Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The most interesting thing is that:
but
For example, I wrote on our website:
Search for signs of artificiality. On the one hand, whatever we find (a vase at the bottom of the sea), we can always declare that it could have been formed by chance (in billions of years, the most unlikely event can happen – a standard stamp in discussions). On the other hand, if we are talking about signals from space, scientists calmly look for traces of artificiality in them (SETI project). Mathematicians have tried to find similar traces in the DNA. Article in the reviewed journal on this subject: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791 Whether they found it or not doesn't matter (they think they found it), what matters is that it's a normal scientific task.
They are considered unfalsifiable because they do not make any positive predictions that can be verified by experiment or observation. The meaning of the falsifiability criterion is precisely this : in order to be considered scientific, a theory must predict the result of some action, and if the prediction is not justified, then the theory is considered false or at least incomplete. If any result of any experiment can be explained by a theory, it becomes unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.�
But this is not a sign of falsity. With non-falsifiable theories, the problem is precisely that nothing it is not a sign of their falsity. This means, among other things, that it makes no sense to do anything based on this theory, since it does not predict any specific outcome of actions.
Because they cannot be refuted by experiment. It is simply impossible to imagine such an experiment, as a result of which the theory of intelligent design can be refuted. Any results of the experiment can be explained by the fact that this was the idea. After all, if there is a plan, then it can be arbitrarily complex. In particular, it could consist in the fact that the results of this experiment are deliberately distorted in such a way as to disguise the plan.
No, this does not mean that they are false. The concept of intelligent design is in the zone of the transcendent… i.e., the fundamentally unknowable. Everything that is in this zone cannot be considered either true or false. Non-falsifiability only means that the theory cannot be integrated into the scientific picture of the world. However, it can easily be integrated into both the religious worldview and the scholastic one (which does not require experimental confirmation, but requires only the absence of internal logical contradictions). Simply put, you won't be able to discuss these theories meaningfully with scientists, but you can easily discuss them with believers or philosophers.