It is for this and other reasons that much of modern science isn't so enamored with Popper's falsifiability, but prefer instead the philosophy of probablisitic induction--though Church critics seem to be behind the times.
Confirmation theory doesn't deny the importance of falsifiability. Most scientists and philosophers of science would still agree it is important. Not accepting Popper's naïve falsificationism is not the same as rejecting falsifiablity as a criterion of sound scientific theories. Thanks for explaining what's going on in philosophy of science, though.
I appreciate your clarifications. They were very helpful.
I think it might be helpful to the discussion were you to explain what, exactly, is the importance of falsifiability to science, and why it has, for the most part, been subordinated by Confirmation theory.
Tal Bachman wrote:It is a pity, but all this thread has shown is that I was right about Cog (and several others) all along. In terms of ever coming to grips with what Mormonism can and cannot be, Coggins is in the "write-off" file, at least for the foreseeable future.
Verdict: Coggins deserves Mormonism, and Mormonism deserves him.
Hey Tal, you really, really, REALLY ought to take a look at this utterly mind-blowing quote made by Coggins7. It's in his opening paragraph right after the quoted material:
No, not really. P*y L*y *le has not been spoken in the Temple for an age. There was a flat footed lie stated to the effect that B&L had gone through the Temple in, I believe, 1987, and "Chanted" (the words were spoken in unison, not "chanted") . Well, I went through in 1980, and no such words were present, nor were they when my parents went through in the forties.
Aha, what a bald faced lie. I said it dozens of times in the temple between "1975 and perhaps as late as 1988" The forties????????????????????????????
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
I think it's time for me to become a scientologist. No one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that Thetans don't exist.
But wait, no one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that there really wasn't a cloaked mother ship behind Hale Bopp.
What to do, what to do....
On a serious note, unfortunately, it's not just TBMs that don't understand that rendering a claim unfalsifiable is not a good thing, but may exmormons don't understand it either. I've referred to the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable on RFM, and each time got attacked like I was defending it!! Apparently this is a poorly understood concept overall.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Is he as embarrassed about the stupidity of the OP of this thread as he ought to be? Even were I TBM I would be embarrassed about it. I am embarrassed for him.
beastie wrote:I think it's time for me to become a scientologist. No one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that Thetans don't exist.
But wait, no one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that there really wasn't a cloaked mother ship behind Hale Bopp.
What to do, what to do....
On a serious note, unfortunately, it's not just TBMs that don't understand that rendering a claim unfalsifiable is not a good thing, but may exmormons don't understand it either. I've referred to the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable on RFM, and each time got attacked like I was defending it!! Apparently this is a poorly understood concept overall.
Would you be so kind as to help those of us lacking understanding, and explain why "unfalsifiable is not a good thing". I understan how in some cases it may not be good, but I don't see how it isn't good per se. In fact, not a few theories and hypothesis in the soft sciences (or as Popper may call them; "pseudo-sciences") are unfalsifiable in any practical sense of the word.
beastie wrote:I think it's time for me to become a scientologist. No one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that Thetans don't exist.
But wait, no one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that there really wasn't a cloaked mother ship behind Hale Bopp.
What to do, what to do....
On a serious note, unfortunately, it's not just TBMs that don't understand that rendering a claim unfalsifiable is not a good thing, but may exmormons don't understand it either. I've referred to the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable on RFM, and each time got attacked like I was defending it!! Apparently this is a poorly understood concept overall.
Would you be so kind as to help those of us lacking understanding, and explain why "unfalsifiable is not a good thing". I understan how in some cases it may not be good, but I don't see how it isn't good per se. In fact, not a few theories and hypothesis in the soft sciences (or as Popper may call them; "pseudo-sciences") are unfalsifiable in any practical sense of the word.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Ya see that avatar of yours, Wade? Do you? Do you? Guess what would not have happened had falsifiability not been a reliable means to advance human understanding? Nothing. That's what would have happened. The computer we're using. Gone. The pixels through which I view your avatar. Nada. The plastic with which your kayak was constructed? Never existed. The nylon fibers your clothes use in conjunction with cotton? Poof.
Are you serious? I mean... Is this what Mormonism is reduced to these days? Are you really this daft? Are Mormons like you and Coggins representative of your ilk's mental process?
I would like to think that you're just killing time like the rest of us, but this is so retarded, so intentionally stupid that I have a hard time someone would want others to mistakenly think he is really this way.
Wade. Either you are being deceitfully stupid and purposefully belligerent, or you have some very serious issues.
beastie wrote:I think it's time for me to become a scientologist. No one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that Thetans don't exist.
But wait, no one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that there really wasn't a cloaked mother ship behind Hale Bopp.
What to do, what to do....
On a serious note, unfortunately, it's not just TBMs that don't understand that rendering a claim unfalsifiable is not a good thing, but may exmormons don't understand it either. I've referred to the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable on RFM, and each time got attacked like I was defending it!! Apparently this is a poorly understood concept overall.
Would you be so kind as to help those of us lacking understanding, and explain why "unfalsifiable is not a good thing". I understan how in some cases it may not be good, but I don't see how it isn't good per se. In fact, not a few theories and hypothesis in the soft sciences (or as Popper may call them; "pseudo-sciences") are unfalsifiable in any practical sense of the word.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Ya see that avatar of yours, Wade? Do you? Do you? Guess what would not have happened had falsifiability not been a reliable means to advance human understanding? Nothing. That's what would have happened. The computer we're using. Gone. The pixels through which I view your avatar. Nada. The plastic with which your kayak was constructed? Never existed. The nylon fibers your clothes use in conjunction with cotton? Poof.
Are you serious? I mean... Is this what Mormonism is reduced to these days? Are you really this daft? Are Mormons like you and Coggins representative of your ilk's mental process?
I would like to think that you're just killing time like the rest of us, but this is so retarded, so intentionally stupid that I have a hard time someone would want others to mistakenly think he is really this way.
Wade. Either you are being deceitfully stupid and purposefully belligerent, or you have some very serious issues.
Um....antishock....I understand that your logic skills may not be top drawer, but one cannot reasonably assume that a question about unfalsifieabilty (not being good) is also to suggest that falsifiability isn't good. To assume such is a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequence. I am not denying the importance of falsifiability (particularly for the hard sciences), I am just not sure that unfalsifiability is necessarily a bad thing (particularly for the soft sciences).
Now, with this having been clarified, would you mind attempting to answer my question--since Tal has given no indication that he is capable of doing so?
beastie wrote:I think it's time for me to become a scientologist. No one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that Thetans don't exist.
But wait, no one can show in an unequivocal, empirical fashion that there really wasn't a cloaked mother ship behind Hale Bopp.
What to do, what to do....
On a serious note, unfortunately, it's not just TBMs that don't understand that rendering a claim unfalsifiable is not a good thing, but may exmormons don't understand it either. I've referred to the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable on RFM, and each time got attacked like I was defending it!! Apparently this is a poorly understood concept overall.
Would you be so kind as to help those of us lacking understanding, and explain why "unfalsifiable is not a good thing". I understan how in some cases it may not be good, but I don't see how it isn't good per se. In fact, not a few theories and hypothesis in the soft sciences (or as Popper may call them; "pseudo-sciences") are unfalsifiable in any practical sense of the word.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Ya see that avatar of yours, Wade? Do you? Do you? Guess what would not have happened had falsifiability not been a reliable means to advance human understanding? Nothing. That's what would have happened. The computer we're using. Gone. The pixels through which I view your avatar. Nada. The plastic with which your kayak was constructed? Never existed. The nylon fibers your clothes use in conjunction with cotton? Poof.
Are you serious? I mean... Is this what Mormonism is reduced to these days? Are you really this daft? Are Mormons like you and Coggins representative of your ilk's mental process?
I would like to think that you're just killing time like the rest of us, but this is so retarded, so intentionally stupid that I have a hard time someone would want others to mistakenly think he is really this way.
Wade. Either you are being deceitfully stupid and purposefully belligerent, or you have some very serious issues.
Um....antishock....I understand that your logic skills may not be top drawer, but one cannot reasonably assume that a question about unfalsifieabilty (not being good) is also to suggest that falsifiability isn't good. To assume such is a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequence. I am not denying the importance of falsifiability (particularly for the hard sciences), I am just not sure that unfalsifiability is necessarily a bad thing (particularly for the soft sciences).
Now, with this having been clarified, would you mind attempting to answer my question--since Tal has given no indication that he is capable of doing so?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade. There's no such thing as unfalsifiability. This is why I'm mystified by you. Do you even know what falsifiability is? Fundamentally?