@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1 - Yes...given towards Truth all we can do is to express belief and not certainty if not through self consistency and to an extent empirical experiment...but even so its precarious and incomplete knowledge... and given that the natural evolutionary process in a theory is to be falsifiable in time, sort of a natural selection process, such claim points a usefull direction in the axis of knowledge worth using.
That and just that, was the challenge at hand and one that requires some attention...
I disagree entirely.
This is the agnostic dilemma, and it is always pick and choose. No such philosophy has eve been observed, not even by Popper.
Your statement is entirely contradictory as well. On an attempt for either belief or truth, this method cannot be observed. If everything is true until false, then contradictory theories are both true from explaining single events in the past and in the future.
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
2 - Karl Popper is the author of such idea and not Filipe seams also worth explaining...but it has a specific context. That something must be hold True until proven false only means that ultimately all conceptions can be or will be eventually proven false or incomplete.
No. All proofs and theories are properly stated in the positive. In other words, an Atheist need not defend that "there are no gods," (a negative statement), but rather that "the universe and everything in it is a natural product" (a positive proof). The atheist doesn't have any reason to even address the possibility of a Yahweh, Ala, Elohim, Shiva, Odin, Zeus, or Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is, and this deserves emphasis,
unnecessary.
The method you suggest is best summarized by the phrase "not even wrong."
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
3 - It seams adequate to distinguish belief and Truth precisely to avoid this kind of miss interpretations on what is actually being said...
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Quote:Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. In contrast, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable: the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong. Importantly, we may never find a dead human if that claim is true, but regardless that claim is falsifiable because we can at least imagine a finding that would prove it wrong. Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.
Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.
Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability. Still, he admitted that tests and refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.
Hope that helps...
This kind of thing only draws false stalemates. The idea that the earth orbits the sun and thus the sun rises is now on par with the sun being pulled across the sky by a golden chariot. After all, the observation that the earth actually does orbit the sun doesn't prove that it always does so it doesn't mean it is true or even partially true.
Popper took on the scientific method.
Meanwhile, it enables superstition and logically false ideas. Perhaps that was the goal... at least for some ideas.
A
Remember, it's always pick and choose.
T
