You said unequivocally that an unfalsifiable would have to be proven false in order for something falsifiable to be proven true.
I never said that. And in the quote I literally state, ‘You don’t need to disprove ... any unfalsifiable premise’. Where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’? The only language I use in the context of predicating on something being unfalsifiable is ‘assume’ which does not mean ‘prove‘ at all. You are grossly misrepresenting my words to try to show that I am making a logical error, but I never said what you are directly accusing me of stating.
If we have to assume the omphalos is false we have to assume every single unfalsifiable thing is false as well, thats not how science work. We can just disregard unfalsifiable things out of hand.
Explain to me how disregarding unfalsifiable things ‘out of hand’ is different from assuming unfalsifiable things are false.
Hypothesis: an explanation for someone phenomenon proposed to be true.
Disregard: to ignore.
Disregard hypothesis: to ignore something proposed to be true, i.e. to assume something is false.
From my point of view, and I think from the point of view of most intelligent, rational people, they mean exactly the same thing, and thus you have conceded that my point is correct. Therefore there is nothing further to discuss. I have won the argument, and you have lost. Good day.
You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis based on your own philosophical grounds (there are plenty of excellent philosophical arguments against it), but you can’t prove that it isn’t true because it is unfalsifiable. We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false.
Except we don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove the age of the universe.
That's wrong on the very face of it.
You are predicating something we can measure on "well you haven't disproven this unfalsifiable".
You’re being disingenuous. I never used the word ‘disprove’. You can’t call that direct even if my words somehow led to that implication.
The assumption being false is implied. If there is no explicit statement, it must be assumed true or false. It is a Boolean. There is no other possibility.
Assuming something is false, implicitly or explicitly, is not the same thing as disproving it.
I never said that. And in the quote I literally state, ‘You don’t need to disprove ... any unfalsifiable premise’. Where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’? The only language I use in the context of predicating on something being unfalsifiable is ‘assume’ which does not mean ‘prove‘ at all. You are grossly misrepresenting my words to try to show that I am making a logical error, but I never said what you are directly accusing me of stating.
I only directly quoted you with a permalink to the comment honey.
Explain to me how disregarding unfalsifiable things ‘out of hand’ is different from assuming unfalsifiable things are false.
Hypothesis: an explanation for someone phenomenon proposed to be true.
Disregard: to ignore.
Disregard hypothesis: to ignore something proposed to be true, i.e. to assume something is false.
From my point of view, and I think from the point of view of most intelligent, rational people, they mean exactly the same thing, and thus you have conceded that my point is correct. Therefore there is nothing further to discuss. I have won the argument, and you have lost. Good day.
Unfalsifiable events like the omphalos are neither true nor false, they are unfalsifiable.
To discard it out of hand is to not even consider it, its veracity doesn't exist.
To assume it to be false, now we have crossed out of the realm of unfalsifibility into the realm of empirical facts.
Why should we assume it to be false? Why should we assume it to be true?
We can't. Its unfalsifyable.
As such, to predicate anything measurable on "assuming an unfalsifyable is false" is bad logic.
You are not very good at imagining what intelligent rational people think then.
So you are 11 and are out of actual arguments?
No you didn’t.
Again, where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’?
Again, directly here.
Your exact words:
Except we don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove the age of the universe.
That's wrong on the very face of it.
You are predicating something we can measure on "well you haven't disproven this unfalsifiable".
That's not how facts work honey.
You’re being disingenuous. I never used the word ‘disprove’. You can’t call that direct even if my words somehow led to that implication.
The assumption being false is implied. If there is no explicit statement, it must be assumed true or false. It is a Boolean. There is no other possibility.
Assuming something is false, implicitly or explicitly, is not the same thing as disproving it.
You’re an idiot.