> What is "the reliability of the claim itself", if it is not the reliability of the method that is used to estalish that claim?
Wut?? If you can't see that "the reliability of the claim itself" =/= "the reliability of the method that is used to establish that claim", then I think we are done here because this would make for an insuperable disagreement. In the first phrase 'reliability' refers to the claim, and in the second it refers to the method. The claim and the method that is used to establish that claim are two different things.
> Yes, I have, over, and over, and over, even in my last post.
No you haven't. The method 'making-things-up' we already agree is unreliable, but you have not established that non-testable claims have a greater probability of being untrue rather than true. If I missed it, perhaps you could quote what you think has been so obviously stated that you needn't bother repeating it? I'll ask you to include an inequality proof and/or the percentages that have been calculated to reach/assert this conclusion.
> But the phrase "claim A is reliable" makes perfect sense without a "for X", simply as an expression of how likely the claim is to be true.
So you think these phrases are equal?: "claim A is reliable" = "it is likely claim A is true" = "the method that is used to establish claim A is reliable"
> Being a correct description of reality is what makes a claim useful for making predictions about the future behavior of that reality, and thus for influencing reality in such a way that a satellite does behave as intended/predicted.
And claims that are correct descriptions of reality are not reliable "_for_" such use?
> No, I am not, I am simply performing the empirical observation that is required to establish whether the claim is testable.
If you are performing said observation now to form a basis for your claim, did your claim not have a basis before?
> But ultimately, what counts is whether whoever is making the claim would accept those demonstrations as contradicting their claim.
So, whether a claim is falsifiable is subjective?
Also, are claims of the form "X is not falsifiable" falsifiable? If so, how might they be falsified?
> If you mean whether our senses generally produce a coherent picture of an outside world: That is falsifiable, in that we can cross-correlate different senses, between perceptions of the same sense over time, as well as between our own and others' perceptions.
Is the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" falsifiable?
Wut?? If you can't see that "the reliability of the claim itself" =/= "the reliability of the method that is used to establish that claim", then I think we are done here because this would make for an insuperable disagreement. In the first phrase 'reliability' refers to the claim, and in the second it refers to the method. The claim and the method that is used to establish that claim are two different things.
> Yes, I have, over, and over, and over, even in my last post.
No you haven't. The method 'making-things-up' we already agree is unreliable, but you have not established that non-testable claims have a greater probability of being untrue rather than true. If I missed it, perhaps you could quote what you think has been so obviously stated that you needn't bother repeating it? I'll ask you to include an inequality proof and/or the percentages that have been calculated to reach/assert this conclusion.
> But the phrase "claim A is reliable" makes perfect sense without a "for X", simply as an expression of how likely the claim is to be true.
So you think these phrases are equal?: "claim A is reliable" = "it is likely claim A is true" = "the method that is used to establish claim A is reliable"
> Being a correct description of reality is what makes a claim useful for making predictions about the future behavior of that reality, and thus for influencing reality in such a way that a satellite does behave as intended/predicted.
And claims that are correct descriptions of reality are not reliable "_for_" such use?
> No, I am not, I am simply performing the empirical observation that is required to establish whether the claim is testable.
If you are performing said observation now to form a basis for your claim, did your claim not have a basis before?
> But ultimately, what counts is whether whoever is making the claim would accept those demonstrations as contradicting their claim.
So, whether a claim is falsifiable is subjective?
Also, are claims of the form "X is not falsifiable" falsifiable? If so, how might they be falsified?
> If you mean whether our senses generally produce a coherent picture of an outside world: That is falsifiable, in that we can cross-correlate different senses, between perceptions of the same sense over time, as well as between our own and others' perceptions.
Is the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" falsifiable?