undefined | Better HN

0 pointstoast02y ago0 comments

The thing about the shadowy elite is that it's non-falsifiable.

We can certainly have a discussion, but it's outside the realm of logic, because there's no possible evidence that could disprove it. That doesn't make it true or false, but it does make it useless to discuss in the terms of logic, and trying will just lead to frustration.

What would we do differently if the shadowy elite was behind JFK's death? What would we do differently if the shadowy elite wasn't behind it? What ends were gotten by the shadowy elite through the means of mysterious assasinations to help the Rolling Stones sell records?

These are all reasonable questions to ask, but the philosophy of logic won't help us come to answers.

0 comments

Kamq2y ago

Minor quibble, logic is generally perfectly fine with things that are non-falsifiable, so long as a truth value can be hypothesized, we can use logic just fine.

It's science that doesn't have anything to say about unfalsifiable situations (metaphysics, negative statements, etc).

We've really left the realm of empiricism, not logic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Kamq2y ago

Minor quibble, logic is generally perfectly fine with things that are non-falsifiable, so long as a truth value can be hypothesized, we can use logic just fine.

It's science that doesn't have anything to say about unfalsifiable situations (metaphysics, negative statements, etc).

We've really left the realm of empiricism, not logic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse