Those who have read my posts here or on other social media will have noted that I sometimes say something appears to be or is a non-falsifiable belief. So I thought I would explain a bit more of my view on these and what they imply for discussions.
Falsifiability is an important concept in scientific work and also a philosophical concept. In brief, a belief or statement is falsifiable if one can think of some sort of evidence or experiment, which could exist in principle, which would disprove it. And a belief is non-falsifiable if one can’t do that. More about this at https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/11/26/why-non-falsifiable-beliefs-are-absurd/ .
So if a belief is non-falsifiable is there really any practical reason to argue about whether it is true or false? Other than for the sake of arguing, what is the point? No amount of evidence will ever disprove it.
Most people hold some non-falsifiable beliefs. A belief in religion which must be accepted “on faith” is a fairly common one in our society. Since many people base their moral beliefs on religion, this tends to bleed over and make moral judgements or weighing of values also become non-falsifiable.
Finally, non-falsifiable beliefs seriously interfere with the objective evaluation of evidence on anything which might undermine those beliefs.
A lot of arguments that go on and on and on on social media tend to be of this nature. This is of course why the Shriner’s ban discussion of politics or religion. While I will sometimes discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs in person, I tend to avoid it over the internet. OTOH, I will generally discuss the meta-issue of whether a belief is falsifiable as it tends to being out he issues of standards of evidence and how to weigh them appropriately.
Falsifiability is an important concept in scientific work and also a philosophical concept. In brief, a belief or statement is falsifiable if one can think of some sort of evidence or experiment, which could exist in principle, which would disprove it. And a belief is non-falsifiable if one can’t do that. More about this at https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/11/26/why-non-falsifiable-beliefs-are-absurd/ .
So if a belief is non-falsifiable is there really any practical reason to argue about whether it is true or false? Other than for the sake of arguing, what is the point? No amount of evidence will ever disprove it.
Most people hold some non-falsifiable beliefs. A belief in religion which must be accepted “on faith” is a fairly common one in our society. Since many people base their moral beliefs on religion, this tends to bleed over and make moral judgements or weighing of values also become non-falsifiable.
Finally, non-falsifiable beliefs seriously interfere with the objective evaluation of evidence on anything which might undermine those beliefs.
A lot of arguments that go on and on and on on social media tend to be of this nature. This is of course why the Shriner’s ban discussion of politics or religion. While I will sometimes discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs in person, I tend to avoid it over the internet. OTOH, I will generally discuss the meta-issue of whether a belief is falsifiable as it tends to being out he issues of standards of evidence and how to weigh them appropriately.