X-Message-Number: 8232 Date: Wed, 21 May 97 10:53:19 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Falsifiability The recent discussion on simulation, etc. has raised the issue of whether non-falsifiable hypotheses should be taken seriously, with the suggestion that since they are untestable they should not. But I think this is not true of all non-falsifiables. For instance, the day-person hypothesis (that we become a new person every time we wake up from unconsciousness) is not falsifiable, yet it makes a difference whether we accept it or not. A bank robber, for instance, could take a snooze afterward and, if caught, say "*I* didn't do it. It was some guy whose memories I've inherited, true, but I'm a different person!" (One wonders if some such thought was running through the mind of O.J. Simpson when he pleaded "100% not guilty.") Anyway, I agree with those who accept the falsifiability criterion as a heuristic (often a very good one) for deciding what to take seriously, but not as some absolute standard. Thus, in the above example, the (non-falsifiable) hypothesis that we *don't* become a different person after a period of unconsciousness is better than its negation, that we do. More generally, probably some non-falsifiables will always be with us, and not to our discredit. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8232