virus: Re:PCR Three Axioms

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 03:49:17 -0400

Tad wrote:
>>>>>Is the statement "Any statement is either falsifiable or it's either a
>>>>>'tautology' or an 'axiom' a falsifiable statement, an axiom, or a
>>>>A falsifiable statement--it can get tested for being true or false..
>>You can make a nonsense statement, like "Rg 11 alik fon##" which is
>>falsifiable nor a tautology or axiom.

>"Rg 11 alik fon##" is not a "statement" (it's just a string of

How about, "Captain Crunch break rabbit loop"? .
Anyway, the point isn't that your statement can get shown to be false, but
the fact that it can get tested to be either tentatively true or
tentatively false--that it is open for testng, not automatically assumed.

>>>Can *you* test it and tell me if it is or not true or does it require a
>>>certain group of people to take it "under fire of criticism?

>>I can test it and say that it's not true without a certain group.

>Now, for example, I say it is true. Who is going to be a judge?

The question, "Who is going to be the judge?", has a problem, since it is
based on an unfounded assumption that there must be a true authority. If
you start out with a useless question, you'll probably get a useless
answer. An alternative approach would be asking the question, "How will
this issue get decided?". This latter question focuses on doing something
effectively, as opposed to finding the "right authority". This makes more
sense since while we might not have an authoritative source to tell us the
nature of reality, we can still learn to do things more effectively.
The "judge" which determines what people think, is not necessarily a
person, but whatever influences belief--ie. facts, feelings, memes, senses,

>is the core of PCR that people can say what they like?

Yes, all positions get considered. But just because you can say whatever
you want, doesn't mean you can gain followers since flaws in ideas can get
spotted. This is different from the idea that you should walk away from
discussions if it seems like the other person is violating an axiom or a
law of logic.
--David R.