Pangenitor, Panphage, and Pantheism

For those all who’ve regularly been reading this blog for the past couple years (all zero of you), you’ll know a few things about me. For those who haven’t been following along, well, let me fill you in. And then, once I get that background out of the way, we’re off to the races. (Here we go)

it has begun.gif

Continue reading

Advertisements

On Science, Demarcation, And The Necessity Of Maximally Fit Epistemic Systems

 

Axiom 1:  The metrics by which an epistemic system is to be judged, are its explanatory power and its ability to make testable, repeatable predictions that reliably allow reality to be influenced in conformity with will.
try science
Continue reading

A Further Word On William Lane Craig’s ‘Falsifiable Deity’

One of the arrows in the quiver of apologists is to claim that, just like empirical rationalism, their claims are not just evidence backed, they’re also subject to falsification and objective hypothesis-testing. In a way, they’re actually correct.  Which is to say, they have a knack at putting together valid deductive proofs.   Soundness, however, is another matter; falsifiable validity is nice, ‘n all, but a valid syllogism with unknown (or unknowable) soundness is epistemic null territory.

most of philosophy

Continue reading

If The God Particle Can Be Tested For, Why Can’t God?

Contention: Uncertainty is King.

Our probabilistic reality makes the Null Hypothesis mandatory. Nor is pure reason the answer; logic is subject to Godel’s Incompleteness, and axioms can be falsified by empirical investigation. Many of our linguistic and logical concepts are meaningless. (e.g. “nothing”, “identity”, “non-contradiction”, “locality”, “dead people”, etc…) Faced with the limits on certainty, the burden of proof is upon any claimant. The Null Hypothesis has to be falsified in order to accept any claim as provisionally true, and the null hypothesis is always the negation of the claim. And even when the dominant view is falsified, that does not mean that you can use the Fallacy of Bifurcation to substitute an unproven claim. While this does not prove that unproven claims are false, the assumption must be that they are.
Continue reading