Doesn't Russel's Teapot completely negate falsification...

I don't think the christcuck who made this thread does either

>"Yet on the whole, relative to his capacities, he was a failure. He petered out. He squandered his time and energy, and even his money, on unworthy objects."

Santayana on Russell.

The original low energy

They make contradicting claims about how truth is arrive at. Russel puts forward the idea that truth comes from providing evidence FOR things. Popper completely rejected the idea of verification and said insisted on disproving things. If we really can arrive at truth by getting evidence FOR things than Popper's little idea is not needed.

Yes, if, which we almost certainly can't

Wow, that's fucking autistic as fuck. Russel's teapot was him explaining why he didn't see fit to be a Christian. Falsification was a proposed methodology that was meant to help avoid wasting time with scientific goose-chases centred around some asshole's pet theory.

Pick one
-Falsify Russel's Teapot by getting a better telescope and spending a lot of time looking for it.
-You don't need to falsify things to know they true.

Atheism is a mental illness.

It's as if Russell was fedora before fedoras was a thing.

You missed my point. One is a useful methodology, not a fucking way of life.

Are you actually autistic?

You don't know what passive-aggressive means.

You are missing that both statements hold underlying axioms about how we arrive at truth. You can't just apply methodologies and reasoning for dismissing God arbtiarially. All of them have underlying axioms which you must believe to be true for the argument to make any sense.

If you want to use a certain axioms to discuss religion you can't fucking invert the axioms when discussing epistemology. Do you not understand that philosophical ideas not be consistent? That logic isn't something that changes based on your mood? You can't say falsification is a good method for getting truth when discussing science, than suddenly do a 180 when talking about religion.

Sorry, what in the fpying fuck are you talking about? Are you currently high on crack or something. I struggled to find a single sentence in your post that made even slightly sense. Why don't you put the crackpipe down before you post something on here

I'm sorry I can't dumb it down anymore. I tried but there is no hope for you. Anyway it seems you are incapable of actually having a discussion beyond the level of throwing out insults and saying you are confused.

>Falsify Russel's Teapot by getting a better telescope and spending a lot of time looking for it.

I kind of feel like you're missing the point here. The Teapotters would just say the teapot is very small, is occluded by something, is invisible when viewed through a telescope etc. The fact that Russell's articulation of the idea uses a verificationist perspective doesn't mean the idea won't plug straight in to a falsificationist model. Falsification doesn't negate the concept of 'evidence', it just establishes a different criterion for establishing fact.

Yes I can, you bloody cretin. Falsification helps prevent wasting time trying to support a pet theory, that's it. It's a useful tool.

This is what Stirner was talking about with the whole spooks thing. You're expect people to serve these ideas as though they were entities, rather than utilize them as tools.

Also, even under falsification, he wouldn't have to try and falsify the teapot, because nobody has actually asserted there is a teapot; just that the logic of the teapot functions on the same "well you can't disprove it" logic. They kinda play into each other, since it points out that God is an unfalsifiable idea.

Are you under the impression that falsification somehow means that you have to falsify a theory before discarding it? Because that is very wrong. To put in in simple terms, it basically means that a theory should be falsifiable and that if it isn't, it should be discarded. Russel's teapot is such a "theory" that should be discarded under that pretense, but that is exactly what Russel was trying to illustrate, the absurdity of such a statement.

Russell's teapot does not negate falsifiability. Russell's teapot is an analogy about the burden of proof in the context of religion.

If you can show that there does not exist a teapot that orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars then P (Russell's teapot) is obviously false.

What a shitty understanding of Stirner. He's talking about ethics/politics not fucking epistemology and methodology. Falsifcation isn't even comptable with Stirner. You can't falsify the Unique One and the concept of Spook is dependent on the epistemology of the Unique One.

Also do you not see that falsification just creates a new breed of pet theories, namely those that are really fucking hard to disprove like the teapot. Verification epistemology (the very thing Popper rejects) actually handles situations like the teapot far better.

Russel's Teapot is no less falsiable than any astrological theory. You can only falsify a theory about objects in space by looking all over the place for them, sometimes it even involves creating more powerful tools (which is exactly what is needed to look for the tea pot)

Wow what the fuck.
I can literally hear his Fedora tipping. I bet if Russell lived today he would love Anime

great pasta material

Mosley was such a fucking loser even 90-yo hippies didn't want shit to do with him.

>>Russel's Teapot is no less falsiable than any astrological theory.
or than the big bang

Dear user,
Thank you for your post and enclosures. I have given some thought to our recent correspondence. It is always difficult to decide on how to decide on how to respond to people whose ethos is so alien and, in fact, repellant to one's own. It is not that I take exception to the general points made by you but that every ounce of my energy has been devoted to an active opposition to cruel bigotry, compulsive violence, and the sadistic persecution which has characterized the philosophy and practice of facism.

I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us.

I should like you to understand the intensity of this conviction on my part. It is not out of any attempt to be rude that I say this but because of all that I value in human experience and human achievement.

Use when out of arguments

Russel extended his Teapot theory by saying that, even if it was falsified by, for example, someone not finding it in a certain region where it is supposed to be, the theoretical proponent of that theory would go on to move the goalposts by asserting that the properties of the teapot make it such that it cannot be detected by the method that was used to supposedly falsify it. This, if the argument is taken to it's conclusion, leads to a non falsifiable theory in the end (the teapot is invisible, has no charge etc. etc.), which is why the analogy works for the God argument he was criticizing.

Vicky broke him a bit, he thought he was past his peak for working on fundamental problems.

Whats the issue with passive aggressive in general?

Do you really want people to fight in melee range? This seems dumb.

It doesn't matter. To try to argue the existence of a God for brownie points or because you think it's your obligation/life calling, is selfishness. To reify the existence of a God to a fallacious analogy, self-defeating or not, is also just as selfish for the same reasons. Whatever is done for self-indulgence or self-aggrandizement; though the material may be met to the goal desired, the ends of that are not well.

Truly, the loneliest souls are those that have lost control of their own selves, and a lapse in judgement, via the pursuit of confrontation, is the first symptom of that dis-ease.

>What a shitty understanding of Stirner. He's talking about ethics/politics not fucking epistemology and methodology. Falsifcation isn't even comptable with Stirner. You can't falsify the Unique One and the concept of Spook is dependent on the epistemology of the Unique One.

Actually, he's talking about all ideas. They're all just tools to be used, even reason itself is just a tool to be used as you see it. All ideas and all things are to be regarded as your property, nothing is sacred or "beyond" you.

>Also do you not see that falsification just creates a new breed of pet theories, namely those that are really fucking hard to disprove like the teapot. Verification epistemology (the very thing Popper rejects) actually handles situations like the teapot far better.

You're literally the only one here treating the idea as though it should be held sacred.

Again, the teapot isn't a theory. Russell wasn't asserting there was a teapot out there (I need to ask again, are you autistic?) he was pointing out that "you can't disprove it" logic allows for all kinds of stupid shit.