This presupposes the falsehood that falsifiability is a necessary condition for a proposition to be rationally held. It is not. Popper attempted to use falsifiability as a criterion for SCIENTIFIC statements, and failed. Midwits try to use it for ALL statements.
https://twitter.com/conserberal/status/1354916416907071492
They are unaware how limited falsificationsism was AND that it failed at its limited task. If it can’t work as a test to make scientific statements acceptable, it certainly can’t be the test to make ANY statement acceptable.
Falsificationism is also famously self-defeating.
No coherent statement of the necessity of falsifiability can be made which is falsifiable.
Popper was okay because he was making a philosophical claim about science. The one who applies falsificationism to everything isn’t.
No coherent statement of the necessity of falsifiability can be made which is falsifiable.
Popper was okay because he was making a philosophical claim about science. The one who applies falsificationism to everything isn’t.
Furthermore, falsificationism rejects reason, since the basic principles of logic and the basic categories of reason are all unfalsifiable.
An omni-falsificationist cannot falsify a claim like “reason is reliable.” So he can’t believe it (by his own criterion).
An omni-falsificationist cannot falsify a claim like “reason is reliable.” So he can’t believe it (by his own criterion).
If you believe that reason is a reliable source of true belief, then you must reject falsificationism.
If you hold falsificationism you can’t accept reason. You also can’t accept falsificationism.
If you hold falsificationism you can’t accept reason. You also can’t accept falsificationism.
Falsifiability is nothing more than a useful property that proposition may or may not have. Another obvious defect is that “falsified” is in the eye of the beholder.
KEY TAKEAWAY: “unfalsifiable” ≠ “indemonstrable” ≠ “unknowable”
KEY TAKEAWAY: “unfalsifiable” ≠ “indemonstrable” ≠ “unknowable”
Consider Descartes’ COGITO, SUM, “I think/I am.” Each of you knows you exist. You may freely say, with certainty, “I exist.”
But how could you FALSIFY that? You can’t even doubt it. How would you construct a test that, it you didn’t pass it, you’d cease to believe you exist?
But how could you FALSIFY that? You can’t even doubt it. How would you construct a test that, it you didn’t pass it, you’d cease to believe you exist?
Consider the Law of Noncontradiction. That can’t be falsified, so showing a statement is unfalsifiable doesn’t rule out it is also falsifiable. And showing a statement is actually falsified doesn’t show it isn’t also not falsified.
Are you starting to see how silly this is?
Are you starting to see how silly this is?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
