Falsification Principle
- Created by: Jenny Jones
- Created on: 15-04-16 18:20
View mindmap
- Falsification Principle
- Anthony Flew
- statement = meaningful if empirical evidence goes against it
- bc relig believers won't accept "God isn't loving"
- all relig lang = MEANINGLESS
- any theory that can't be disproved is not valid at alll
- "In order to say smth which may be true, we must say smth which may be false" - Hick
- R.L can't be falsified bc relig believer "staunch" in his position
- ANALOGY - gardener
- clearing - gardener responsible
- despite lacking evidence, believer adjust hypothesis, suit new lack evidence
- relig believer claims so watered down, barely statements at all
- God is mysterious
- "death of a thousand qualifications"
- influenced by
- Anthony Flew
- statement = meaningful if empirical evidence goes against it
- bc relig believers won't accept "God isn't loving"
- all relig lang = MEANINGLESS
- any theory that can't be disproved is not valid at alll
- "In order to say smth which may be true, we must say smth which may be false" - Hick
- R.L can't be falsified bc relig believer "staunch" in his position
- ANALOGY - gardener
- clearing - gardener responsible
- despite lacking evidence, believer adjust hypothesis, suit new lack evidence
- relig believer claims so watered down, barely statements at all
- God is mysterious
- "death of a thousand qualifications"
- Karl Popper
- science based falsification not verification
- test hypothesis
- if hypothesis false; statement = meaningful
- science based falsification not verification
- Anthony Flew
- statement only meaningful if smth falsify statement actually occurs
- doesn't mean statement factually incorrect - meaningful is mechanism exists to show factually incorrect
- R.L lacks mechanism - can't falsify relig statement bc don't have ability to check
- Problems
- Swinburne
- relig statement not cognitive (logical)
- statement can meaningful without means to falsify
- E.g. toys come to life
- understand/ can imagine this suggestion although never gather evidence to falisfy
- Braithwaite
- R.L. = non-cognitive
- symbolic language
- no need believe story is true - need change behaviour
- Mitchell
- accept statement as meaningful simply on trust
- although evidence against beliefs
- continue to trust bc evidence not sufficient to prove false
- prior faith maintains trust even if evidence undermines trust
- Hare
- R.L. cannot make factual claims
- can influence way ppl view world
- E.g. teachers trying to kill student, belief still meaningful even in face of evidence to the contrary
- relig believers = "BILKS" (religious world view)
- R.L. cannot make factual claims
- Swinburne
- Conclusions
- VP + FP not only ways assess RL
- RL = symbolic, diff everyday lang
- VP + FP not relevant challenges to RL bc nature RL diff from VP + FP
- Anthony Flew
Similar Philosophy resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made