Dean Radin, Ph.D on Quantum Physics 1 of 3

Dean Radin, Ph.D on The Stupidity Hypothesis, Quantum Physics and Mind Matter interface

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dean
• Radin
• Quantum
• Physics
• Mind
• Matter

[basmithtx]

@toobsucker It's clear that you're only going to view things in absolutist all-or-nothing terms, particularly if it involves in some way portraying yourself as some sort of "victim". This is pointless.

[toobsucker]

@basmithtx "In fact, maybe you skim through Popper's book rather than taking whatever your propaganda source is at face value"

I know what Popper believed, as do all scientists. Popper rejected logical positivism unlike what you want to believe. Look up "Logical positivism & Popper" and read.

Popper did not rule out unfalsifiable hypotheses may at some time in the future become falsifiable, but while they remain unfalsifiable , they also remain "non-scientific" (Samir Okasha)

[basmithtx]

@toobsucker "I suggest you study this before you debate it."

Uh, you too.

In fact, maybe you skim through Popper's book rather than taking whatever your propaganda source is at face value.

[toobsucker]

@basmithtx "It seems a bit arrogant to say your particular brand of religion has anything to do with the development of falsification"

I suggest you study this before you debate it.

Google "Science and Pseudo-Science", the first link is a Stanford site Popper was a liberal atheist that invented falsification for the sole purpose of keeping the "metaphysical" out of science.

"He [Popper] refuted verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific"

[basmithtx]

@toobsucker Popper talks about falsification being important to critical discussion, but he doesn't outright reject the value of ordinary logical analysis.

It seems a bit arrogant to say your particular brand of religion has anything to do with the development of falsification. However, I'd say that science is generally happy to be proven wrong, but you presumably cannot tolerate the possibility. If something rejects the potential for being wrong, it seems specious to label it as science.

[toobsucker]

@basmithtx "It no more "rejects" non-falsifiable things any more than a ruler "rejects" something too short or too long to be measured"

I suggest you study Poppers demarcation. A theory must be capable of being proven false, if a theory does not have the ability to be proven false, it is considered "non-scientific". Only theories that can be proven false are considered scientific

As I said science breaks falsification all the time.Falsification exists for one reason, to keep God out

[toobsucker]

@basmithtx "Your investigator example is also flawed. A non-falsifiable alibi keeps the suspect in the investigation's arena"

Yes it does in an investigation. This is my point, Science does not work this way. Unless a theory has the capability of being proven false, it can not be used by science. Popper considered a hypotheses that is unfalsifiable to be pseudo science because there is no way to prove it to be false.

Google "falsifiability criterion of demarcation" and study

[basmithtx]

@toobsucker It no more "rejects" non-falsifiable things any more than a ruler "rejects" something too short or too long to be measured.

Your investigator example is also flawed. A non-falsifiable alibi keeps the suspect in the investigation's arena, while a falsifiable one (aka witnesses) allows the investigators to make judgement calls. However, just like science, the investigator always keeps potential suspects in mind, and no suspect is utterly "rejected" from all consideration.