From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 23:31:56 MST
[Hermit 1]
[Blunderov 2]
[Hermit 3]
[Hermit 1] ...a "truth", to have any measure of rational support, must by
necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other
words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which
would permit that supposed truth to be rejected.
<snap>
[Blunderov 2] I wouldn't mind some help with what I perceive to be a paradox
here, namely: [I] All truths are falsifiable. [/I]
[Blunderov 2] I'm sure this has all been sorted out before so if someone
would be kind enough to point me in the right direction...?
[Hermit 3] Did my reply to Kirk answer your question?
[Hermit 3] Restating it anecdotally rather than in terms of formal logic, in
order to know that something 'useful' is true, there has to be some thing or
combination of things which, and they occurred, would allow us to say that
the statement about which we are asserting a truth value is false. In other
words, it cannot be a platitude or be unprovable.
[Hermit 3] When I say I have invisible, intangible, all powerful,
transcendental fairies that really don't want to be seen living at the
bottom of my garden, there is no test that you could possibly invent which
would disprove my statement. Thus my statement cannot be said to have a
truth value.
[Hermit 3] For all rational statements about which it is asserted a truth
value may be ascertained, there must exist the possibility of some evidence
disproving it. Of course, if such evidence actually existed, the truth value
would be lessened. But it is the possibility which is important in
establishing whether an assertion can be said to posses a truth value.
Kind Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT