You > "But there simply is no such thing as "the reliability of the claim" that is distinct from "the reliability of the method used to arrive at the claim...".
Also you (in response to my question "And claims that are correct descriptions of reality are not reliable "_for_" such use?")> "Oh, sure, of course they are!"
> The way "the reliability of the claim" is commonly used is simply as a short-hand to refer to what more precisely would be called "the reliability of the method used to arrive at the claim".
Would you provide a source on this being the common usage?
> Do you agree that made-up claims have a greater probability of being untrue rather than true?
If that is the case, it is not obvious, because for every claim "X" there is also the claim "not X", meaning that exactly half all claims are true. So you'll need to establish what would tip that balance.
> Seems sensible to me!
Let A be the true claim "this bridge can bear 1632 tons", and the method that produced it is "making the claim A up on the spot".
Would you still say these phrases are equal?: "the claim A is reliable" = "it is likely the claim A is true" = "making the claim A up on the spot to establish claim A is reliable"?
=====================
> By showing that whoever is holding the supposedly unfalsifiable position would actually accept some demonstrations as reasons to reject the claim?
Are you asking me?
=======
0) According to you: If X is falsifiable, then X "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all".
===
1) If the claim "X is not falsifiable" is falsifiable, then "X is not falsifiable" "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all". (Substitution 0)
2) According to you: The claim "X is not falsifiable" is falsifiable"?". (ASSUMPTION)
3) Therefore: The "X is not falsifiable" "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all". (Conditional Elimination from 1, 2)
=======
In other words, by your definitions, there is no way to establish with certainty that a claim is not falsifiable, if its not being falsifiable can be falsified.
=====================
>> Is the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" falsifiable?
> Are we talking about "reliable for detecting ultimate reality" or "reliable for detecting the reality that they are detecting"?
Reliable for detecting the reality that they are detecting.
Also you (in response to my question "And claims that are correct descriptions of reality are not reliable "_for_" such use?")> "Oh, sure, of course they are!"
> The way "the reliability of the claim" is commonly used is simply as a short-hand to refer to what more precisely would be called "the reliability of the method used to arrive at the claim".
Would you provide a source on this being the common usage?
> Do you agree that made-up claims have a greater probability of being untrue rather than true?
If that is the case, it is not obvious, because for every claim "X" there is also the claim "not X", meaning that exactly half all claims are true. So you'll need to establish what would tip that balance.
> Seems sensible to me!
Let A be the true claim "this bridge can bear 1632 tons", and the method that produced it is "making the claim A up on the spot".
Would you still say these phrases are equal?: "the claim A is reliable" = "it is likely the claim A is true" = "making the claim A up on the spot to establish claim A is reliable"?
=====================
> By showing that whoever is holding the supposedly unfalsifiable position would actually accept some demonstrations as reasons to reject the claim?
Are you asking me?
=======
0) According to you: If X is falsifiable, then X "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all".
===
1) If the claim "X is not falsifiable" is falsifiable, then "X is not falsifiable" "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all". (Substitution 0)
2) According to you: The claim "X is not falsifiable" is falsifiable"?". (ASSUMPTION)
3) Therefore: The "X is not falsifiable" "is not something we know for absolutely certain to be true, [but that] all attempts to falsify it so far have failed, that is all". (Conditional Elimination from 1, 2)
=======
In other words, by your definitions, there is no way to establish with certainty that a claim is not falsifiable, if its not being falsifiable can be falsified.
=====================
>> Is the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" falsifiable?
> Are we talking about "reliable for detecting ultimate reality" or "reliable for detecting the reality that they are detecting"?
Reliable for detecting the reality that they are detecting.