Why are you your Religion?

[Mavorpen]

You're only on step 1 and you've already fucked up. In order to have a hypothesis, it must be falsifiable due to the fact that YOU MUST TEST IT.

So how do we test poltical beliefs?

Follow the scientific method.

This isn't complicated...

Neither does any other form of belief apparently.

I love it. Can't argue? Just pull shit out of your ass and wave it around.

[Condunum]

So all people athiests who once believed in it once shown new evidence contary to their old beliefs can't have followed the method because they said no my current belief doesn't fit in with this new evidence so I have to start again didn't follow the method either to gain their new beleifs?

Holy motherfucking run on sentence Batman.

The incoherence isn't what's stopping you? I don't know what he's saying, although I know what he's trying to say.

[Great Nepal]

I feel you are missing something... let me see. Oh wait you are. Experiment must have been performed and conformed the stated idea before it is theory. which means the idea would need to be falsifiable and have evidence that supports it.

So all people athiests who once believed in it once shown new evidence contary to their old beliefs can't have followed the method because they said no my current belief doesn't fit in with this new evidence so I have to start again didn't follow the method either to gain their new beleifs?

No, the idea passed initial experiments with the data available at said time. Now, it is theory, therefore it is possible for it to be modified and be within the bounds of the flow chart.
Idea that does not pass initial experement is not a theory and are to be scrapped. Adding new stuff to it is not within bounds of the flowchart.

Here is little game for you... move your finger on the flowchart twice:-
1. First time, move it vertically till you get to new evidence. Is there box to modify theory?
2. Now, move it down till you get to "conduct experiment". Do you see a box to modify idea here?

[Condunum]

Oh. Yeah. I've usually heard that to mean that he was fulfilling the law, thereby - I don't know how because I'm not a theologian - nullifying it.

That doesn't make any sense.

Welcome to religious theism.

[Mavorpen]

Holy motherfucking run on sentence Batman.

The incoherence isn't what's stopping you? I don't know what he's saying, although I know what he's trying to say.

Stopping me from what?

[Condunum]

The incoherence isn't what's stopping you? I don't know what he's saying, although I know what he's trying to say.

Stopping me from what?

I mean, you stopped to acknowledge the run-on sentence. The thing that got me was the incoherence of the sentence.

[Seperates]

That doesn't make any sense.

Welcome to religious theism.

I prefer the term fan-fiction.

[Mavorpen]

Stopping me from what?

I mean, you stopped to acknowledge the run-on sentence. The thing that got me was the incoherence of the sentence.

It being a run on sentence was why it was incoherent for me.

[Great Nepal]

Here's where flowchart broke down for you. What you just stated is not an experiment.

I know -snip-

So you know that it is not following flow chart. And yet you are arguing it is following flowchart? What the fuck are you smoking?

Here's where flowchart broke down for you. What you just stated is not an experiment.

Actually it broke down before that.

How? He just got idea till now.

[Blouman Empire]

So how do we test poltical beliefs?

Follow the scientific method.

And how do we perform the experiments on them? A lot of political and economic beliefs use a lot of assumptions.

I love it. Can't argue? Just pull shit out of your ass and wave it around.

I have actually been asking this since I started and you keep dismissing it, if you have the answer tell me.

[Mavorpen]

How? He just got idea till now.

He started out with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That's not all that scientific.

[Blouman Empire]

I know -snip-

So you know that it is not following flow chart. And yet you are arguing it is following flowchart?

If someone is taught from an early age X is Y and then later in life is shown evidence and they can't incorporate that evidence into their belief that X is Y does that also mean they haven't followed the method and thus not used reason and logic?

what are you smoking

It's good shit.

[Condunum]

Follow the scientific method.

And how do we perform the experiments on them? A lot of political and economic beliefs use a lot of assumptions.

You test the assumptions. Individually. It's not hard to test an assumption when it's not an unfalsifiable statement.

[Mavorpen]

And how do we perform the experiments on them? A lot of political and economic beliefs use a lot of assumptions.

Then the ones who don't use a lot of assumptions or the ones that test those assumptions and use them to make accurate predictions are being scientific.

Why are you making this unnecessarily complicated?

[Great Nepal]

So you know that it is not following flow chart. And yet you are arguing it is following flowchart?

what are you smoking

It's good shit.

I accept your surrender. My guards will now direct you to dungeons.

How? He just got idea till now.

He started out with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That's not all that scientific.

Yes, but that is only hindrance when trying to perform experiment on it.

[Blouman Empire]

And how do we perform the experiments on them? A lot of political and economic beliefs use a lot of assumptions.

You test the assumptions. Individually. It's not hard to test an assumption when it's not an unfalsifiable statement.

If that were true then a lot of things I was taught while studying economics would be different, a lot of the theories required held different assumptions yet all proponents believed their theory to be true.

[Blouman Empire]

It's good shit.

I accept your surrender. My guards will now direct you to dungeons.

I pressed the submit before I finished writing, before you send me down do you want to try some for yourself?

[Mavorpen]

Yes, but that is only hindrance when trying to perform experiment on it.

Okay fine, it began to break down, but officially broke down then he reached the experiment.

[Seperates]

You test the assumptions. Individually. It's not hard to test an assumption when it's not an unfalsifiable statement.

If that were true then a lot of things I was taught while studying economics would be different, a lot of the theories required held different assumptions yet all proponents believed their theory to be true.

That's because economics isn't a science. That's also why our economy is failing. If we knew exactly how and why our economy worked, then we would never have a recession.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You're only on step 1 and you've already fucked up. In order to have a hypothesis, it must be falsifiable due to the fact that YOU MUST TEST IT.

So how do we test poltical beliefs?

1: Formulate a hypothesis. (Public healthcare for all will improve overall quality of life)
2: Perform an experiment. (Seeing as an experiment would be difficult to perform, rigorous studies would have to do)
3: Does the evidence support the idea? (Examine evidence, see if hypothesis holds true)
4a: Yes. Theory created.
4b: No. Bad idea. See 1.
5a: Continue to perform experiments or studies or otherwise get information. See 3.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You test the assumptions. Individually. It's not hard to test an assumption when it's not an unfalsifiable statement.

If that were true then a lot of things I was taught while studying economics would be different, a lot of the theories required held different assumptions yet all proponents believed their theory to be true.

Those theories are not scientific theories. They are ideas.

[Blouman Empire]

If that were true then a lot of things I was taught while studying economics would be different, a lot of the theories required held different assumptions yet all proponents believed their theory to be true.

That's because economics isn't a science. That's also why our economy is failing. If we knew exactly how and why our economy worked, then we would never have a recession.

A lot of universities better take their economics faculty out of the social science department. Depending on your belief sometimes we do need a recession and will always have one.

[Blouman Empire]

If that were true then a lot of things I was taught while studying economics would be different, a lot of the theories required held different assumptions yet all proponents believed their theory to be true.

Those theories are not scientific theories. They are ideas.

So they too don't use reason and logic? After all it was stated on this thread that if you're not using the scientific method then your not using reason and logic.

[Seperates]

That's because economics isn't a science. That's also why our economy is failing. If we knew exactly how and why our economy worked, then we would never have a recession.

A lot of universities better take their economics faculty out of the social science department. Depending on your belief sometimes we do need a recession and will always have one.

Being an anthropology major, I'd say that there is a good reason that it is in the social science department. Because the social sciences do not operate under the exact sceintific method due to reasons of ethicality. Our subjects are human in nature, therefore we must take a different approach in terms of expirimental methods.

And based on observation, I would say that using a capitalistic model, that is probably correct. Which is why I am a proponent of safety net philosophy, we need to prepare for the inevitably bad times.

[Seperates]

Those theories are not scientific theories. They are ideas.

So they too don't use reason and logic? After all it was stated on this thread that if you're not using the scientific method then your not using reason and logic.

If you aren't using something related to the scietific method, then you aren't properly using deductive reasoning and logic.