I love it when someone claims that falsification provides truth. It is the sophomore's answer to God. And interestingly it seems prevalent in the academic atmosphere, where sophomorism is institutionalized by perpetually sophomoric professors.
It goes like this:
I believe only that which can be proven empirically, that which is verifiable and falsifiable. God is neither of these, so I don't believe in God.
This statement strongly decorates the absence of real education. Because the view of reality presented is too myopic to support even empiricism. Here's why.
Empiricism is a functional operation that pursues the cause of material effects which are observed. It has rules: verification and the possibility of falsification. Why is "cause and effect" a legitimate pursuit? Well you might ask, but sophomores rarely do.
Cause and Effect is a First Principle of logic and rational thought. Hume denied its validity in absolute terms, yet acknowledged its "usefulness". First Principles are those concepts that are known to be true. They cannot be proven. So they are the base line, the foundation for logic which, in turn, forms the basis for rational thought. Here are some common First Principles; there are others, these are fundamental:
The first is truth oriented (epistemological); the second, in parentheses, is existence oriented (ontological).
1. If it is true, it is true. (If it exists, it exists)
["Tautology"].
2. If it true, it is not false. (If it exists, it does not not exist)
["Principle of Non-Contradiction"].
3. It cannot be somewhere between true and false. (It cannot partially exist, and partially not exist)
["Principle of the Excluded Middle"].
4. For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect.
[Principle of Cause and Effect].
5. The physical laws of the universe are consistent and persistent, and therefore can be known.
[Rationality of the Universe]
These are not provable; they are known true by inspection. And all rational discourse depends upon their truth. Even (gasp) empiricism and its derivative facts.
Empiricism cannot even prove - empirically - that empiricism itself is true, for any and all cases. Empiricism relies on the Rationality of the Universe, and the principle of cause and effect, neither of which can be proven. In fact these could be falsified, and if they were, the falsification would also then apply to empiricism.
A falsification of either Cause and Effect or of the Rationality of the Universe would indicate the presence of something akin to miracles. But miracles are denied outright by Atheists, which is thus taking the firm stance that these two First Principles cannot be falsified, although empiricism depends upon them.
To deny the belief in any entity that cannot be falsified is therefore a self-contradiction, a non-coherence in the position necessary to sustain Atheism using this argument. It is a fallacious stance.
The use of falsification to define Truth is falsified.
9 comments:
To deny the belief in any entity that cannot be falsified is therefore a self-contradiction, a non-coherence in the position necessary to sustain Atheism using this argument. It is a fallacious stance.
Fine. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unfalsifiable in his noodliness, is responsible for all that there is in the universe. It was He who breathed life into humankind. And if you deny His greatness you will burn in a pit of bottomless hell for all eternity. To deny belief in the unfalsifiable Flying Spaghetti Monster is a non-coherence in the position to sustain any other religion... because He said so.
Seriously, did you hit your head or something? Cheers!
If you choose to disregard discernment between plausible posits and non-plausible absurdities, you may believe whatever you choose.
The FSM and Russell's orbiting teapot are the feeblest of the absurdities that have been created to compete with the necessity of a First Cause (see the prior post). You might also want to study the definition of "straw man fallacy", since you still are attached to the FSM fallacy.
I should mention that your reading comprehension of the statement is incorrect. The statement did not refer to accepting "all" non-falsifiable entities, it referred to the Atheist rejection of those non-falsifiable entities upon which it depends. But it claims non-falsifiability as a necessity for Truth, just as you have done in your sarcastic FSM straw man.
Throwing out a feeble straw man is not an acceptable argument against the point of the article. If you wish to argue counter to the argument being made, then you need to address it with non-fallacious propositions. Do you have one?
Moreover your angry and snide references to ecclesiastic postions have no application to the point being made. No ecclesiastical position is being taken so your references are without bearing on the issue. In this regard, then, they are Red Herrings, hoping to derail the issue with your personal side issues. Try again, by addressing the issue at hand.
The issue is Atheism. It is non-coherent.
Please detail for me how FSM and Russell's celestial teapot are any more or less absurd than resurrections, original sin, great floods, or any of the other craziness that your particular mythology purports.
The issue is religion. It is unnatural and false. It tenents do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and should be treated as a relic of our civilization's adolesence.
And personal issues aside, you're full of it! Grow a pair and deal with reality. Cheers!
Your issue is religion which you obviously hate, and hate enough to spend your time attacking it and denigrating those who disagree with your hate. I do not defend religion or religous tenet which is human.
I attack the complete lack of logic and rational thought that is the basis for Atheism. Your comments serve to show your inability to deal with the issue at hand, so you attempt to deflect the argument into your particular arena of hatred.
As for scientific scrutiny of the first cause, that is the subject of the prior post, which you apparently did not read. Claiming that science (the materialist approach to knowledge) can disprove any transcendental (non-material entity) is a failed argument from the get-go. It is another Atheist non-coherence, a self-contradiction, a logical paradox.
Your logic is off in the weeds. Sorry.
stan, stan, stan, you're a LOON!
I say that with all love.
anonymous, I love you too.
Some of these drive by comments seem to be from people unaware that logical positivism failed on these grounds.
Stan: Falsification as a criteria for the demarcation of science (as proposed by Popper) was never intended to be definitive of empiricism, much less epistemological concerns in general.
I suppose one could refer to attempts at the latter as falsificationism, which is what your post seems to take issue with. As I understand it, there is no single criterion of science that satisfies all the philosophy of science types. But, as a practical matter, Popper's basic approach is widely-accepted by working scientists, even when a null hypothesis is not employed.
And, as far as I can see, Popper's criterion works beautifully when it is applied narrowly to the question of whether or not a given hypothesis is science, or no. The cracks appear when you attempt to judge some of the other things done by scientists (such as inference) by the same criteria.
Post a Comment