
Ask HN: Is Everything Falsifiable? - neotokio
If I decide to judge &#x27;believe&#x27; (non-scientific, non-falsifiable) as probabilistic function (easy example - Pascal wager) isn&#x27;t, ultimately, everything falsifiable? Including the most bizarre of the statements, ie. I believe that there are green skinned trunk people living at the edge of Antarctica.<p>Only after I add additional constrains, like time, space, frequency or other, I can truly talk about statement being falsifiable in relation to those constrains.<p>There is also, of course, Gödel.<p>PS. I realize roots of falsifiability are within philosophy of science and I myself try to extend definition from simple and well defined statements to complex and undefined. It&#x27;s an exercise.
======
neotokio
> What do you mean falsifiable?

Testable. Ability to approve or dismiss idea. This ability seems to exist only
within some defined constrains (time, space...). That's my question at its
roots.

Of course we assume that statement which fails to be 'tested' within those
constrains is 'false' or at least probabilistically closer to 'false' than
'true'. However, without those modeled constrains, statement 'hangs' in some
quantum realm of uncertainty until some final resolution happens.

Hence the question, isn't ultimately everything falsifiable? I could always
give my 'test' a little more time or define bigger space for it to work until
one day it would work. In other words, I can wait infinite amount of time for
something to become true, where false happens in finite amount of time.

Ie. What if I waited 1bln years until green skinned trunk people will start
living at the edge of Antarctica?

It seems to border on
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem)

> Could you elaborate on what you mean by "there is also, of course, Gödel"?

I referred to Incompleteness Theorem, namely - problem of consistency. In case
of falsifiability:

a) Impossibility to establish the internal logical consistency, unless one
adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is
as open to doubt. b) Models cannot be made in finite number of observation. c)
Even if theorems already deduced do not contradict each other, there remains
possibility that the very next theorem deduced may be contradictory.

Honestly guys, uff... But I do try to get deeper understanding of
'falsifiability' and its limits :)

------
badrabbit
What do you mean falsifiable?

> I believe that there are green skinned trunk people living at the edge of
> Antarctica.

Critical thinking and objective analysis can be applied. If you ask me to
believe that,I would ask you to present me with facts I can independently
verify.

You mentioned words like 'believe' and 'judge'. What thought process are you
following? If your judgement is flexible enough anything is falsifiable to
you. Indeed some believe everything is relative and truth comes in shades.

Pascal's wager is interesting because he states truth is binary,which I
personally agree. Some things are difficult for people to prove as truth so I
think we resort to believability based on varying metrics as opoosed to a
binary true/false verdict.

------
Legogris
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "there is also, of course, Gödel"?

Isn't the statement "This statement is false" non-falsifiable?

