Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lpuckeri t1_jaej3rs wrote

That Bertrand Russell guy had some good thoughts on accepting unfalsifiable claims.

Theres also a good psychological concept known as motivated perception/reasoning.

Being aware of these ideas may help avoid accepting nonsense without being too close minded.

​

edit: have very high standards and filter everything through it equally while being aware of ur biases and what you want to be true.

72

platoprime t1_jaelnob wrote

>That Bertrand Russell guy had some good thoughts on accepting unfalsifiable claims.

Please tell me he said not to?

12

Georgie_Leech t1_jaelwo8 wrote

He had some rather famous thoughts on the subject.

18

platoprime t1_jaelzbk wrote

Oh he's the teapot guy! Of course!

10

lpuckeri t1_jaemjtb wrote

Its not perfect

But an important thought process to understand reasonable claims.

Hey im not gonna say 'there cannot be a teapot in space' or 'there are no teapots out there'... But a reasomable skeptical mind is not gonna accept that claim till its demonstrated

12

platoprime t1_jaemvuk wrote

I'm not even asking that it be demonstrated just that it be demonstrated to be possible. That there be a coherent world history that could have created the situation. Perhaps there's an alien teapot out there in orbit but I think there is strong evidence to support the idea that a human teapot cannot be out there.

4

lpuckeri t1_jaesrm2 wrote

Correct most bad claims like a flying teapot actually have strong evidence against them as well. But the point is meant to harp on unfalsifiable claims.

The problem is that you cannot demonstrate an invisible physics defying teapot is not out there ... its unfalsifiable. You cannot use physics to disprove it... my claims is that it defies physics... etc.

We have extreme amounts if rock solid actual empirical evidence we do not live in a firmament... or flying winged horses... or raising people from the dead... etc is not even reasonably possible... But the problem is unfalsifiable claims. Example I claim physics was different back then... or this horse transcended physics... or the person raising people from the dead could transcend reality. They use some sort of special pleading, I cannot ever prove impossible, and its not even reasonable to expect anyone to debunk these ideas... The only reasonable null hypothesis is non acceptance...

Correct i am not just agnostic towards flying teapots in orbit around earth... I actively have evidence against it, and have knowledge towards its improbability. But the idea is more about staying skeptical and how trivially and useless unfalsifiable, supernatural, or magical claims are. That said... if you can prove em.... go ahead but a massive burden is on you.

edit: While the teapot isn't completely unfalsifiable... and you can talk about levels of unfalsifiability. The burden of proof, a null hypothesis, and skepticism towards wild claims is whats important.

9