arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org

@masklayer It's a marvellous sky... where is it?

@WandelStock@mastodon.art Thanks, nice one, I like how many varieties are here!
They are very sparsely planted, are you in a very humid area?

@WandelStock@mastodon.art ahah, well, next time =)

@WandelStock@mastodon.art What about the pictures of the tomatoes, though?

@astheroth@niu.moe

or even microblog.pub, when it will be released. Looks easier and lighter

@switchingsocial@mastodon.at @mastohost

@LDraco Start posting content, I'm sure you'll find people who are interested in what you think or do =)

@pwgallagher

Hi, thanks for swinging by!

I agree that popperian falsifiability is quite imprecise and surpassed. Popper in general has quite some flaws, from the rejection of inductive reasoning to the very strict rules about falsifiability.

One point is completely spot on though: The theory must be falsifiable. That doesn't mean that a falsification should make it invalid point blank, of course, but if no testing is possible it should not be considered science at all (which is oftentimes the case with religious claims).

I have read about Hossenfelder on reddit (check out /r/philosophyofscience, it's a nice sub), but I was a bit skeptical because of the aesthetical approach, which I find limiting and biased in science. Can you confirm that's her way of trying to solve the most tricky #PhilosophyOfScience matters?

.

@freemo @solanaceae

@codexcuman
Welcome here, I look forward to your toots!

@switchingsocial@mastodon.at

Do GetTogether actually federate with the rest of the fediverse of just itself, like nextcloud? I tried to add some users from there to my followed, but I see no handle...

Sorry, maybe I'm not understanding anything here =D

@pixelfed @funkwhale @GetTogetherComm

@freemo

Ah, I see what you mean. In this case is empirical knowledge, and again it can be alright for an individual to hold that up, but with a full, humble conscience that it doesn't give him any right and that people are, and should, completely skeptical about it.

@solanaceae

@freemo

Again, in this case would be indistinguishable from a non-existing and would be ruled out as an unnecessary step in explaining things. In both cases it wouldn't work.

@solanaceae

@freemo
Well, god is quite falsifiable actually, otherwise its being true would have any effect on the world and it would be ruled out by Ockham razor. Believers have to state things like "he created the Earth in 6 days". Once proven false, is falsified. And it was.

The odds with the dodo are different in terms of how likely it is that an animal is not extinct (happened in the past, you can figure out an easy way for it to happen, would fit in what we know is true and so on) vs the whole universe is created by a single entity and so on, which has a huge attack area, has never been proven true, and would require a reshaping of everything we know. This makes it less likely.

@solanaceae

@freemo

God is way more unlikely to exist than a dodo, and most of the 'proofs' brought forward in history about god have one after the other been correctly refused.

I have some problems with irrational thinking in general as people base their ethics on it, bringing to illegal abortions, killing homosexual people, wars, believing that "nature was created for us", and more.

That wouldn't happen with the dodo =D

In any case, if they have evidence I'll look at it =)

@solanaceae

@freemo Can you make me an example of something that is true but unfalsifiable at the same time? Of course, not personal/subjective truth like "I like ice cream".

I am quite aware of the troubles science has with the falsification of many hypothesis, but I don't want to get too sidetracked here.

Personal evidence is a good starting point, but doesn't get you far. As you say, it is just healthy for others not to believe you, and the person who experienced it should be wary of it too. We are easily tricked by the simplest optical illusions or cognitive biases.

I try to approach religious with an open mind, but frankly I never heard a valid argument which was beyond the "I believe it without evidence because I want to", which is fair enough, but still quite a dangerous ground as you may be basing your ethics on it.

@freemo Well, 'well thought' is not enough for me, as logic can only get you that far. I also need evidence.

In any case, I always consider that I may be wrong, so when I am approached by religious people I give them a chance and I ask them why do they believe in it. Good display of classical fallacies, so far.

@freemo I talked with them for around 30 minutes. They couldn't get out of the circularity of the argument, I just gave up =D

@roodleypoodley Hi roodley!

I just did a schematic mind-map of the latest evidence about the existence of God.

Brought to you by some random Jehovah's witnesses who stopped me in the street. Pretty strong argument.

Being #atheist is so relaxing.

@BaptisteGelez
Test for comment