Brandon Strader

Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

2,105 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Native Jovian said:

(if something can't be disproven, then it's not something that can be scientifically investigated)

Where do you guys get this stuff? I have not met any researcher who approaches inquiry like this. It doesn't make any sense. >_>

You can't start on a premise that you can't disprove something and then derive conclusions from that. You have to prove it can not be disproven before using it as a premise.

lack of counterargument or lack of counterexample doesn't prove anything, nor does it disprove anything. Lack of evidence is not, nor is ever considered a valid premise to support some argument or counter argument.

Your relation is backwards; if something can not be scientifically investigated, it can not be disproven. That's not the same as the converse. Every mathematical proof can not be disproven (because that would violate tautology, and dismantle logic in general...), and according to you/Shadowe that renders mathematical proofs illegitimate concepts/things that can not be scientifically investigated.

Sorry for going down the rabbit hole, but there's a baseline of literacy in logic you need in order to have thoughtful discussion. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about falsifiability, guys.

"Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Native Jovian said:

I'm talking about falsifiability, guys.

"Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

This is a largely semantic misunderstanding between y'all... it's the difference between an assertion that cannot be disproven *now,* with current tools & technology, or at least has not been disproven *yet*, as compared to an assertion that is framed as being inherently unfalsifiable, independent of ANY obtainable knowledge, e.g. "we are living in an undetectable computer simulation." or "purple is prettier than blue"... or "women make better leaders than men"... the last example being unfalsifiable due to the subjectivity (better how?) of the language employed, which I believe was the original complaint in this case...

11 hours ago, Neblix said:

You can't start on a premise that you can't disprove something and then derive conclusions from that.

And yet, religion ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather you all went back to the subject of DJP's video upload as opposed to back-and-forthing about terminology. And on the subject, That video really does an excellent job of identifying one of the biggest problems with video gaming, that might be scene as sexist behavior-forming, and that's lazy storytelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now