Falsifiability isn't about experiments but about observations and it only needs to be falsifiable in principle to qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis.

The only prediction climate scientists have made is extreme weather, — Agent Smith

This is simply wrong.

Google is your friend. I'm here for discussion not to educate you on things that can easily be found online.

Oh! And where are the experiments? — Agent Smith

That's not a requirement. We know stars go supernova and haven't tested that under laboratory conditions. Maybe Chalmers' "What is this thing called science?" is a good read for you.

The only prediction I'm aware of that climate change makes is extreme weather and, as far as I can tell, that's too vague; almost as if they had an astronomer astrologer on the team. Edify me/us please! — Agent Smith

This is lazy and the same reason I didn't answer the other question.

This is the same question you asked with respect to the theory of evolution yesterday. Are you not aware of falsefiable predictions or do you think there aren't any?

Why is a ratified treaty outside of your tradition? That requires representatives of the people to agree to it. Seems rather relevant...

Anyway, I'm not arguing this specific case, just pointing out literal interpretations don't exist and that literal and originalist interpretation are not suitable. These are aberrations resulting from tradition but have little to do with logical rigour and even less with justice and fairness.

The point about the article is quite clearly that a literal interpretation doesn't exist and any reading of it needs to be backed up with additional interpretative techniques. Especially a law that is quite clearly silent on the case both in language as in its historical context of its lawgivers requires more. The intent of the lawgivers becomes meaningless but the teleology of a constitution, which we hope is a living document rather than ancient letters, and a systematic interpretation of all laws could support a decent interpretation. The US has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would've made an excellent basis for broadening the scope and context for intepretation of the constitution but instead it looks at... checks notes... 1866 when the 14th Amendment was passed instead of 1980. This is again wilful stupidity at best but as we all know what it really is: conservative mendacity and bad legal reasoning.

I dunno. Good question though! — Agent Smith

Is it that you aren't aware of it making predictions or that you think there aren't any?

Let me help you with one: it does not predict consistent behaviour of natural life.

What are the predictive claims of evolutionary theory?

Is the Theory of Evolution, in some way, falsifiable? — Agent Smith

Yes. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to this question.

It's always fun talking to you when you pretend to be dense. Here's a good article for starters:

https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2006-the-a-contrario-argument-a-scorekeeping-model-2/

Alright, so if in 1972, we were to sit 100 US lawyers in a room and asked them to read the Texas abortion law and then to read the text of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, how many do you believe would announce the state has no compelling interest in regulating an abortion within the first trimester? Pretty small number don't you think?

Would you think that those who didn't find that right to be idiots without half a brain? — Hanover

Yes. They're idiots. The only reason this isn't obvious to you is because after 200 years of "golden rule" you don't know any better. It's unfortunate and is a source for injustice. Glad I don't live there.

This is ahistorical piffle actually. The golden rule is younger than the US constitution and constitutions, and statutory laws for that matter, were much more a continental thing at the time - so if you want to go into what they intended then it's not anticipating on idiotic restrictions on interpretations. Montesquieu and Locke were important influences. Maybe read the "spirit of laws" of the former.

The golden rule is a bastardisation of interpretative techniques available to people with half a brain. It's just wilful stupidity.

I love long walks, my cat and grand piano. I think I can manage loving a perfect facsimile of a person.

That's not a paradox, that's confusing basic algebraic functions with a tautological axiom.

Why does a US-centric interpretation not surprise me?

Like all stories, multiple interpretations are possible but I think I agree, by and large, with that interpretation. Trump didn't win but for all the conditions making it possible for him to win. From the economic situation, political corruption, campaigning decisions by the DNC, socio-cultural history, demographics, gerrymandering up to that truck not crushing him like an ant 10 years ago.

I interpreted his post to refer to morality. Legal penalties are whatever the law says are the penalties. In that view, the executions were perfectly fine because in accordance with the law (presumably).

Maybe this is for you: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi2e1/syllabus/annales_crouzet_ppt.pptx&ved=2ahUKEwiuoMuWh-b4AhUGVvEDHfENBVkQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw3840tJF3qVm4doi86PW-cH

That's a presentation about the Annales approach to history, also known as histoire totale.

Did you know Dostoyevski's Crime & Punishment and Tolstoy's War & Peace is a discussion around this exact point? These books were published in parts in a literary magazine (if that story is true, I heard if from someone else).

OK, so I voted guilty, understanding it as a moral injustice as opposed to a legal injustice. It could still be a legal execution if all the proper rules were followed - I don't have the time to really figure that out but isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

Well, you are arguing a case and claim they stand accused, but accused of what? I can find SA guilty of a lot of things but I think it's important we talk about the same thing, no?

So it blocks voting because I like to know what I'm voting for.

Guilty of what?

Here's the variation on a theme: anybody disagreeing with you is under duress!

How often do people have to disagree with you that it's going to dawn on you reasonable people can disagree without them being liars, propagandists or not at liberty to speak? You can rest assured you're more often wrong than right since whatever you know is but a tiny fraction of all the possible knowledge out there.

Every single time.

Or maybe don't have such a US-centric view of the world. The suggestion self-sufficiency expertise isn't available in rural France (of all places) is rather funny.

It's absolutely weird how you actually believe that.

The people you've called liars in this thread, actually didn't lie. So yes, you've insulted plenty of people as a result - I even demonstrated the mechanism at one point. Except they have thicker skin and don't whine about it. I'll also remind you that I engaged you in good faith twice on this page, the first time you raise a strawman, the second time you pretend my reply is a non-answer when it clearly isn't, since ssu understood it before. You even feel the need to sneak in a suggestion about some kind of defect to my character. So, well done. Enjoy the illusion of the higher ground.

Lol. I will never in a million years move to the US, the source of too many problems in modern times with one of the most corrupt governments to curse the western world.

At least pollution will be manageable where we're looking, so that will do just fine. Nuclear war, well, no use planning for that any way.

I'm not hopeful at all for society at large. I'm hopeful I can mitigate the fall out for my family.

Sure buddy. Coming from the guy who calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a liar and when he gets an answer to his question is disigenuous by pretending it's not an answer. You're incapable of approaching your interlocuters charitably as this thread is a fine example of.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/679346

That explains why I don't consider what has been put forward as proof of greater imperialist ambitions. You can reason a contrario to get an idea what I would consider proof.

Some books I'm getting hard covers of:

Start your farm

And

Self sufficiency

when things could go even worse. — Xtrix

will...

I've given up on politicians fixing anything. I'm now investing my energies in finding a plot of land in France big enough to sustain a family and considering getting a hunting license and learn to shoot at the shooting range.

Speaking of shooting, a couple of judges need murdering for aiding and abetting the killing of future generations.

constitute evidence of territorial ambition?

If the Russians were to advance all the way to Paris, you would still wonder if it was not provoked. — Olivier5

Nice strawman. I have in fact discussed this with ssu in this very thread.

because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative. — Bitter Crank

What? That's ridiculous.

Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment. — Bitter Crank

Strangely enough, plenty of owners and managers manage to contravene the rules for at will employment by giving discriminatory reasons. At least, if the the anti-work reddit is an indication.

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

You can't, since you're not allowed to inform about a person's sexual orientation. Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. Sex and skin colour are a bit hard to hide although I guess from a social experiment perspective it would be totally cool if a black man could pretend to be white and then show up normally on his first day. Preferably somewhere in Mississipi.

It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread? — jorndoe

I think the discussion played out awhile ago (at least for me). There's a difference of weight given to reasons for the war. I just don't see actual proof of the imperialist ambitions and put more weight on the consistent complaint of NATO expansion as opposed to sporadic and divergent expressions of tsaristic greatness or the artificial nature of Ukraine (and some of it is quoted too readily out of context).

The reason this weighing of reasons is so contentious because it's the difference between unprovoked and provoked aggression. But since we cannot read minds I don't see a resolution to the difference of opinion.

This response seems too simplistic. You say the problem is old school.racists, but where is the evidence of that? Not that I've sat in important board rooms to know much, but all I hear from my seat is how everyone needs to promote diversity. The US is a diverse nation and diverse employment is good for business. — Hanover

Yes, old school racists. If you're not actively anti-racist, you're still a racist. Biden, Trump, Gingrich, the whole lot of white dinosaurs are racist to the bone. They pander in symbolism to then turn around and either do nothing or generally make life worse for minorities. As Street would like to say: it's not a shortcoming, it's a feature. "But Biden was VP to Obama who was black", is just another "I'm not a racist because I've got a black friend", or innocence by association, which amounts to saying "I'm not a sexist because I know my mum".

I don't buy it to describe it as a systemic issue. That is also an issue but these people are actually in a position to change the systemic rules many are operating under. Unless, of course, you think it's a systemic issue that white old men in power select/groom/nurture/support other more white old men to get into power - which can be argued but I think is a bit semantic or about interpretation at least. I think there's a lot of agency involved there, where actual people could make different decisions.

And what you just agreed on as a fact between us with respect to diversity being good for business, is not believed by a large majority of people, who think "personal qualifications" are the only thing that matter. That is another expression of individualism taken too far.

Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life. — Bitter Crank

Diversity without inclusivity doesn't work, for sure. If it did, the US would be a much better place to live in.

Here's an example of a diversity dividend: https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend