body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

Your beliefs should be falsifiable. They should have a self-destruct mechanism that you've put a lot of care into and carefully maintain. If you have no self destruct button for your worldview, there's no way to escape what you've created.

27

189

1,089

Uh, it's cranberry juice... uh, cran-apple

Replying to

Is your belief that beliefs should be falsifiable itself falsifiable?

25

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Uh, it's cranberry juice... uh, cran-apple

Replying to

and

what could falsify it?

1

Scott Stevenson

@scottastevenson

Replying to

and

A rational argument that shows unfalsifiable beliefs have any provably useful application

2

3

Uh, it's cranberry juice... uh, cran-apple

Replying to

@scottastevenson

and

let me get this straight: S's belief that Q ("S should believe that P iff P is falsifiable") could be "falsified" by a valid argument that demonstrates S's belief that P is "useful" (not that S's belief that P is either true or false)?

1

1

Scott Stevenson

@scottastevenson

Replying to

and

Yes - IMO this is part of what the “should” in Q means:

Quote Tweet

@VitalikButerin

The converse is: if there is no vulnerability, there is no usefulness. If there is NO conceivable event that could disprove your theory, that means your theory doesn't actually help you confidently exclude any possible future state of affairs.

Show this thread

3

Replying to

@scottastevenson

and

Lol damnit I didn't see vitaliks tweet before I made mine

10:54 PM · Jun 16, 2020

Scott Stevenson

@scottastevenson

Replying to

and

Great minds...