= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on A rational unfalsifyable believe - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (46)
The idea of the story is that there are no evidence. Because I think, in real life, sometimes, there are important and relevant things with no evidence. In this case, Adam's innocence is important and relevant to Eve (for emotional and social reasons I presume), but there is no, and there will never be, evidence. Given that, saying: "If there is evidence, then the belief could be falsified." is a kind of cheating because producing new evidence is not possible anymore.
How do you claim to know that?
Well... That's part of the story. I'm sure there is a term for it, but I don't know what. Something that the story gives and you accept it as fact.
That kind of knowledge is not part of the human condition. By making it a presupposition of your story, you render your hypothetical inapplicable to actual human life.
I will have to copy paste my answer to your other comment:
Am I not allowed to use such narrative technique to simplify my story and deliver my point? Yes I know it is out of touch with the human condition but I was hoping it would not strain my audiences' suspension of disbelieve.
The problem is that the unrealistic simplification acts precisely on the factor you're trying to analyze - falsifiability. If you relax the unrealistic assumption, the point you're trying to make about falsifiabilty no longer holds.