Thread: Falsifiability and Scientific Reasoning: Question

Question as to how you would answer the following question:

In your opinion, it it true that:
"belief in the supernatural = non-belief in the supernatural"
"falsifiable = non-falsifiable"

^
Shameless bump

I don't understand the question, to be honest.

This is helpful:

5 Things Everyone Should Know About Evolution : Rational Christianity

You may have phased it a bit awkwardly.

A beekeeping friend of mine, Dr. Adrian Wenner disproved the dance language theory that Karl von Frisch got the Nobel Prize for in 1973. In his book about it he pointed out that in science the only true test of an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. So you can set up a million experiments which all show physical laws not being broken, and come up with a respected theory that there is no supernatural.

So you could say that the belief in the supernatural is falsifiable. The problem with your wording is that non belief in the supernatural is non falsifiable is just saying the same thing.

Another things to keep in mind is the difficulty in proving a negative, so I would imagine that it would remain a theory instead of a law, but I'm no expert on scientific philosophy. And of course for me the belief in the supernatural is an act of faith, I don't feel the need to defend it scientifically, nor would any number of experiments change my belief.

Originally Posted by TimV

You may have phased it a bit awkwardly.

A beekeeping friend of mine, Dr. Adrian Wenner disproved the dance language theory that Karl von Frisch got the Nobel Prize for in 1973. In his book about it he pointed out that in science the only true test of an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. So you can set up a million experiments which all show physical laws not being broken, and come up with a respected theory that there is no supernatural.

So you could say that the belief in the supernatural is falsifiable. The problem with your wording is that non belief in the supernatural is non falsifiable is just saying the same thing.

Another things to keep in mind is the difficulty in proving a negative, so I would imagine that it would remain a theory instead of a law, but I'm no expert on scientific philosophy. And of course for me the belief in the supernatural is an act of faith, I don't feel the need to defend it scientifically, nor would any number of experiments change my belief.

Actually Tim, I just printed it straight as the question came to me. Thanks for you input.

People believe in the super natural because they see evidence in the natural world that points toward the super natural. These would be the existence of a finite, dependent universe subject to the law of causality; The existence of a moral standard that is ingrained in all human beings, that causes us to view things as 'evil' and 'righteous', and many other things that demand the super natural for their explanation. If these arguments can be refuted then in a way belief in the supernatural is falsifiable and thus potentially true.

I say it can be 'in a way' falsified, because some of us have encountered God. That cannot be falsified. Therefor even if scientists and philosophers could deal with arguments for the existence of the super natural, we would remain convinced 'super naturalists'.



Also I think that the falsification principle is applied wrong since it was only meant to deal with empirical questions and not metaphysical questions. There are many things that are meaningful that cannot be falsified, such as the statement, "Only statements that are falsifiable can be meaningful". Is that a falsifiable statement?

This type of argument stems from logical positivism, which says that only that which can be verified with the senses can be meaningful or true. But that statement itself cannot be verified with the senses, and therefor is false. So while they are claiming 'empiricism', the core tenets of this empiricism are not 'empirical', in other words, they have non falsifiable beliefs that lead them to the place that says non falsifiable beliefs are rubbish. A bit inconsistent.

We have some philosophy buffs lurking here on the board(hem hem Christian Trader) who would be able to refute logical positivism and answer this question much better then I did, but I hope this helps some.

Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."

Originally Posted by Davidius

Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."

Not finding this anywhere. What bookstore sells it?

Originally Posted by Davidius

Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."

DO yo mean
Language and Theology (ISBN 0-940931-90-7) ??

Check out the Trinity Foundation for all things Gordon Clark.

Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

Thanks Richard

I still don't get the question.

Originally Posted by knowntoGod

I still don't get the question.

Hey Bruce

Check your PM. I see that you are a Biology teacher.

Originally Posted by knowntoGod

I still don't get the question.

Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?

Originally Posted by caddy

Originally Posted by Davidius

Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."

DO yo mean
Language and Theology (ISBN 0-940931-90-7) ??

Sorry, that's the one!

Originally Posted by JohnV

Originally Posted by knowntoGod

I still don't get the question.

Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?

Hey JohnV

Here's the definition.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have had long discussions over a long period of time with an individual. This was simply one of his questions. I'm sure it would help if you had context. Here's the thread:

AcuraZine Community

Not even sure if you can see it. On Page 2 or 3 of the 3 pages, I think he asks the question.

Edit: You have to be a member of the Acura forum to even see this thread JohnV

Originally Posted by caddy

Originally Posted by JohnV

Originally Posted by knowntoGod

I still don't get the question.

Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?

Hey JohnV

Here's the definition.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have had long discussions over a long period of time with an individual. This was simply one of his questions. I'm sure it would help if you had context. Here's the thread:

AcuraZine Community

Not even sure if you can see it. On Page 2 or 3 of the 3 pages, I think he asks the question.

Edit: You have to be a member of the Acura forum to even see this thread JohnV

Thanks, Caddy. That helps a bit. It put into words what I suspected to be the case. I would suppose, then, that non-falsifiable would be the direct opposite, as in non-testable.

If we take that one term used in the definition, namely "testability", and exchange that with "falsifiable", as used in your first post, then you get:

"testability = non-testability"

See what I mean?

I see the same kind of thing going on with the meaning of "faithfulness". Is it proper to say that faithfulness to, say for example, the Roman Catholic system is faithfulness to God and to His Word? In the same way, as faithfulness is often equated with unfaithfulness, and, as in this case and too often is the case in our own speach, that unfaithfulness becomes the positive "testability" factor for faithfulness, is it not possible to also apply this same sort of approach to "falsifiability"? Thus, falsifiable becomes equal to non-falsifiable.