I think you misunderstood or I misexplained. "There are no black swans" is falsifiable to me, by seeing a black swan. Of course we can be radically skeptical and say "well maybe you're hallucinating" or "maybe it's a really realistic robot swan" but if we maintain this kind of radical skepticism then science as a whole would be useless, because you could just deny empiricism as a whole.

I agree with you entirely that we shouldn't be skeptical about things like being a brain in a vat (I think that's what you're saying). I just assume I'm not and live as if I'm not.

ok what reasoning do you give for calling those things "radical" if not "they are unfalsifiable"?

They are radical because almost nobody believes them or takes them seriously. I don't live my life solipsistically, as if everyone else is a figment of my imagination. They might be, but I'd rather assume they aren't, and I think it's more likely they aren't.

If you aren't willing to take that step of assuming that you aren't a brain in a vat, that's your right, but I choose not to and almost everybody else (assuming everyone else is real ) chooses the same.

there was a time when majority believed the earth was flat, please don't tell me that is your only reason (aside the "i don't wanna"), majority does not believe them because they are unfalsifiable and we do not require serious inquiry upon unfalsifiable claims. that is the whole point.

But the converse of what I was claiming is equally unfalsifiable, yet everyone believes it (that I'm NOT a brain in a vat). So no the fact that it's unfalsifiable is irrelevant I think.

exactly, so postulating whether or not you are a brain in a vat is pointless



who cares what everyone believes? majority of people are religious, does that also mean you also accept some form of religious ideology? in science we cannot investigate unfalsifiable claims, so we do not, i don't even understand what you are saying tbh, you think unfalsifiable claims should be ignored but only because other people agree with you?

e: maybe that falsification is irrelevant? can you prove an unfalsifiable claim?

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 9 2014 09:21pm

Agreed, although I'm glad whoever first thought of it did, it's at least worth considering once.



I was trying to avoid what seemed like an argumentum ad populum, I wasn't implying that most people believe it therefore it's true, but rather, it's just a lot more sensible to believe it.

Science investigates all sorts of practically unfalsifiable claims. As I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, Popperian falsificationism is largely ignored in modern science.



No, but you can't prove a falsifiable claim either. You can only... falsify it, hence the name

never said it wasnt worth considering, only that it was impossible to investigate scientifically (or at least meant to, rereading it could use better wording)


ok, well i need help understanding how you avoided it, to me you tramped right through it


yes, nothing is truely falsifiable, every "fact" must be accepted provisionally, propperian was a philosopher if i understand it, not a scientist (so of course it has nothing to do with science)



yes but i'm saying i accept something if it could be wrong but it isn't, you are saying you accept things because others beleive it (sometimes), please explain

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 9 2014 09:52pm

Your claim that nothing is truly falsifiable and must be accepted provisionally is a philosophical one. Science rests of philosophical assumptions (such as, that we're not brains in a vat). In practice, scientists don't bother with philosophy (probably wisely). They regularly postulate unfalsifiable claims (such as Everettian MWI branches and other theoretical physics).

Evolution is a prime example of a non-falsifiable scientific theory. As far as I can see, nothing would falsify the theory of evolution. Though I might be overlooking something.



I misspoke, that is not what I meant.

no, my claim is empirically proven because any claim be pushed ad absurdum. As is theoretical physics (admitting i know next to nothing on the topic), it is the extension of mathematical principles (possibly to the point of absurdity, i don't know much on the topic), also theoretical physics are possibly outside the scope of the principles of falsification (since it really is not actually important to your daily life, however i certainly admit that it could be, but that is not really the point of the principles of falsification)

umm, a rabbit in the precambrian strata, anything not giving birth to its own species, any single creature that does not fit into phylogenetic trees and biowebs, if our eyes made up lies (it's physically observable), multiple kinds of "rediculous mutation" (winged cow, crocoduck, ect.), and these are the ones i can think up without googles/textbook help

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 9 2014 10:35pm