CDZ Verifiability of the verifiability principle and falsifiability of the falsifiability principle.

[RandomPoster]

The Verifiability principle tells us that anything that is untestable and can not be verified to be either valid or invalid is not only unscientific, except also meaningless. Its proponents reject as cognitively meaningless entire fields such as metaphysics, religion, morality, emotion, and aesthetics. This strikes most people as inherently obvious because issues of morality in particular are by their very nature meaningless as attempts to quantify them are typically exercises in futility. In short, only analytical thinking is meaningful. Also, notice how verifiability contains falsifiability as failing a verification test constitutes falsification.

The Verifiability principle is attacked on the basis that it itself is not verifiable. It is said to fail its own criteria.

The Falsifiability principle tells us that anything that is unfalsifiable is not scientific, although not necessarily meaningless.

The Falsifiability principle is NOT attacked on the basis that it itself is not falsifiable. It is allowed to fail its own criteria. I see this as a double standard.

 

[Toronado3800]

The Verifiability principle tells us that anything that is untestable and can not be verified to be either valid or invalid is not only unscientific, except also meaningless. Its proponents reject as cognitively meaningless entire fields such as metaphysics, religion, morality, emotion, and aesthetics. This strikes most people as inherently obvious because issues of morality in particular are by their very nature meaningless as attempts to quantify them are typically exercises in futility. In short, only analytical thinking is meaningful. Also, notice how verifiability contains falsifiability as failing a verification test constitutes falsification.

The Verifiability principle is attacked on the basis that it itself is not verifiable. It is said to fail its own criteria.

The Falsifiability principle tells us that anything that is unfalsifiable is not scientific, although not necessarily meaningless.

The Falsifiability principle is NOT attacked on the basis that it itself is not falsifiable. It is allowed to fail its own criteria. I see this as a double standard.

Yes.

Do you have a single idea you'd like to kick around the "verifiabililty or falsifiability" of?

I can't prove/verify Tom Brady is the best QB ever because he hasn't changed teams and situations enough. I can't prove he isn't though.

Dan Marino though, that guy had no supporting cast for most of his career and it took the year Peyton Manning was injured to get me thinking that way.

(man I'm stuck in the AFC East)

 

[RandomPoster]

The Verifiability principle tells us that anything that is untestable and can not be verified to be either valid or invalid is not only unscientific, except also meaningless. Its proponents reject as cognitively meaningless entire fields such as metaphysics, religion, morality, emotion, and aesthetics. This strikes most people as inherently obvious because issues of morality in particular are by their very nature meaningless as attempts to quantify them are typically exercises in futility. In short, only analytical thinking is meaningful. Also, notice how verifiability contains falsifiability as failing a verification test constitutes falsification.

The Verifiability principle is attacked on the basis that it itself is not verifiable. It is said to fail its own criteria.

The Falsifiability principle tells us that anything that is unfalsifiable is not scientific, although not necessarily meaningless.

The Falsifiability principle is NOT attacked on the basis that it itself is not falsifiable. It is allowed to fail its own criteria. I see this as a double standard.

Yes.

Do you have a single idea you'd like to kick around the "verifiabililty or falsifiability" of?

I can't prove/verify Tom Brady is the best QB ever because he hasn't changed teams and situations enough. I can't prove he isn't though.

Dan Marino though, that guy had no supporting cast for most of his career and it took the year Peyton Manning was injured to get me thinking that way.

(man I'm stuck in the AFC East)

I'm more concerned with the falsifiability of the falsifiability principle itself and why it is not expected to meet its own criteria, whereas the verifiability principle is expected to meet its own criteria.

 

[Toronado3800]

The Verifiability principle tells us that anything that is untestable and can not be verified to be either valid or invalid is not only unscientific, except also meaningless. Its proponents reject as cognitively meaningless entire fields such as metaphysics, religion, morality, emotion, and aesthetics. This strikes most people as inherently obvious because issues of morality in particular are by their very nature meaningless as attempts to quantify them are typically exercises in futility. In short, only analytical thinking is meaningful. Also, notice how verifiability contains falsifiability as failing a verification test constitutes falsification.

The Verifiability principle is attacked on the basis that it itself is not verifiable. It is said to fail its own criteria.

The Falsifiability principle tells us that anything that is unfalsifiable is not scientific, although not necessarily meaningless.

The Falsifiability principle is NOT attacked on the basis that it itself is not falsifiable. It is allowed to fail its own criteria. I see this as a double standard.

Yes.

Do you have a single idea you'd like to kick around the "verifiabililty or falsifiability" of?

I can't prove/verify Tom Brady is the best QB ever because he hasn't changed teams and situations enough. I can't prove he isn't though.

Dan Marino though, that guy had no supporting cast for most of his career and it took the year Peyton Manning was injured to get me thinking that way.

(man I'm stuck in the AFC East)

I'm more concerned with the falsifiability of the falsifiability principle itself and why it is not expected to meet its own criteria, whereas the verifiability principle is expected to meet its own criteria.

Perhaps something was lost in the translation? Ia this a problem in how it was worded?

 

[jwoodie]

The Verifiability principle tells us that anything that is untestable and can not be verified to be either valid or invalid is not only unscientific, except also meaningless. Its proponents reject as cognitively meaningless entire fields such as metaphysics, religion, morality, emotion, and aesthetics. This strikes most people as inherently obvious because issues of morality in particular are by their very nature meaningless as attempts to quantify them are typically exercises in futility. In short, only analytical thinking is meaningful. Also, notice how verifiability contains falsifiability as failing a verification test constitutes falsification.

The Verifiability principle is attacked on the basis that it itself is not verifiable. It is said to fail its own criteria.

The Falsifiability principle tells us that anything that is unfalsifiable is not scientific, although not necessarily meaningless.

The Falsifiability principle is NOT attacked on the basis that it itself is not falsifiable. It is allowed to fail its own criteria. I see this as a double standard.

Is this about individuals having their own realities?