"things that are unprovable _even in theory_, nobody anywhere needs to take on faith; they're totally unconnected with reality. In fact, it's not possible, I don't think, to have something that is unprovably true."
I can accept what you say if this material world is all there is, or if it is the "highest" world.
But, if there is a level of reality that is above/superior to the material concrete one (or alternately, if there is a level beyond that which we can perceive), and we are limited in how much we will "evolve", it is possible to have something that is true that we can't (and won't ever) even perceive (let alone prove).
This may be oversimplified, but consider a single-celled organism. There are innumerable things that are true that it could neither prove nor disprove, and will never be aware of.
I think it's entirely possible that there is a level of reality that makes us seem like the single-celled organism.
Of course, this is a matter of faith, since by construction (if true), it would be unprovable.
Two more things:
Things that are unprovable (at the moment) and true, we may have to take on faith. Things that are unprovable _even in theory_, nobody anywhere needs to take on faith; they're totally unconnected with reality. In fact, it's not possible, I don't think, to have something that is unprovably true. What kind of "truth" is it that can't be falsified? Not a scientific truth. Maybe a Moral Truth. I like Great Truths: their opposites are also true.
The other thing is, always use "http://" when you add a link in comments. Let me try again:
carpnet.blogspot.com
Thanks, U.P. (unk-nown prof)
I don't know about Unprovable, but I suppose I must be declaring my support for things that are Unusable, given my blog's name.
Yours isn't so shabby neither.
I just added you to my bloglines; I should probably put a button on my own blawg to make it easier to subscribe.
Also, I intend to use the previous rant to give support to a thorough dismantling of a fellow Philly blawger's comment about creationism and religion. See carpnet.blogspot.com for the whole sordid thing. Man, is he going to get it.
Eh N. (eh nonymous)
Nice rant - I'd agree with most of what you say, but I'll add a few thoughts (after all, it's my blog).
1)Some things that are (currently)unprovable can also be true.
2)Rants are allowed (and even encouraged) as long as they're interesting or humorous.
Nice blog, BTW.
There are concomittant rights to blogs and commenters.
The right to publish does not entail the right to be read.
The right to comment does not entail the right to flame, or to comment without content.
The right to speak is not the same as the right to snark.
And most famously, was it Wellstone or Moynihan? The latter, I think - and Fact Check dot Org has the quote: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
That is, you can believe that real markets are perfectly efficient, or that trickle-down economics works, or that Iraq was a preemptive move in the war on terrorism, or that Guns Don't Solve Problems, or that Guns Don't Kill People, or that Jesus Is the Foundation for Our Way of Life, or that the Earth is flat (to a first approximation it is, but that's a purely local phenomenon), or that Darwinism is a Theory and therefore Unproven and that Scientific Alternatives to Evolution Exist (... it is, but that's not what it means, and they don't, not at all)...
but none of that means we have to believe you; listen to you; tell you that your beliefs are "okay" or "right"; or allow them to have a privileged place in public debate or in public schools.
After all, if we're talking facts, not beliefs, some facts are true, and others are not, and some are currently unprovable. Unprovable ones are NOT FACTS. Facts that are false are NOT FACTS.
That is all I have to say (rant) right now.
The right to comment does not entail the right to rant, but we seem to have the privilege (until revoked).
Commenting by HaloScan
