XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   On 27-5-2014 18:57, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > On Mon, 26 May 2014 23:08:40 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >> On 23-5-2014 19:08, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 22 May 2014 17:44:04 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>> That doesn't work either. I can tell if something is magic. It's easy;   
   >>>> magic doesn't exist.   
   >>> When you say "magic doesn't exist", is this intended to be:   
   >>>   
   >>> a fact, like "masses attract one another"; or   
   >>>   
   >>> a logical statement, like "in Euclidean geometry, the sum of the   
   >>> angles of any triangle is 180 degrees"; or   
   >>>   
   >>> a falsifiable statement, like "all crows are black"; or   
   >>>   
   >>> a non-falsifiable statement, like "God does not exist"?   
   >>   
   >> The fourth one.   
   > That would be a non-falsifiable statement, unless my math is off.   
      
      
      
   > I don't want to be obnoxious, but that means that, however firmly you   
   > believe it, it is not a fact and you do not know it in any meaningful   
   > sense. It also means that you can only justify it by providing   
   > personal reasons for believing it.   
      
   It is not a fact, no. It just isn't something to take into account, and   
   there are very good reasons for that. Like the Celestial Teapot, the   
   Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you MUST have had this   
   discussion before.   
      
   > I would apply the same stricture to "God exists", by the way.   
   > Basically, you have put yourself in the same position of any religious   
   > believer. Yes, I know you have said you are an atheist, but an atheism   
   > that aggressively asserts itself (and I don't say that yours does) is   
   > indistinguishable from a religion, except in content.   
      
   Do you want this discussion? I do :-)  But others might not enjoy it as   
   much in here.   
      
   I am quite surprised to see that line of reasoning, though. Again I say,   
   surely you have had this discussion before, surely you have heard the   
   counterargument.   
      
   > This is why I prefer the third one (falsifiable), which can be   
   > justified by reference to past experience, not just mine, but past   
   > historical experience. From this perspective, history, particularly in   
   > the last few centuries, is an unending cavalcade of phenomena which   
   > turned out to be scientific in the sense of having a scientific   
   > explanation. The probability of an advanced technology used by Space   
   > Aliens not being based on science is non-zero but very very small.   
      
   Well, yes. The probability is non-zero, but very very small. So we don't   
   take it into account, but it isn't falsifiable. Like God. Or that teapot   
   monster unicorn. No?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)