Originally Posted by
Andy Big Bear
I agree with the first statement. The second statement I would disagree with partially, I agree it's rude, that's why I personally abstain. I was just suggesting that its good for human relations to chill a little when someone gets up in your grill.
Mutual respect is good for human relations. Not coming from a Christian background, I don't hold with the uniquely Christian idea of, "turn the other cheek." No thanks. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect. Treat me with discourtesy and disrespect and expect to be called out for it (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but people in general).
I was thinking your initial reaction was a question of terminology. Let me be clear, when I say something is a "non-falsifiable hypothesis" a hypothesis is a truth statement. It is a statement that there exists evidence that will prove the hypothesis true. The contrapositive must also be true, that there must also exist evidence that will prove the statement false. A statement is non-falsifiable when there is no evidence that will prove the contrapositive.
I was unaware you were using a term of art. I thought it was merely a variation on the rather tired attempt of some religionists who insist that those who don't accept their beliefs justify their positions by proving a negative.
Creationism is a good example, creationists only consider evidence that will support their hypothesis that God snapped his fingers and created everything instantaneously. They will abandon specific theories and arguments when confronted with proof, but the central theory cannot be falsified, thus the hypothesis of creationism is non-falsifiable. This is how you separate logic from rhetoric. And yes, me and my pastor get into all manner of spirited debates on this issue.
However, we were not discussing either logic or rhetoric, but science vs. religious belief. Sophistry is a rhetorical trick and has nothing to do with science.