PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: PeterNSteinmetz on January 19, 2023, 10:29:40 AM
-
I originally posted this on MeWe, but it struck me it applies to many conversations on this forum as well. (Of course I spend most of my time on FlyersForum these days, but there aren't many political discussions there so not so applicable there.)
In many discussions here on social media one runs into people who just seem to believe something no matter what the evidence. And indeed they often can't even think of any evidence which could exist in principle which would persuade them of the falsity of the belief.
This is an example of a non-falsifiable belief. I normally just politely note that when it becomes apparent and stop discussing the contents of that belief. But oftentimes people just don't seem to understand what it means to have a non-falsifiable belief. So I thought I should illustrate this distinction with a simple and concrete example.
I have a strong belief that gravity pulls objects toward the center of the earth. Really I am very confident this is true. But what if someone says to me "I don't think your belief is true and it strikes me your belief is non-falsifiable."
I can properly address this question about my belief by thinking of and stating how to falsify it. In this case, I can imagine an experiment which would persuade me that my belief is false. For example, if one holds out an orange at arm's height and lets go of it and it either stays where it is or starts moving upward, and this would be observed on multiple occasions and circumstances, that would persuade me that my belief is false. Therefore my belief is falsifiable.
Note I cannot address the question of whether my belief is falsifiable by taking out an orange and dropping it and showing it goes down toward the center of the earth. That only addresses whether the belief is true or false, NOT whether my belief is falsifiable.
Now in the case of political questions which are so often discussed here, of course the evidence is softer whether a proposition is true or false. That is why social sciences are "softer" than basic physics. But the same distinction about beliefs holds.
I find this often a good way to determine whom it is interesting to discuss a topic with and with whom it is not.
-
a wonderful irony is when someone dismisses another's position by claiming the other is suffering from having a non-falsiiable belief...
-
What's your point Peter? Our belief that the Democrats along with the Global Elite, including China are purposefully transforming this country to a third world shithole is false?
-
Is the belief that God exists non-falsifiable, and the belief God doesn't exist also non-falsifiable? I can't think of any way to prove one way or the other. Belief in God requires faith. That's not the same thing as evidence. Belief that there is no God is basically just an opinion, with no way to prove you're correct.
-
Is the belief that God exists non-falsifiable, and the belief God doesn't exist also non-falsifiable? I can't think of any way to prove one way or the other. Belief in God requires faith. That's not the same thing as evidence. Belief that there is no God is basically just an opinion, with no way to prove you're correct.
But some non-falsifiable beliefs cannot be true at the same time other beliefs are held. For example, because they differ in a critical way, a belief in monotheism (e.g. Christian god) cannot be plausibly held at the same time as a belief in polytheism (e.g. Greek Pantheon). A person may choose to hold one or the other or neither. The number of permutations of such beliefs (i.e. believing in 1, 2, 3, ... gods) is infinite so if a person chooses not to select any permutation because there is no way to determine which to believe you seem to lump that non-choice as a "belief" that is backed by "faith". I say it is a nothing of the sort.
Or more briefly: if a person is presented a non-falsifiable statement it is not an act of belief or faith to simply disregard it. But your reasoning denies that possibility by trying to make any choice or no choice all somehow equivalent.
-
Liberals and faux moderates seem to love to set,change and ignore the terms of debate to make themselves seem smarter, better, more evolved, or just plain superior.
One way to achieve that is to pose simple minded questions that they can use to pretend to be intellectual and better informed than everyone else.
At the end of the day those questions and/or suppositions are just carefully worded bullshit.
-
Liberals and faux moderates seem to love to set,change and ignore the terms of debate to make themselves seem smarter, better, more evolved, or just plain superior.
One way to achieve that is to pose simple minded questions that they can use to pretend to be intellectual and begetter informed than everyone else.
At the end of the day those questions and/or suppositions are just carefully worded bullshit.
I concur. It's meant to insult and project superior intellect and knowledge. In addition they're not Liberal. They're control freak, Totalitarian Fascists. Period.
-
Anyone who believes these two steaming piles of lying horse shit can go falsify themselves.
I’d like to see a large, robust and reliable poll showing the percentage of Americans who fall for this crap.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1616465094245847040
-
Anyone who believes these two steaming piles of lying horse shit can go falsify themselves.
I’d like to see a large, robust and reliable poll showing the percentage of Americans who fall for this crap.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1616465094245847040
Reminiscent of how communist regimes put out glorifying propaganda of their leaders for the masses.
-
a wonderful irony is when someone dismisses another's position by claiming the other is suffering from having a non-falsiiable belief...
That is correct. You see that when Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, or Charlie Kirk debate smarmy liberals on college campuses. The students and professors are more intent on discrediting the speakers’ beliefs and the speakers themselves than engaging in a robust discussion.
-
a wonderful irony is when someone dismisses another's position by claiming the other is suffering from having a non-falsiiable belief...
It is easy to show your belief is falsifiable Bob if it is.
I don’t think it is ironic at all Bob. It is quite appropriate to dismiss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs. What on earth could be the point of discussing them? They are not subject to rational discussion.
Here is where such a thing could be ironic. If someone stated that another’s belief was non-falsifiable, but could not be persuaded that it was not even after presentation of the sort of evidence which would falsify the original beliefs.
But normally people with non-falsifiable beliefs are very emotionally threatened by this idea and just can’t admit it.
-
Is the belief that God exists non-falsifiable, and the belief God doesn't exist also non-falsifiable? I can't think of any way to prove one way or the other. Belief in God requires faith. That's not the same thing as evidence. Belief that there is no God is basically just an opinion, with no way to prove you're correct.
I suspect you are basically correct on that as stated.
Theists often try and assert those are the only two alternatives or that the second position is atheism. And indeed the language has been changed to sort of force this false dichotomy. The common dictionary definition of atheism is that it is asserting a denial of the existence of god.
However, the original roots of the term point to another meaning. The roots mean non belief. In other words, one can simply not believe in whatever the word “god” is defined as, if anything at all.
Many people think that is agnostic. But that term normally means a statement of ignorance on the question, which is not quite the same thing.
-
What's your point Peter? Our belief that the Democrats along with the Global Elite, including China are purposefully transforming this country to a third world shithole is false?
I think the main point was not sufficiently clear somehow. Whether a belief is falsifiable or not is an independent property from whether the belief is true or false.
-
Many people think that is agnostic. But that term normally means a statement of ignorance on the question, which is not quite the same thing.
Could it also include indifference to the question?
And as to question of existence of god(s) that seems to depend on a common definition of the term. Greek gods aren't the same as the Christian Gods (they vary slightly by denomination and even by individual) and most gods have some aspects of anthropomorphism (e.g. "created in his own image".) That variability makes it possible to be an atheist, theist, and agnostic all at the same time.
If all that is meant by "god" is an entity with some anthropomorphic aspect that created the universe, then even there one could deny such entity, appear to be an atheist, yet believe that the universe created itself but had no more sentience than a table. The latter belief could be defined as atheist only if the definition of god requires some aspect of independent volition.
All IMHO of course.
-
Could it also include indifference to the question?
Yes, I think in the sense of the Greek roots, if you do not assert that an entity called “god” exists, then you are not a believer and are an atheist.
If asked about this, I always ask what exactly do you mean by the term “god”? I find it is usually not a well defined concept and thus not really a properly formed question.
-
I believe the possibility of a higher power exists along with another set of universe related "rules" that we have no knowledge of and possibly, as humans, can not comprehend.
Or maybe we just live in the Star Trek episode where Spock had the goatee.
-
Could it also include indifference to the question?
And as to question of existence of god(s) that seems to depend on a common definition of the term. Greek gods aren't the same as the Christian Gods (they vary slightly by denomination and even by individual) and most gods have some aspects of anthropomorphism (e.g. "created in his own image".) That variability makes it possible to be an atheist, theist, and agnostic all at the same time.
If all that is meant by "god" is an entity with some anthropomorphic aspect that created the universe, then even there one could deny such entity, appear to be an atheist, yet believe that the universe created itself but had no more sentience than a table. The latter belief could be defined as atheist only if the definition of god requires some aspect of independent volition.
All IMHO of course.
Go further and define “sentience”. A consciousness associated with a discreet entity such as a human body, maybe. But I dispute that because the very act of defining anything is an act within each of our minds and each of us only knows what’s in our own mind and nothing directly about anything else. All things outside of our core awareness could be only a hallucination. Even our body is only perceived by our mind when we are conscious and is something that may or may not have physical reality apart from our mind. It’s possible nothing exists at all and the entire world is a dream being dreamed by you alone.
So if we can’t prove the universe itself exists, how can we define anything as its creator? Or you could say that the only thing you know for certain is that your own awareness exists. Therefore you are the creator of all you perceive. Possibly all the other sentient creatures around you are figments of your imagination. You are alone, and if there is a god, it can only be you.
Disclaimer: Not saying I believe this.