How do you determine that something is not testable? How do you determine that something is unreliable?
When you say "Science says", what do you mean? When you say "Religion says", what do you mean?
>> Is it possible that a testable claim could be true and imply another claim that is not testable?
> No.
Why?
===
> Yeah ... so? They are still wrong, and I am most likely not.
How do you know that there is a greater chance that you are not wrong? What are the percentages you have calculated to conclude this?
===
> Doing science is to use whatever methods that deliver demonstrably reliable results and reject whatever methods that don't. There is no fixed method, because that in itself would be unreliable.
Is "use whatever methods that deliver demonstrably reliable results and reject whatever methods that don't" a fixed method?
> It is well-established that untestable claims are unreliable (and I have explained at length why)
Would you please explain "at length" once more in the form of a syllogism that ends with the conclusion "Therefore all non-testable claims are unreliable"?
> Either there is indeed a good reason to think it is in fact true, then science is wrong and needs to be corrected so it doesn't classify a reliable claim as unreliable
It's becoming more clear that we seem to have different criterion for what we consider testable. Would you consider all claims that are provable or disprovable testable? Would you consider all claims that if true, and not provable or disprovable, are not testable?
> No, the incompatibility comes from the fact that both are claims about the same subject matter, namely reality, and that those claims are contradictory.
What are some claims of science and religion (regarding religion, particularly fundamental ones) that are contradictory, as in they claim opposing things (X and ~X)? Or are the only claims that are incompatible as far as you are concerned the ones stated in your above syllogism?
===
> All I mean is that you (kindof) have to make some assumption of sorts, because there is no way to prove ultimate reality or disprove hard solipsism.
So, there is some first self-evident method that can't be tested for reliability without being circular?
> You do know that by definition. Senses are, by definition, those inputs that reflect external reality.
A definition you have assumed? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything is wrong with that assumption, it is a self-evident one, but call it like it is.
===
>>> More precisely, because a statement about math is not a statement about reality, other than that math is part of (human) reality.
>> When you apply the name "John" to one person and the name "Jack" to another, there are physical criterion to distinguish between John and Jack allowing us to verify via testing that a claim only about John is not a claim about Jack. Unless there are physical criterion that allows us to distinguish between math and reality, you've made a false analogy.
>>> The answer is simply: They didn't.
>> The conclusion I'm looking for is "They couldn't" and in particular "They couldn't intelligibly mean 'claims only about math are claims about reality'" and I want to know why. Only saying "they didn't" leaves the door open for someone else who could.
?
===
>> Under this axiomatic context: Do distances, spaces, cardinalities, and sets symbolically or conceptually exist absent of any physical representation?
> I don't know. I certainly don't see any reason to believe so.
Then you can't see any reason to believe '1 < 2' could make reference to anything other than the physical representations of distances of space, cardinalities of sets, and any other needed mathematical structures?
===
> The primary problem with that whole argument is that it considers having an explanation a property of the thing to be explained, rather than of the subject (not) understanding the thing.
==========
1 ) If X can't be explained, then X is unintelligible.
2 ) If X is unintelligible and X is a part of reality, then the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" can be truthfully asserted.
3 ) If the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" can be truthfully asserted, then all claims about reality as a whole are unintelligible.
4 ) If all claims about reality as a whole are unintelligible, then the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" is unintelligible.
5 ) If the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" is unintelligible, then the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" cannot be truthfully asserted.
----------
6 ) X is a part of reality and X can't be explained (ASSUME for RAA)
7 ) X is a part of reality (Conjunction Elimination from 6)
8 ) X can't be explained (Conjunction Elimination from 6)
9) X is unintelligible (Conditional Elimination from 1, 8)
10) X is unintelligible and X is a part of reality (Conjunction Introduction 9, 7)
11) The claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" can be truthfully asserted (Conditional Elimination from 2, 10)
12) All claims about reality as a whole are unintelligible (Conditional Elimination from 3, 11)
13) The claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" is unintelligible (Conditional Elimination from 4, 12)
14) The claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" cannot be truthfully asserted (Conditional Elimination from 5, 13)
15) The claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" can be truthfully asserted and the claim "reality as a whole is unintelligible" cannot be truthfully asserted (Conjunction Introduction 11, 14)
16) Therefore: It is not the case that X is a part of reality and X can't be explained (Reductio Ad Absurdum from 6 to a contradiction on 15)
---------
Rephrasing of the Conclusion: Either X is not a part of reality or X can be explained (De Morgan)
Rephrase of the Rephrasing: If X is a part of reality then X can be explained (Implication)
==========
> Could you then provide a criterion by which to distinguish the physical from the non-physical, that could be applied to an arbitrary object to determine whether it is physical or non-physical, and that's not using just vague terminology that could eaily be interpreted in a dozen different ways?
To exist and be non-physical is to exist and be incapable of changing state, to exist and be incapable of changing state is to exist and be non-physical.
===
> Whether something is moral is completely determined by whether you think it is moral, and whether it is moral has no effect on whether it is moral?
Wow have I done a terrible job of separating the conscience act from the external act. To be abundantly clear, it is immoral to violate your conscience. There can be two actions that occur when you perform an action: Choosing an action is itself an action, and performing the chosen action is separate from the choosing of that action. So if I where to correct my comments along these lines I would properly state: "It is immoral to [choose to] do what you think is immoral even if [what you choose to do] is moral, so you'll be better off doing [an action] you think is moral even if [that action] is immoral [because choosing to do otherwise would be immoral]. You are better off this way because you are not as/(at all) culpable for your actions if you didn't know they were wrong. That being said we are obligated to correct our neighbors' incorrect moral beliefs and to be open to being corrected."
===
> Sorry, but your claims really are getting absurd.
Argumentum ad Lapidem
Do you expect all true claims to sound rational before you've heard their justification? What did you expect given that I haven't been taking any steps to establish them?
> Pretty much what you'd expect from someone who tries to find any justification for a predetermined conclusion, rather than following the evidence where it leads, though.
"Ad Hominem"
Ouch. Like you've done with 'claims only about math are not claims about reality'? (<- ad hominem)
That might be what you'd expect, but if you claim that's the kind of person I am then you'll need to substantiate that claim.
Lol, I've stated that I'm not taking any steps to establish my claims to you, as they don't usefully tie into to our compatibility discussion, several times now.
> ... it simply means that you are making unsubstantiated claims.
I've stated that I'm not taking any steps to establish my claims here several times now. Echo echo echo ...