Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

[S.A.M.]

And as long as they are accurate in their predictions they are not disproven. However, if convincing (extraordinary) evidence to the contrary comes to light, they will have to be adapted are a new theory will have to be developed entirely.

If scientists find that under some circumstances the law of conservation of energy doesn't hold, it will have to be revised.

Sure. They wrote it that way, its unfalsifiable. :shrug:

See?

 

[Enmos]

Sure. They wrote it that way, its unfalsifiable. :shrug:

See?

It's not.. sigh..

You are saying that if a theory holds under all circumstances it's unfalsifiable, this is utter nonsense.

 

[(Q)]

I thought you offered a hypothesis, tested it for all results, examined the data and then attempted to form a conclusion... if I'm remembering correctly from childhood.

Yes, offer a hypothesis based on an observation, and then create a prediction that can be tested. If the data supports the prediction, you have a working theory.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's not.. sigh..

You are saying that if a theory holds under all circumstances it's unfalsifiable, this is utter nonsense.

If a theory is written in such a way that it is unfalsifiable it is technically not science. However, all the laws which govern science are like that. They are based on an assumption of predictability and repetition. ie you have faith that given the same set of observations you will get the same results under the same testing conditions. But these assumptions are based on the laws which determine predictability. And which cannot be tested for falsifiability.

We put too much faith in the power of our perceptions, but it works for us and hence we continue to do so. But its not to be confused with truth or proof or any such animal. Its merely a tool we use to make sense of our surroundings, based on what information we currently possess.

 

[Enmos]

If a theory is written in such a way that it is unfalsifiable it is technically not science. However, all the laws which govern science are like that. They are based on an assumption of predictability and repetition. ie you have faith that given the same set of observations you will get the same results under the same testing conditions. But these assumptions are based on the laws which determine predictability. And which cannot be tested for falsifiability.

We put too much faith in the power of our perceptions, but it works for us and hence we continue to do so. But its not to be confused with truth or proof or any such animal. Its merely a tool we use to make sense of our surroundings, based on what information we currently possess.

You are highly confused.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Ok

Hypothesis: I exist
Prediction: based on accurate sensory inputs I will be shown to exist

problem how do I define the accuracy of my sensory inputs?

 

[S.A.M.]

You are highly confused.

No just someone who works too much with experimental designs.

 

[Enmos]

No just someone who works too much with experimental designs.

No, just confused. Sorry..

 

[spidergoat]

There are claims that religion makes that can be tested, but religious people have an easy out. They say that God knows he is being tested, and thus avoids detection. Basically, God could be all powerful and still evade perception, thus precluding any verification of the idea while inspiring worship and submission.

This idea has evolved over time precisely because it eludes testing. An idea of this nature that could be tested would not survive. Thus we are left with survival of the least verifiable idea that still appeals to human needs.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, just confused. Sorry..

Let me give you a concrete example.

I do x experiment.

5 replicates.

My results are 4, 2, 3, 3, 4. I calculate standard error derive a mean plus/minus 2SD as my final result.

Then I discover that I forgot one key ingredient in my experiment.

What do my results demonstrate?

 

[(Q)]

If a theory is written in such a way that it is unfalsifiable it is technically not science. However, all the laws which govern science are like that. They are based on an assumption of predictability and repetition. ie you have faith that given the same set of observations you will get the same results under the same testing conditions. But these assumptions are based on the laws which determine predictability. And which cannot be tested for falsifiability.

We put too much faith in the power of our perceptions, but it works for us and hence we continue to do so. But its not to be confused with truth or proof or any such animal. Its merely a tool we use to make sense of our surroundings, based on what information we currently possess.

Q-it's not gibberish, it just seems to be thinking on a VERY high level, and is pretty interesting to follow, now that I've tried to sum it up

As you can see, Sam hasn't a clue what she's talking about. Complete gibberish based on circular reasoning and delusion.

She's perfectly willing to put 100% faith into the invisible and undetectable, but we shouldn't put any credibility or value into that which demonstrates results based on observations, considering that is exactly how the physical laws affect us and our surroundings.

She has more reason to believe the moon was split asunder and re-spackled by her god than she has reason to observe the speed of light as a constant.

 

[(Q)]

Ok

Hypothesis: I exist
Prediction: based on accurate sensory inputs I will be shown to exist

The observation is that you exist. The hypothesis is supposed to be a proposal for explaining your existence. The prediction should be a test that will provide evidence of your existence.

Try again.

 

[Enmos]

Let me give you a concrete example.

I do x experiment.

5 replicates.

My results are 4, 2, 3, 3, 4. I calculate standard error derive a mean plus/minus 2SD as my final result.

Then I discover that I forgot one key ingredient in my experiment.

What do my results demonstrate?

Nothing much.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nothing much.

What if I did not know there was a key ingredient I was missing?

Then what do my results demonstrate? Based on the information I have?

 

[Myles]

As the Saddhu said:

The lack of absence is evidence of presence.

 

[Enmos]

What if I did not know there was a key ingredient I was missing?

Then what do my results demonstrate? Based on the information I have?

Nothing much.

Look if in testing you theory holds up it's accurate, until you find out it doesn't hold up in a previously unimagined situation.. then it needs revising.
Of course the goal is to test for ALL possible circumstances.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nothing much.

Uh-uh, they represent truth. The truth is an assumption in science that we know what the true value is.

You work in a lab for a few years and you learn the true meaning of the word "variability"

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

hmm. ok.

Observation: My pinky finger on my left hand has gone numb
Hypothesis: My pinky finger on my left hand does not exist
Prediction:If I do nothing then my pinky on my left hand will not begin to have feeling.

Now, do I do nothing or do I do something?

 

[Enmos]

hmm. ok.

Observation: My pinky finger on my left hand has gone numb
Hypothesis: My pinky finger on my left hand does not exist
Prediction:If I do nothing then my pinky on my left hand will not begin to have feeling.

Now, do I do nothing or do I do something?

You forgot to test your hypothesis.

 

[S.A.M.]

Look if in testing you theory holds up it's accurate, until you find out it doesn't hold up in a previously unimagined situation.. then it needs revising.
Of course the goal is to test for ALL possible circumstances.

You can't test stuff you don't know. Thats a limitation that is never going to be overcome.