RE: I Know That I Know Nothing │Steemosophy 1/4 │
First of all: great post.
This quote is interesting:
"I think Popper’s theory of falsifiability is pertinent here. Basically he says that no theory can be proven, it can only be disproven. If a hypothesis can’t be disproven by empirical evidence, then it isn’t really scientific."
In my opinion, this idea is widely used - and even more widely misused/misunderstood.
It follows logically, that if things can only be disproved, everything is theoretically possibly true. That's all fine and dandy, but people use that realization on all sorts of matters, - demanding that their opponents disprove wild assertions, that are backed by zero arguments.
This happens in philosophical, political, religious, and many other settings.
I, however, like to introduce this idea:
If we have no reasons to believe a specific assertion, then why would we?
If I simply make up a story - e.g. an explanation of some phenomenon - it's more likely that this story is true, if it is backed by empirical evidence, than if it's simply something that just came into my mind.
Value and idea relativism seem (to me) to have gone almost too far, - to a point where any idea is deemed as valid as any other, simply because it cannot be disapproved.
First of all, I want to thank you for your amazing answer.
I've joined Steemit lusting for these kind of questions.
And to answer to your questions, I think, I might have phrased my point somewhat wrong or with ambiguity. Because you brought a valid point, and it's exactly the one I was trying to make.
I was trying to say that a hypothesis is scientific if we have the means to prove it or disprove it.
If I say that God exists, that is not a scientific theory in Popper's view, because I cannot gather the necessary empiric data to prove it or refute it.
And I completely agree with you. Some ideas are indeed deemed as valid as any other simply because they cannot be disapproved; or even worse - they have weak arguments at their core that is considered "proof", and might even have bad consequences in case of adoption.
So our world is full of a lot of bullshit about almost everything.
Hey, even a lot of what I'm talking about might be part of it.
That's why I advocate for judicious discernment.
But through all that crap I believe are some gems for our "soul". That can help us cope with the harshness and coldness of universe.
I'm speaking here in a pragmatic sense about our beliefs, points of view that are hard to prove and are highly subjective. I can't scientifically prove that I will succeed in a certain area, but what is better to believe? That I will have a chance or that I will have no chance at all? One brings optimist, hope and action, the other paralysis and cynicism.
But yes, I believe idea relativism should be used sparingly, and Only where science is limited by its empirical imperative.
Ha ha - I completely agree with your last statement. However, I fear we are a dying race (metaphorically and literally).
On a different note, I love that you use 'lust' as a verb. I see that far too seldom.
And lastly, expect me to quote you for "That's why I advocate for judicious discernment." :-)
Haha, I'm glad you liked it and I'm honored.
In my mind it sounded right, but I'm not a native english speaker, so I wasn't too sure about it.
Now I'm curious about the context in which you intend to use it.
Yeah, English is my second language as well. What is your first language, if I may ask?
Romanian.
No way! Your accent is so good.
It has a british flavor in my opinion.
Ha ha - cheers!
Yeah, I learned 'British English' in school, but moved to the US a few years ago, so I guess it's somewhere in between these days...
Romiana... Wouldn't have guessed... :-)