Agreed. The little man inside (intuition) isn't reliable. Seinfeld covered this. Kramer advises George, "You’ve got to listen to the little man." George disagrees (4 second video)
My little man's an idiot.
Seinfeld (1989) - S04E13 The Pick clip with quote My little man's an idiot. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
getyarn.io
Falsifiability isn't a method. It's a quality that a claim might or might not possess, and it applies to all questions of truth, including questions about gods and souls. Unfalsifiable claims aren't worth considering. They refer to irrelevant hypothetical objects and processes, irrelevant because they cannot affect our experience or reality.
We imagine a world outside of consciousness (objective reality, noumenal reality, ding an sich) which modifies our conscious content (subjective reality, phenomenal reality), and we can imagine that it also contains items that do not do that - that don't impact the theater of consciousness directly or even indirectly. This is what it means to be insensible and untestable - the inability to modify conscious content and produce an apprehension that demonstrates that a claim is false. You can safely stop thinking about such things for obvious reasons.
Think of Plato's cave (the theater of consciousness). We can imagine objects outside of the cave casting shadows. The object moves and so does the shadow. We can imagine somebody just outside the cave entrance who does not cast shadows into the cave where he stands, but he's the one moving the object casting shadows, and so affects the show on the cave wall indirectly. Now imagine somebody a mile away, who cannot modify the shadow show. The claim he exists is unfalsifiable and irrelevant.
The faithful want it both ways. They want to tell us about undetectable gods in undetectable spaces, and to not bother looking for them with nervous systems, even those aided by machines, because all of that only applies to science, and has no power in this other domain. Yet they claim to have somehow sensed these things anyway. You've been talking about looking for and finding a soul using your material nervous system to detect it. And I bet you'd like to call the claim of the soul's existence unfalsifiable but still valid. That's wanting to have it both ways - detectible for you, but not to scientists.
The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's settled science. There is no debate about whether its central tenets are correct. They are. There's dissent among creationists, but that's irrelevant. The scientists aren't listening. Why would they? But don't feel offended. It's not because the dissenters are creationists or because they disagree. It's because they aren't a part of the community of experts on the topic - the only people with a voice in the discussion. The scientists also don't care about lay people (including those posting here) who happen to agree with them.
Evolution occurs. It's a proven fact. And we know how and why it occurs beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't necessary that you know that or agree with it, nor is it possible for you to learn it if you resist learning. Learning is a cooperative effort between a teacher and student, and cannot occur without the student's cooperation. A person will not learn what he has a stake in not understanding. Putting yourself in that position and then declaring that you don't see the evidence is not a counterargument.
The evidence confirms the theory. There is no other way to interpret it unless there exists a deceptive superhuman intelligence that has been to earth to deceive man by planting all of the evidence that presently supports the theory. Eventually, the only two ways to interpret it are that things are as the evidence suggests or there's been fraud, as with the police planting evidence that, if not planted, would confirm guilt. That's where we are with evolution now. It happened or there's been fraud.
The first life in the universe arose through naturalistic processes requiring no intelligent oversight, and new life is created continually with nobody assembling cells, tissues, or organs.
You lie to yourself thinking that you can discover demonstrably correct ideas about the world through any other path than empiricism. You've never done it. Nor have I. Nobody has.
Eliminating faith, superstition, and received "wisdom" led to the stellar success of science. The flaw is inventing unfalsifiable stories that add nothing to knowledge and calling it truth.
What you call the scientism crowd are the skeptics, empiricists, and critical thinkers of the world, which includes what you call real scientists.
That is about as incorrect as a statement can be.
Empiricism is the only "fountain" that generates correct ideas. Other "magisteria" are sterile. Other "ways of knowing" produce nothing of value. Faith is not a path to knowledge.
That's a falsifiable statement. If it's wrong, it can be shown to be wrong. It can be falsified by presenting a correct idea about the world developed nonempirically. If the claim is correct, it cannot. Good luck. Take all the time you need.
Last edited:
