Falsifiability Not An Adequate Test
For whatever
reason, the idea that if something is not falsifiable then it is not
worth discussing is prevalent among many non-believers. I'm not sure
why. I'm not sure what falsifiability even means honestly (but from what
I've heard it is rooted in the thought of Karl Popper, and I haven't
read any of his works).
Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Lane Craig seemed to take this line. He said it didn't matter to him to refute his arguments because they were unfalsifiable, and a test of a good argument was that it is falsifiable, not that it is unfalsifiable.
If falsifiability means that there is no principled way to disprove something and is therefore futile to discuss, then what do we make of self evident claims? or properly basic beliefs?
It also seems to be self refuting. If everything must be in principle falsifiable in order for it to have any meaning, then I wonder if falsifiability is falsifiable. I don't see how it could be.
This issue of falsifiability comes up in many debates concerning the existence of God. It seems akin to the slogan "you can't prove a negative". I'm not sure how, but for some reason, my intuition just jumps there (is intuition a reasonable source, and if so, is it falsifiable?). For example, the Kalam cosmological argument was dismissed by an atheist i was dialoguing with because it proved deism, and he asserted that deism is not falsifiable.
It is difficult to see what the relevance of that objection. Even if deism is unfalsifiable (and I don't think it is), it has nothing to do with the argument. The premises are falsifiable, and therefore, the conclusion can be avoided and the positive case for a creator can, in principle, be halted.
Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Lane Craig seemed to take this line. He said it didn't matter to him to refute his arguments because they were unfalsifiable, and a test of a good argument was that it is falsifiable, not that it is unfalsifiable.
If falsifiability means that there is no principled way to disprove something and is therefore futile to discuss, then what do we make of self evident claims? or properly basic beliefs?
It also seems to be self refuting. If everything must be in principle falsifiable in order for it to have any meaning, then I wonder if falsifiability is falsifiable. I don't see how it could be.
This issue of falsifiability comes up in many debates concerning the existence of God. It seems akin to the slogan "you can't prove a negative". I'm not sure how, but for some reason, my intuition just jumps there (is intuition a reasonable source, and if so, is it falsifiable?). For example, the Kalam cosmological argument was dismissed by an atheist i was dialoguing with because it proved deism, and he asserted that deism is not falsifiable.
It is difficult to see what the relevance of that objection. Even if deism is unfalsifiable (and I don't think it is), it has nothing to do with the argument. The premises are falsifiable, and therefore, the conclusion can be avoided and the positive case for a creator can, in principle, be halted.
Comments
Post a Comment