Venom
Babylon Candle
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,126
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 1w9
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
1. Statements or theories are meaningful because they make predictions.
"Tinkerbell is the name of a character in XYZ movie". This statement is meaningful because it makes a prediction of evidence. We can now go check to see if there is such a character in XYZ movie and decide if the statement is true or false.
Statements that do not intend to make such a prediction to evidence are meaningless: "tinkerbell is a character in a movie, regardless of what IMDB says". When you insulate yourself from a prediction of evidence, the statement or theory starts to become more of "because I said so". I find it ironic that you of all people are accusing others of the "because I said so".
2. The 'outcome' of our lives is the same whether or not astrology is true or not. That is, our lives happen as they do. So in reality, the difference between a world where astrology is true or not true, is only in mechanism.
Until astrology proposes a mechanism for how the arrangements of planets influences my job promotion, the theory is meaningless. The mechanism for the moon having an effect on the ocean is "gravity" and is readily reducible and explainable. Uranus having an effect on Japanese technology RnD department is not readily explainable via gravity.
No mechanism? At this point theres no relevant difference between midevil magic and "mechanism of action regarding astrology".
3. psudosciences lack two things:
-specific, testable and repeatable predictions
-explainable mechanisms of actions
Specific: when a particular theory doesn't make specific enough predictions it leaves itself open to confirmation bias. Example: "uranus is responsible for surges of technology!". The prediction sets no standard of what will either prove the prediction true or false. This is bad. It then leaves these standards to be determined AFTER the data is gathered. This then influences how the data is interpreted. To maintain any objectivity, the standards of what will determine true or false need to be determined when the prediction is made or BEFORE the data is gathered. Otherwise, just about anything can after the fact, be squeezed in as 'true'.
Testable: theories need to be falsifiable. When proposing the theory of astrology, you need to also say what would then lead to its falsification. Theories that arent falsifiable are meaningless because they arent testable. I will give an example: "the theory of evolution would be falsifiable if we suddenly started finding and dating Precambrian rabbit and human fossils".
Ultimately the burden of proof lies on you. If I wanted to go prove to the world that "invisible Martian ice cream trucks are real and they control the worlds money supply via psychic powers", the burden of proof would lie on me, because the rest of the world shouldnt have to drop what its doing everytime some nut comes up with unfalsifiable opinions.
"Tinkerbell is the name of a character in XYZ movie". This statement is meaningful because it makes a prediction of evidence. We can now go check to see if there is such a character in XYZ movie and decide if the statement is true or false.
Statements that do not intend to make such a prediction to evidence are meaningless: "tinkerbell is a character in a movie, regardless of what IMDB says". When you insulate yourself from a prediction of evidence, the statement or theory starts to become more of "because I said so". I find it ironic that you of all people are accusing others of the "because I said so".
2. The 'outcome' of our lives is the same whether or not astrology is true or not. That is, our lives happen as they do. So in reality, the difference between a world where astrology is true or not true, is only in mechanism.
Until astrology proposes a mechanism for how the arrangements of planets influences my job promotion, the theory is meaningless. The mechanism for the moon having an effect on the ocean is "gravity" and is readily reducible and explainable. Uranus having an effect on Japanese technology RnD department is not readily explainable via gravity.
No mechanism? At this point theres no relevant difference between midevil magic and "mechanism of action regarding astrology".
3. psudosciences lack two things:
-specific, testable and repeatable predictions
-explainable mechanisms of actions
Specific: when a particular theory doesn't make specific enough predictions it leaves itself open to confirmation bias. Example: "uranus is responsible for surges of technology!". The prediction sets no standard of what will either prove the prediction true or false. This is bad. It then leaves these standards to be determined AFTER the data is gathered. This then influences how the data is interpreted. To maintain any objectivity, the standards of what will determine true or false need to be determined when the prediction is made or BEFORE the data is gathered. Otherwise, just about anything can after the fact, be squeezed in as 'true'.
Testable: theories need to be falsifiable. When proposing the theory of astrology, you need to also say what would then lead to its falsification. Theories that arent falsifiable are meaningless because they arent testable. I will give an example: "the theory of evolution would be falsifiable if we suddenly started finding and dating Precambrian rabbit and human fossils".
Ultimately the burden of proof lies on you. If I wanted to go prove to the world that "invisible Martian ice cream trucks are real and they control the worlds money supply via psychic powers", the burden of proof would lie on me, because the rest of the world shouldnt have to drop what its doing everytime some nut comes up with unfalsifiable opinions.
