A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Claiming it has empirical content and can be falsified is just another empty faith claim until you can specify the nonactual but possible counterfactual circumstances in which it would be false. If you don't know what those circumstances are, then you don't know that it is falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable then it is a tautology.

So if I can't prove a possible counterfactual circumstance that would make it false, it can still be proven true by creating a no blame environment on a smaller scale. Therefore it can be empirically tested for its truth value.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if I can't prove a possible counterfactual circumstance that would make it false, it can still be proven true by creating a no blame environment on a smaller scale. Therefore it can be empirically tested for its truth value.

Nope, sorry. Something for which there are no possible counterfactual circumstances that would make it false is a proposition with no empirical content, and so cannot be proven either true or false. It cannot be tested at all. You cannot test something until you know what potential results would show it to be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't paying attention to what thread it was. I don't have the time for this nonsense.

And yet you are spending time responding to 'This Nonsense".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then it is not falsifiable.

It might be the case that Peacegirl is just parroting words that she only thinks she understands. I know there are terms here that are new to me and from context I think I understand them, but just in case, and to be sure we are all on the same page, could these terms be clearly defined 'for sake of argument'.
-Counterfactual,
-Falsifable,
-Nonactual,
Sorry if I'm just being thick, but I don't like being on the outside looking in.

[LadyShea]

Counterfactual-running counter to facts or a counterfactual conditional statement (if then type statements where the "if" is not a fact). For example "if we could see in real time, then instantaneous transfer of information would be possible"

Falsifiable- basically falsifiability means that if a hypothesis is wrong (false) then it can be demonstrated to be false by empirical means. Statements/theses that are not falsifiable can't really be scientifically tested...it must be at least theoretically possible to get results that disprove the idea for a test to be devised

The statement "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction" isn't falsifiable, because greater satisfaction cannot be quantified or measured or objectively observed, and there is no way to test if someone is moving in a metaphorical direction, and there is no way to anticipate what kinds of empirical results would indicate it is false.

Nonactual-Possible and plausible things that can happen or can have happened but did not or do not actually happen.

[LadyShea]

duplicated

[The Bodhisattva]

This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.

[LadyShea]

Gah, dupe again

[LadyShea]

This is the second thread. The first one is even longer.

The IIDB threads (4 or 5?) were really long, but they closed them. Other forums have closed her threads too. We don't close threads here...so indefinite lifespan.

[But]

Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva

This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.

Hmm, there is the countdown from one million thread.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Bodhisattva

This has to be the longest and most pointless thread that ever existed.

Isn't it gloriously idiotic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Counterfactual-running counter to facts or a counterfactual conditional statement (if then type statements where the "if" is not a fact). For example "if we could see in real time, then instantaneous transfer of information would be possible"

Falsifiable- basically falsifiability means that if a hypothesis is wrong (false) then it can be demonstrated to be false by empirical means. Statements/theses that are not falsifiable can't really be scientifically tested...it must be at least theoretically possible to get results that disprove the idea for a test to be devised

The statement "Man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction" isn't falsifiable, because greater satisfaction cannot be quantified or measured or objectively observed, and there is no way to test if someone is moving in a metaphorical direction, and there is no way to anticipate what kinds of empirical results would indicate it is false.

Nonactual-Possible and plausible things that can happen or can have happened but did not or do not actually happen.

I have already expressed (have you not been paying attention?) that we can't see someone moving in the direction of greater satisfaction directly, but we can see the results of this. If it is impossible for man to hurt another under the changed conditions (which can be created in a test format), we could easily look at the results to determine whether Lessans' was right or not. So you don't know what you are talking about when you say that "greater satisfaction" cannot be tested for accuracy. For once LadyShea, admit that you are wrong or you have no credibility with me whatsoever.

[LadyShea]

This is an indirect proof which can be empirically tested.

If it can't be falsified it can't be empirically tested. You need to come up with a counterfactual conditional "if/then" statement in order to determine falsifiability or a non-actual hypothetical where your claim holds true.

So can you come up with the "then" part of the following: "If the greater satisfaction principle is false, then X would be the result of a an empirical test"

Can you respond to Spacemonkey's hypothetical of an amnesiac watching a video of a crime and what he/she might feel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Isn't it gloriously idiotic?

Who is Bodhisattva? This person hasn't offered one post and yet can so easily condemn. This person either isn't real (a bot), or he is incapable of hearing anything that questions his own worldview, which is most likely the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be falsified it can't be empirically tested. You need to come up with a counterfactual conditional "if/then" statement in order to determine falsifiability or a non-actual hypothetical where your claim holds true.

So can you come up with the "then" part of the following: "If the greater satisfaction principle is false, then X would be the result of a an empirical test"

I don't have to come up with a story that this principle is false in order to prove it is true. I just explained how it could be done by observing how a person reacts when this principle is in effect. If this has to be tested on a smaller scale, then so be it. The bottom line is: It can be tested for accuracy without creating a situation where it would be false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you respond to Spacemonkey's hypothetical of an amnesiac watching a video of a crime and what he/she might feel?

His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else. Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me. Only when the desire to hurt another becomes the worst possible choice can we change people's behavior. But in order for this to occur, we need to remove the judgment, the blame, and the punishment. It's ironic that until we remove the very blame and punishment that was necessary in order for mankind to develop to this point, it will never carry us to the home stretch. Why can't you see this LadyShea or at least admit that you aren't sure? We move in a certain direction because it makes sense to us, not because of what other people judge as right or wrong. Don't you see why this hypothetical movie doesn't apply?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the fuck is Bodhisattva? This person hasn't offered one post and yet can so easily condemn. This person either isn't real (a bot), or he is incapable of hearing anything that questions his own worldview, which is most likely the case.

Do you still not understand what a bot is? Are you incapable of using the forum tools to determine information about other members?

Given that Bodhisattva is a term from Buddhism, that's a good first clue that the forum member may be Buddhist. Buddhists are generally open to hearing other worldviews.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to come up with a story that this principle is false in order to prove it is true.

Yes, you do. That's how empirical claims work.

since a law claim is universal in scope (in simplest form, "All As everywhere and everywhen are Bs"), it cannot possibly be verified: there are always actual or potential instances beyond those so far observed. Yet a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.

Since law claims can be falsified but not verified, Popper concluded that the way to truth is indirect, by elimination of falsehood.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/...fiability.html

[LadyShea]

Let's add some further conditionals to the hypothetical then

His hypothetical video of a crime is useless here because crime will be prevented in the new world, so there is no such judgment whether I performed the crime or someone else.

The crime is committed during the Great Transition, so not everyone is a citizen yet. The amnesiac does not know whether he/she is or is not a citizen, and does not know if the crime is being committed by him or herself or another person.

Every person has to judge himself according to his life circumstances. I would not think it is wrong if I had performed a crime that I felt was in my best interest, and I wouldn't judge someone else, because they chose to do it as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction for reasons unknown to me.

This person is watching a robbery and assault, for example. Due to amnesia the person does not know if the person beating up and robbing another person is him or herself.

How do you think the person would feel watching such an act?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the second thread. The first one is even longer.

The IIDB threads (4 or 5?) were really long, but they closed them. Other forums have closed her threads too. We don't close threads here...so indefinite lifespan.

The thread on Dissident Philosophy is still open but no-one has posted on it since Oct. 19 '11 and Peacegirls last post was Mar. 20 '11, the rest of us just chatted for awhile. And Peacegirl actually left that forum of her own free will. But it had started to get seriously off topic, talking about grandchildren and murder cases. The odd thing is that there were 1 or 2 people who seemed to be buying into her ideas, makes you wonder why she left?

A revolution in thought

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by But

Hmm, there is the countdown from one million thread.

But that thread has a clear and well defined point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, sorry. Something for which there are no possible counterfactual circumstances that would make it false is a proposition with no empirical content, and so cannot be proven either true or false. It cannot be tested at all. You cannot test something until you know what potential results would show it to be wrong.

If the changed environmental conditions that Lessans claims would prevent someone from striking a first blow did not work in the way he proposed, it would prove that man can choose to hurt others in a no blame society, and this would be evidence that he was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you still not understand what a bot is? Are you incapable of using the forum tools to determine information about other members?

Given that Bodhisattva is a term from Buddhism, that's a good first clue that the forum member may be Buddhist. Buddhists are generally open to hearing other worldviews.

I figured that he was from India, but that's not the point LadyShea. I cannot believe what some people say having not asked a question or participated at all. To say that this thread is pointless is pure ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's add some further conditionals to the hypothetical then

I'm not sure why you brought up the Great Transition since it would have nothing to do with the crime that was committed, if the person was not a citizen yet.

This person is watching a robbery and assault, for example. Due to amnesia the person does not know if the person beating up and robbing another person is him or herself.

How do you think the person would feel watching such an act?

He would probably feel terrible. He may react with anger and hope that the guy was caught. If he found out that he was the one that beat up the person and performed the robbery, he would probably be shocked if he wasn't that type of individual. He would probably try to understand the events that led up to the robbery in order to understand what made him do what he did.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure why you brought up the Great Transition since it would have nothing to do with the crime that was committed, if the person was not a citizen yet.

I was trying to get you to put the scenario in a context where a crime could still happen, since you used the absence of crime as a weasel to avoid the thought experiment.

The person doesn't know if he or she is a citizen

In other words he would judge the person as having done a bad thing that he should feel bad about.

[But]

Originally Posted by Crumb

But that thread has a clear and well defined point.

True, if you interpret it in that way. On the other hand, counting down from one million is pretty pointless, which doesn't mean that thread doesn't have good stuff in it.