Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gabor's positions are falsifiable!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... I suppose that books have been written regarding the concept of falsifiability and how it fits into the philosophy and practice of modern science. As
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Gabor has most recently posted to the Creationism list the following:

      > If something is false it is possible
      > to prove its falsenensss.

      > If something is true, it still can be
      > testable but can not be proven false.

      > Therefore, if "falsifiability" is the
      > condition for something to be
      > scientific, then that knid of
      > "scientific" can never be surely
      > true.

      > That would be a self contradicting
      > idea.

      > Therefore the "falsifiability" concept
      > is a wrong idea.

      I suppose that books have been written regarding the concept of
      falsifiability and how it fits into the philosophy and practice of
      modern science.

      As others have taken note, the fundamental concept is not that hard to
      understand, despite Gabor's efforts to misunderstand it; or at least
      misrepresent it and have us believe maybe he just misunderstands it.

      Personally, I think he gets it just fine.

      He previously wrote regarding his own views:

      > From:    "Gabor Horvath"
      > Date:    Sun, Aug 21, 2005

      > Subject: Re: Evolutionists Attack
      > Black Folks

      > I've never said or thought that
      > my interpretetion of the Bible
      > is "inerrant".

      I think we can impute the following similar postion to Gabor:

      > I've never said or thought that
      > my interpretation of the real
      > world evidence is "inerrant".

      So, for all Gabor knows, his interpretations of the text and the real
      world evidence are, according to his own alleged principles, apt to be
      "errant" (i.e., false, in error) and can be proved false (getting Gabor
      to admit to any particular error, however, is a whole 'nother matter).

      That much of the concept of falsifiability Gabor seems to readily admit
      to, as indicated in his own statements above.

      Gabor's previously stated position is that one cannot know whether or
      not anything is actually more than a few thousand years old.

      For all Gabor knows, that is one of his "errant" positions that is
      subject to being proven false.

      He's been given repeated opportunities to "test" his theories on that in
      a formal discussion with Todd on the evidence of age issue.

      He has declined repeatedly to openly and honestly "test" his potentially
      false theories regarding the age of things.

      Personally, and despite Gabor's claims otherwise, I think it is clear
      that the reason he does not want his theories "tested" in a more formal
      context, with purpose and consequence, is because he knows there is
      nothing in them to rebut (i.e., falsify) the evidence supporting the
      proposition that:

      > There is (conclusive) empirical
      > evidence that some things are
      > much older than a few thousand
      > years.

      Gabor would have us believe he belives that Todd's affirmative can be
      "proved false".

      Well, he and his have had the opportunity for some time now to do that.
      Gabor and his are no "David". No "David" has been found.

      That brings us back to the more realistic and practical position of
      Gabor, briefly stated as follows:

      > Don't bother me with the
      > evidence. My position as
      > to the real world is based
      > on my interpretation of the
      > text which trumps any
      > real world evidence to the
      > contrary. No real world
      > evidence can falsify my
      > real world position based
      > on my interpretation of
      > the text.

      Or, has Gabor has most recently put it:

      > If something is true, it still can be
      > testable but can not be proven false.

      Gabor has simply made up his mind that his position about the age of
      things is true.

      > "Test it all you want, but you
      > can't prove it false."

      In other words, Gabor obligates himself to simply dismiss out-of-hand
      any evidence contrary to his position.

      I think we've all seen that technique in operation.

      Gabor is no "David"!

      "Goliath of GRAS"; still the one to beat!

      (Gabor wants to try and defeat the idea
      of falsifiability because my "Goliath" is, in relevant part, the
      falsifiability test for his fundamental position and that of the
      promoters of "young-earth, creastion-science")

      One of the truths which Gabor cannot change is that his claims are a bit
      wrong-headed on the concept of falsifiability.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.