Americans and Religion

[Zippyy]

Hi Pete,

Actually, a number of fundamental questions are not falsifiable. Among these are the existence of an exterior universe.

As I understand it, falsifiability only applies to statements or claims; not questions. If you were to say, "Is there an exterior universe?" it would be a perfectly valid question. It would just have no correct answer other than "We can't know." But if you were to say, "There is an exterior universe," it would be a logical fallacy because there is no avenue to prove it false.

Also, I don't think a thing must be falsifiable for it to be true. I only assert that most non-falsifiable claims are totally unnecessary hypotheses.

The fundamental assumptions that each of us use are not based on logic or truth, they are based on emotion and perception. While we can give arguments why our individual world view is more tenable than someone else's, these arguments are a priory.

Not all priories are created equally. Besides, I think it is absurd to insist that no one makes assumptions based on logic.

It is not so much that one world view is more correct as that it is more useful.

In your post you seem to be saying that:
A- There is no such thing as evidence because any inferences drawn from this evidence are subject to "B"
B- All world-views are equally valid, some are just more "useful"
C- Zippyy is a solipsist.

Answer: None of the above. But what do I know? Everything I say is based on emotion, and not logic, right?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have noted my use of the word "falsifiability" and launched through a litany of philosophic words and phrases mostly detached from my original post.