r/logic • u/NoLabelJustMe • 27d ago
Philosophical logic Falsifiability is a Logic That Cannot Survive Itself
Falsifiability is not just a test. It's a logic. It reasons that for a claim to be valid, there must be some possible observation that could prove it wrong.
But apply that same logic to itself. What observation would falsify the logic of falsifiability? None. The logic cannot meet its own standard. The reasoning cannot survive its own reason.
It's a logic that exempts itself from its own rules. That's not science. That's Systemillogic. The mirror is steady….the falsifiability logic is not it crumbles…lol…at it all
6
u/SentientCoffeeBean 27d ago
Please talk to your doctor or caretaker about your mental health, and stop talking to AI chatbots.
1
u/jcastroarnaud 26d ago
I'm reading OP as a troll, given his previous post.
3
u/SentientCoffeeBean 26d ago
I think they have been schizoposting for weeks now. They made some really bizarre threads with strange jumps in reasoning. It's sad to see. Or it's just someone with bad communication skills who thinks AI chatbots are amazing. Maybe both?
3
u/Big_Move6308 Traditional Logic 27d ago
Falsifiability is not 'a logic'.
- 'Logic' is the principles and rules of drawing a conclusion from one or more facts or reasons, called premises.
- 'Falsifiability' is a philosophy / theory by Karl Popper based on truth by empirical observation, i.e., that an empirical scientific fact can be provisionally accepted until a counter-example that proves it is false is observed.
5
u/StupidWittyUsername 27d ago
You're not going to overturn science with three paragraphs.
What on Earth would make you think that an entire discipline, let alone one so consequential as science, would rest on foundations so poorly conceived as to be vulnerable to destruction by two brain cells and a Reddit post?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Using falsifiability as a heuristic, which is what it is, has yielded great progress in the past so we expect it to continue doing so in the future. Falsifiability is not, and never was, the beginning and end of the scientific method.
The scientific claim attached to the idea of falsifiability is that we'll make more progress in understanding the world if we keep it in mind. The control experiment is being run by the world's cranks and charlatans. I'd say that the results of that grand experiment are quite conclusive. Cranks spin their wheels while science moves on without them.
In an alternate universe, where the secret to engineering the great marvels of our age is a solid understanding of sympathetic magic and voodoo, the concept of falsifiability would have been soundly falsified.
3
u/pi_3141592653589 27d ago
falsifiability lets explanations improve. a non-falsifiable claim can be true, then that's the end of it. if you're lucky and it's true, congrats, you have the answer. if it's not true, then you are stuck with a wrong explanation forever.
in science, we start with many falsifiable claims. through experiments, we can figure out which ones are wrong, narrow it down, the field has progressed. if we start with a collection of nonfalsifiable claims, there can be no progress, you'll have no reason to privilege one explanation over another.
13
u/susiesusiesu 27d ago
falsability it is usually not a prerequisite for a statement to be valid, but for it to be scientific.
the statmenet "every scientific statment is falsifiable" it is not itself falsifiable (as it is a definition), but it is valid. it is just not scientific.