CavScout wrote...
Does not make it better!dreman9999 wrote...
I said in infallibility. That means we can't test it. I can't really build a rocket that moves at the speed of light.CavScout wrote...
No.. no you didn't just elevate Indoctrination Theory to the level of the Theory of Relativity... no...no...dreman9999 wrote...
It is a theory on the same level of infallibility as the theory of relativity.jules_vern18 wrote...IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts."
And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments.
And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC. But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.
If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.
Your porblem is that it can't be test ed as being wrong....But you missing the fact that there many theories that arethe same way....That what makes it a theory. The theory of evolution can't be tested as well. Being untestable is what stops a theory form being a law till it's proven rong.
Actually it does because it makes it easy to debate, and fun too!





Retour en haut








