Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:44:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1208 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Objectivism: Something is true if it is falsifiable, supported by the
> > evidence, not contradicted by any evidence and logical.
>
> Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are
> "likely" to be true.
> ...
> I'm pretty sure you meant what I just said but I wanted to put it out there
> before someone worked what you said to try to refute.
Quite so-- thanks :)
Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint:
"Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...."
or more to the point:
"If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true."
> BTW I was thinking about the 'is "good theories must be falsifiable"
> falsifiable?' conundrum and I think I have a way out but I'm not sure...
Oh? Actually, I rather hope not, seeing as how saying otherwise would make
it a circular argument, and I guess I prefer it being simply a
non-backed-up-by-anything-but-opinion one. But if you've got such an out, by
all means share :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
