Kansas Classroom...

[aerosolben]

As written, that statement is hardly tautological; "scientifically useless" is a far narrower category than the unqualified assessment "not worth much".

I considered the meanings to be similar in the context provided. I can see how one might disagree.

I would also suggest that some unfalsifiable propositions have nonetheless proved useful to science (as a human enterprise) even though they cannot be employed in the scientific method.

You'll have to be more specific.

 

[money]

James Dillon,

Great post in #44 there! Very informative.

(looking for a bravo smiley...)

 

[slingblade]

Er... such as that one?

If you don't understand what he meant or agree with his phrasing, I suggest you consult him about it. I understand perfectly well what it says and have no problems with it. The problems you have with it are really not my concern, especially as I wasn't quoting it for your benefit.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I ain't needed to learn eviloution in school, it ain't part of my job now. I ain't even needed to learn math. I flip burgers at Wendy's, and no kids need to learn more than I know. They need to know that god created the universe and that believing in jeesus is all they need to know to have a happy life giving 10% to the church and owning a doublewide.

 

[RandFan]

If you don't understand what he meant or agree with his phrasing, I suggest you consult him about it. I understand perfectly well what it says and have no problems with it. The problems you have with it are really not my concern, especially as I wasn't quoting it for your benefit.

Fun with logic.

Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. --Carl Sagan

Er... such as that one?

I disagree. Of course it depends on what is meant by "worth". Question: What is Sagan's context? Sagan is telling us how to determine whether an argument is fallacious. We know this because he (Sagan) tells us precisely what the context is.

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true.

So worth in this context is narrow and only is defined to determine the truthfulness of a proposition. Sagan narrowly defines his context to exclude emotion. Based on this context his statement is both testable and falsifiable. We need but examine the proposition.

Proposition: Invisible Unicorns are Real.

This proposition is both untestable and unfalsifiable. Therefore it is useless to establish the reasonableness of the argument. Sagan's proposition has been tested and has not been falsified.

If you ever find an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition that can establish a definite proposition then it will be useful (according to Sagan's usage of the word "worth")

 

[slingblade]

Yeah, well, I didn't want to play. I get sick of the game sometimes.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, well, I didn't want to play. I get sick of the game sometimes.

Oh, I do understand.

"See, Joey, that's the beauty of argument. When you argue correctly, you're never wrong." --Nick Naylor, Thank You for Smoking

 

[slingblade]

I know, I know. Some days are diamonds, and some days, you're the windshield.

Or something like that. I I think I left my malaprop on the bus.....