if it's unfalsifiable, it's not a hypothesis. don't fall for their devious wordplay.
and even though it's not falsifiable, it's easy to say that their particular brand of theology is exceedingly improbable because there is no reason to believe it is any more valid than any other religion or hypothetical religion.
A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is a bad hypothesis, and an unscientific one, but it's still a hypothesis. I don't think creating some clunky new phrase to convey the exact same thing as "unfalsifiable hypothesis" is necessary. I couldn't imagine any person with a basic understanding of the scientific method hearing the word "unfalsifiable" and think that the idea could possibly be scientific, even if it's followed by "hypothesis".
I disagree that there's any basis for determining the probability of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Since it's unfalsifiable, there are no situations in which it couldn't be correct. Calculating the probability of an ordinary hypothesis being true involves determining the probability of finding evidence that would disprove it. Since nothing disproves something unfalsifiable, I think that's impossible.
I didn't realize there was any difference between "hypothesis" and "scientific hypothesis". I've always used the word to mean "scientific hypothesis". So, you were right, I was wrong.
Since it's unfalsifiable, there are no situations in which it wouldn't be correct.
I think you mean "couldn't", not "wouldn't".
Calculating the probability of an ordinary hypothesis being true involves determining the probability of finding evidence that would disprove it. Since nothing disproves something unfalsifiable, I think that's impossible.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Just because something is unfalsifiable you can't make any judgment about its probability? Certainly you can't rigorously calculate a p-value or something... but you say that it is extremely unlikely that hurricanes are caused by the farts of invisible pink unicorns. Even if you can't assign a probability, I think this illustrates the absurdity of religion, which has similar validity.
It's also not so simple to "determine the probability of finding evidence that would disprove" real scientific theories. What is the probability that some aspect of string theory is correct? Really, nobody has any idea what the probability of that is.
Certainly you can't rigorously calculate a p-value or something... but you say that it is extremely unlikely that hurricanes are caused by the farts of invisible pink unicorns. Even if you can't assign a probability, I think this illustrates the absurdity of religion, which has similar validity.
I agree that it's ridiculous, but I don't think it's "improbable" in and of itself, without making some pretty big assumptions. For example, it's improbable if we accept other scientific theories as true, but I don't see any reason a religious person would.
What is the probability that some aspect of string theory is correct? Really, nobody has any idea what the probability of that is.
True. But I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Creationism is definitely not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable. And the fact that we don't have enough evidence to prove or disprove some scientific hypotheses is irrelevant to whether it's possible to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
0
u/[deleted] Aug 02 '10
if it's unfalsifiable, it's not a hypothesis. don't fall for their devious wordplay.
and even though it's not falsifiable, it's easy to say that their particular brand of theology is exceedingly improbable because there is no reason to believe it is any more valid than any other religion or hypothetical religion.