General truth can hardly repeat itself in front of humans to make it falsifiable.

God, like history, is a result of testimonies gathered from those claimed to be the eyewitnesses. They are called the prophets for a reason. Humans lack the ability to tell a future. So the most convenient way for God with a transparent nature to identify Himself is to tell a future which comes to pass. A prophet is authenticated when God does the same but through the prophet's mouth.

 

[Tambourine]

Philosophically, there is a difference between a statement being falsifiable in principle, and it being falsifiable in practice.

@mikkel_the_dane
I'm not sure I see the point of this argument. Is there anything specific you are trying to get out of this discussion, or are you playing with definitions for the sake of it? I don't disapprove of either, I'm just looking for clarification of what you think this thread should be about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophically, there is a difference between a statement being falsifiable in principle, and it being falsifiable in practice.

@mikkel_the_dane
I'm not sure I see the point of this argument. Is there anything specific you are trying to get out of this discussion, or are you playing with definitions for the sake of it? I don't disapprove of either, I'm just looking for clarification of what you think this thread should be about.

Well, years ago I was involved in a debate about objective morality and the majority of us held the view that it is not there in practice. Now the proponent of objective morality argued that since we in principle couldn't refute objective morality, we should in practice accept it. We then pointed out that we in practice couldn't do objective morality, so in practice it had no value, because we couldn't actually do it in practice.

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Now read it. The first thing there is to notice is that it is a normative rule. It tells you what you ought to do when you claim science. But there is more.
Read this one: Importantly, fallibility doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it.

Now let us take an example from theoretical physics. The Big Bang and the singularity. In principle you can argue what we can test if there is a singularity, but what would that mean in practice? It would mean that you are outside the source of the universe, because otherwise you can't observe, and thus test it because you can't observe from within a singularity, because that amounts to a contradiction.
So sometimes even in principle has a limit, because the argument you make in favor of it being possible, is in practice impossible. I.e. you have to assume a different universe than the one we are apparently in.

That is one example of the limit of in principle. In principle I could image that I am God, but in practice I am not. In the same wain in principle we can imagine that fallibility can be applied on everything, but in practice it can't be done.

That was part one. Do you agree or disagree, that there is a conditional yet absolute limit to science in practice, because some of the examples of in principle testable in practice requires another universe.

Regards
Mikkel