Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!(Isaiah 5:20-21) ESV
Technically speaking, in order to be scientific, a hypothesis must be predictive, testable and falsifiable. This is the smoking gun which proves that the scientific method was developed by atheist intellectual elites.
The truth isn’t falsifiable. If it was, it couldn’t be the truth. There’s a whole generation of young SciPop devotees out there who believe that so long as a hypothesis is falsifiable, it’s good. If it’s falsifiable it must be true, right? because it’s falsifiable. See what a mess science has gotten itself into? They’re at the point where dark is light, black is white, wrong is right and the truth isn’t scientific, so it’s stupid.
Falsifiability was devised for a noble purpose: to put an end to Victorian Era blowhard polemics who thought that their opinion was an authoritative ruling in their personal field of expertise.
The idea was to make it so that self-styled experts in a field couldn’t give their opinion about an issue as being definitive without having actually done some experimental work to substantiate it.
In a way it was an attempt to take science out of the hands of the wealthy elite dilettantes and professionalize it. What has happened over time can only be described as a travesty. The nuance of how falsifiability is applied has long been forgotten, and now people think it means that so long as your hypothesis is falsifiable, it’s true. This is a problem because the truth can’t be falsified, if it could, it wouldn’t be true.
The concept of falsifiability is at the root of the popular culture phenomenon of relative truth. Whatever you want to believe is true for you, and no one has the right to say otherwise or judge you.
Here’s an example of an exchange based on the popular science (SciPop) premise that Noah’s flood is impossible because there’s not enough water on Earth to cover it to a depth higher than Mount Everest. There are 3 problems with this premise:
- The flood was before the formation of Mount Everest,
- The Earth’s radius was larger at the time of the flood, it contained the waters of the Great Deep which was sufficient to flood the earth to a depth of 1,200 km,
- Water fell from above the firmament in an unknowable quantity.
Here’s how the conversation played out and how falsifiability is invoked:
Atheist Science Trolls and Falsifiability
- AST: The Noachian flood described in the Bible would leave an uninhabitable earth, attached “proof” (pseudoscience garbage was attached).
- Matty: Nothing you just said is a testable hypothesis. That means it’s not scientific. It’s an inductive rationalization of your premise. That’s called circular reasoning.
- AST: Cite one unfalsifiable claim in our “proof” please…
- Matty: “It can be falsified therefore it must be true?” Your spiritual blindness is quite breathtaking.
Popper’s vision was that “real science aims to be disproven and not confirmed” which is about as warped as it gets, except for the fact that in the minds of scientifically illiterate science worshipers (SISW) it’s taken to mean that a hypothesis can be disproved and thereby confirmed. It’s a mess, there’s no two ways about it. Falsifiability has fallen from it’s noble calling to be a bunt instrument in the hands of SISW and atheist science trolls (ASTs). We’ve demoted it to the rank of major deity in the atheist pantheon.
Falsifiability is a major deity in the atheist pantheon; the subject of a lot of special pleading.– Falsifiability, definition