Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:31:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
967 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeromy Irvine writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:G4wJLA.DAL@lugnet.com...
> > http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
> >
> > Anyone here have reason to disagree with it? It is in
> > the context of evaluating paranormal claims, but has
> > bearing on a lot of what we've been
> > bandying about lately.
>
>
> What happens if we hold him up to his own standard?
>
> It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the
> claim -- 'It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove
> the claim false' -- false. What evidence would prove that claim false?
> More simply, is the statement, "Every true claim is falsifiable"
> falsifiable?
He didn't say that, exactly. He said every "meaningful" (paraphrasing) true
claim is falsifiable and then proceeded to show why non falsifiable claims
don't help us in our understanding.
> Just something to think about...
Good point but while you're thinking about that, think about Goedel, and
whether the cited statements are claims, or are process descriptions about
how the system of verifying claims works.
Me, I'm not sure.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4wp09.635@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) The author is stating something he believes is a fact. Last time I checked, that's a claim. So, is the author's claim meaningful? If not, let's (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) <just going off on a tangent here> Why should we privilege rationalism as a source of understanding? And if we should, should it be the only type of insight that informs our understanding? --DaveL (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4wJLA.DAL@lugnet.com... (...) What happens if we hold him up to his own standard? It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim -- 'It must be possible to (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
