Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Febbolution

Topic: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science (Read 3849 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #675
I still think creationism is scientifically testable.
OK, you think a lot of things are scientifically testable.

Mind listing them?

It's one thing to say there was, as a result of reading the hebrew mythology, a specific global flood, about 5000 years ago , caused by a specifically identified supernatural being, a being that is claimed to be ominpresent, omniprescient and omnipotent. In other words, is present in all time, knows all things and has all power.
Which is undoubtedly unfalsifiable.
What is falsifiable are claims for specific results resulting from such an event.
There's either evidence for it happening, which one would suspect would be rather abundant or there's not. Which might be falsifiable, depending on the specifics But the real issue is whether or not there was a supernatural being that made such a flood happen. That is not falsifiable. Whether or not one can find evidence of such a flood happening.

That's the part you are missing; That the cause was supernatural. And so, unfalsifiable.
Of course, one must first show there was a flood. A global flood. About 3000 or 5000 years ago. That covered everything. As stated.

Then one can get into the whole issue of cause. But not until then.
Are we there yet?

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #676
Actually, the actual points you may have been intending were overshadowed by the total failure to be right about the claims you used to support your argument so that is really more my take than yours. Anyway, happy new year everyone. I hope you all enjoy whatever you are doing this evening.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #677
I still think creationism is scientifically testable.
I guess it gets down to what constitutes creationism.
Hawkins keeps saying "Darwinism" can't be tested (or isn't falsifiable).  But he never gives a definition of "Darwinism" - other than "not ID".
There is that. And I am definitely making some assumptions. I do think they are justified and will hopefully remember to justify them when new years is done. In the meantime, happy new year!
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Badger lie, badger lie, hoping old threads would up and die...
Reply #678
It is not possible to falsify Creationist propositions.
Though, of course, many consilient methods putting the age of the earth much much much older than the YEC proposition that the universe came into existence < 10000 years ago falsifies that proposition. So the lack of falsifiability of that (and other YEC propositions) isn't so much inherent in the propositions themselves, but in the fact that creationists refuse to accept the results of the tests - coming up with one special pleading after another, and when they all get laughed out of court, simply resorting to "someone must be lying".

Exactly. Or like Todd Wood - sure it looks like things evolved, but Genesis so there must be another explanation, and I'm going to try to find out what it is.  And Todd is honest about that.

Ham just shoves the data under the rug and covers it up with lies and slander.
No he doesn't.  People like YOU do.  For example, you conveniently ignore that list of 100 evidences of a young earth.

Ken Ham has actually worked very hard to attract "real scientists" to his organization in order to try to avoid problems in science like you mention.
Hey look what I found:

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?t=28293

Guess what happened at the end of the thread...
Dave, you badgered, as Faid pointed out.  It's a lie for you to say  "you conveniently ignore that list of 100 evidences of a young earth."
Pop goes the f'n weasel, Dave. 
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 05:27:52 PM by Seven Popes
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #679
  Inasmuch as Creationism is falsifiable it has been falsified.  It was falsified in the 19th century by Lyell et al.
Depending, again, on what you define as Creationism.
Which Hawkins deliberately declines to get into.
IF Creationism integrally incorporates the proposition that the earth is < 10,000 years old - yeah, that has clearly been falsified.
Sure, as long as you're allowed to pull numbers out of your ass like 0.0000000000018% human population growth rate (or whatever) ... you can "falsify" pretty much anything you want.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #680
  Inasmuch as Creationism is falsifiable it has been falsified.  It was falsified in the 19th century by Lyell et al.
Depending, again, on what you define as Creationism.
Which Hawkins deliberately declines to get into.
IF Creationism integrally incorporates the proposition that the earth is < 10,000 years old - yeah, that has clearly been falsified.
Sure, as long as you're allowed to pull numbers out of your ass like 0.0000000000018% human population growth rate (or whatever) ... you can "falsify" pretty much anything you want.

Which is what Don Batten did, and you did, but nobody here has done.  You made that quote up, you dishonest man.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #681
IF Creationism integrally incorporates the proposition that the earth is < 10,000 years old - yeah, that has clearly been falsified.
Sure, as long as you're allowed to pull numbers out of your ass like 0.0000000000018% human population growth rate (or whatever) ... you can "falsify" pretty much anything you want.
   Well now that's ironic as hell.
Considering how it was your YEC puppet master who pulled numbers out of his ass to falsify an old earth.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #682
Dave, did you steal the cover image of your e-book?
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #683
  Inasmuch as Creationism is falsifiable it has been falsified.  It was falsified in the 19th century by Lyell et al.
Depending, again, on what you define as Creationism.
Which Hawkins deliberately declines to get into.
IF Creationism integrally incorporates the proposition that the earth is < 10,000 years old - yeah, that has clearly been falsified.
Sure, as long as you're allowed to pull numbers out of your ass like 0.0000000000018% human population growth rate (or whatever) ... you can "falsify" pretty much anything you want.

Which is what Don Batten did, and you did, but nobody here has done.  You made that quote up, you dishonest man.
What quote?  I don't see a quote.

  • Faid
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #684
Happy new year, dave.

Fix your blog post.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #685
Happy new year, dave.

Fix your blog post.
And pay NCSE what you promised to a year and a half ago.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #686
Right, that's way overdue. ^^^^ That first, then blog post.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #687
Right, that's way overdue. ^^^^ That first, then blog post.
Then get square on that photo.
Then there's a huge list of other things he's promised to do in the past.
Are we there yet?

  • davesgoats
  • goatschwitz prisoner
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #688
Which one of you registered "http://truthhurts.info"?  And then just parked it?
:smug:
Why put the bunnies with the goats?  Because that's  closer to how they are in nature.

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #689
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #690
A reminder, Dave.  You still haven't fixed your blog.  The Popper page, with it's inaccuracies, is unchanged.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #691
And Dave, have you paid for the book cover photo you used without permission or payment?

Or that $100 bet?

Oh, and when are you getting back to Glen about the spider tracks?  That's been a good while, you mustn't have felt 'in the mood' at any time over the last god knows how many years to do that.

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #692
It's a new, post honesty Dave.  He's no longer afraid, he's loud, proud, and  high on lies.
What is this sad shit?  An alcoholic shame spiral?
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #693
Dave doesn't know what part of what he wrote is wrong.

He just said that to get us off his back. 

He doesn't like it when we say he

:badger: ed.
David?  
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #694
And goodness, how about fixing that shitty blog of yours?  It still has your Popper ignorance stinking up the place.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #695
Dave, fix that blog you abandoned last summer.  First the Popper section, then we can dismantle the rest piece by piece in a dignified and respectful way.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Faid
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #696
He won't.

Truth Doesn't Matter for him, apparently.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #697
http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/
Dave, you're knowingly conveying false information, by the dictionary definition, that's lying.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #698
EDIT:
oops, should have posted in the other thread
  • Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 03:45:08 PM by [Serious]

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #699
No. That's just "carbon" transfer between the two backing pages.
Truth is out of style