Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_wenglund]

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?

I noticed that you didn't answer my question, but let me non-evasively answer yours.

Falsifiability is : 'the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment." (Wikipedia). Right?

Unfalsifiabily or non-falsifiable, then, would by definition be those assertions where there isn't a logical possibility that it can be shown false by an observation or physical experiment. Right?

For unfalsifiability to not exist, as you suggest, would mean that, to you, there is no assertion that cannot be observed or physically experimented upon. Is that what you are suggesting?

For example, is the notion of falsifiability, itself, falsifiable? ;-)

Then there are the various types of falsification (naïve/deductive and practical, etc.), but perhaps we should leave off getting into that until after you respond to what I said and asked above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_antishock8]

No. Ugggggggggggghhh..........................................

When you tack on the -ability to the word you change the basic premise of what we're talking about, Wade. You move from falsifiable to falsifiability, the two words hold different meanings. One is a state of being whereas the other is a logical property... How you approach a problem. Very different things. Regardless, un-falsifiability isn't real. It's a non-word. It's a non-reality.

So. That being said, if you're talking about non-falsifiability being a good thing when it comes to an assertion then I would disagree. Why? Because if you state a non-falsifiable thing is reality, and in reality it is the furthest thing from such, it can have enormously dire consequences for the masses.

Familiar with Lysenko and Soviet wheat crops? The exact same thing that you're advocating was embraced by Soviet leadership. Hope and wild claims that weren't falsifiable were a lethal combination for millions. The parallels between his "studies" and FARMS is unnerving. I would suggest you spend the afternoon perusing the Internet, and give yourself a chance to see why your thinking, FARMS "academia", and a political structure that promotes it all is dangerous to people like you, Coggins, and other members that are emotionally invested in a sham.

[_wenglund]

No. Ugggggggggggghhh..........................................

When you tack on the -ability to the word you change the basic premise of what we're talking about, Wade. You move from falsifiable to falsifiability, the two words hold different meanings. One is a state of being whereas the other is a logical property... How you approach a problem. Very different things. Regardless, un-falsifiability isn't real. It's a non-word. It's a non-reality.

I see...you wish to argue semantics rather than the intended and obvious underlying meaning. And, while I believe a good counter-argument could be made (particularly colloquially), I don't know if that would be productive. So, to bring things back on track, if you don't like my perfectly reasonable and common usage, then simply remove in your mind the "ility" (not to be confused with "ability") suffix whereever you have found me using it, and for your benefit, going forward I will attempt not to use the "ility".

So. That being said, if you're talking about non-falsifiability being a good thing when it comes to an assertion then I would disagree. Why? Because if you state a non-falsifiable thing is reality, and in reality it is the furthest thing from such, it can have enormously dire consequences for the masses.

You have again misconstruded my question. I am not asserting that "non-falsifiable' is a good thing. Rather I am asking why it is necessarily not a good thing--as intimated by you and Tal. Do you understand the difference yet?

Familiar with Lysenko and Soviet wheat crops? The exact same thing that you're advocating was embraced by Soviet leadership. Hope and wild claims that weren't falsifiable were a lethal combination for millions. The parallels between his "studies" and FARMS is unnerving. I would suggest you spend the afternoon perusing the Internet, and give yourself a chance to see why your thinking, FARMS "academia", and a political structure that promotes it all is dangerous to people like you, Coggins, and other members that are emotionally invested in a sham.

Setting aside your assumed and irrelevant "parallels" for the moment (my question didn't mention FARMS, nor did it even have FARMS in mind when asked), are you suggesting that because there are cases where non-falsifiable assertions were "lethal", that all non-falsifiable assertions are "not good"? (If so, would you like to learn the name of that fallacy?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_antishock8]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh.................. Jizchrist. If this is what you need to do in order to stay Mormon... Then more power to you. Feck. That.

On a tangent. Do you kayak much? I did some ocean kayaking in California and Oregon, and some river kayaking here in NC. I prefer the latter sans rapids. I could spend an entire afternoon kayaking some of the rivers here. It's very beautiful...

[_marg]

I have to say Wade you do put up with a lot of crap from people. No one seems to be jumping in to reply to your post with respect and showing they understand the concepts which they are accusing you of not understanding. Other than EAllusion the majority seem to be rather arrogant and focus on attacking you rather than staying on topic.

[_antishock8]

I have to say Wade you do put up with a lot of crap from people. No one seems to be jumping in to reply to your post with respect and showing they understand the concepts which they are accusing you of not understanding. Other than EAllusion the majority seem to be rather arrogant and focus on attacking you rather than staying on topic.

Well, what exactly isn't crap about Wade's post? The whole notion is ridiculous, and should be treated with contempt because the idea he's putting forth is, in of itself, contemptible for the mental outlet it gives to the adherent.

[_GoodK]

Um....antishock....I understand that your logic skills may not be top drawer

Ok I know this is off topic, but I have to get some clarity here. Is the correct saying "top drawer" or "top shelf". I have been saying the latter for too long and now I am scared I've been using the wrong terminology.

[_wenglund]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh.................. Jizchrist. If this is what you need to do in order to stay Mormon... Then more power to you. Feck. That.

Well, I suppose that is one way to self-servingly evading my questions. Do you suppose it will fool anyone but yourself?

On a tangent. Do you kayak much? I did some ocean kayaking in California and Oregon, and some river kayaking here in NC. I prefer the latter sans rapids. I could spend an entire afternoon kayaking some of the rivers here. It's very beautiful...

I have done mostly lake and ocean kayaking. My favorite spot is just off the coast of San Jaun Island in the Pacific Northwest. Several times I found myself paddling within 10 feet of killer whales on either side of my boat. Now that's beauty for ya...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Um....antishock....I understand that your logic skills may not be top drawer

Ok I know this is off topic, but I have to get some clarity here. Is the correct saying "top drawer" or "top shelf". I have been saying the latter for too long and now I am scared I've been using the wrong terminology.

...or "top dog"?

According to the Urban Dictionary, each is "correct".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

LDS truth claims, like those of likely all other religions, are a mix of purely spiritual assertions and temporal assertions. Whether or not a God exists is, by nature, not falsifiable, in my opinion, depending upon how one defines “God”. The theory of the existence of the Judeo Christian God cannot be falsified, because, by nature, that God could exist entirely outside our dimensions or awareness. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we can’t reasonably factor a like-lihood for such a theory.

Temporal claims are an entirely different story. These are claims that are soundly within our dimensions. The earth is 6,000 years old is a well-known example. This is a falsifiable claim. The Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document. This is a falsifiable claim.

When theories are actually tested and falsified, people are often resistant to abandoning the theory, particularly if an emotional investment is involved. Sometimes they react by amending the theory with the deliberate aim of rendering it irrefutable. If a theory cannot be falsified, then it can no longer be called a scientific or logical theory. So when it is still “dressed up” as a scientific or logical theory, it may be correctly labeled “pseudo-science”.

I regard the fact that current Book of Mormon apologetics has rendered the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable as an indicator that apologists realize how weak their case is.

Whether or not a theory being unfalsifiable is not a good thing depends upon what kind of claim is being made. The Book of Mormon being rendered unfalsifiable is not a good thing, because of the nature of the claim being made, ie, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document.