LogFAQs > #903615439

If you point to a person and ask me, is this person reasonable, my answer is, I don't know. Now tell me that they don't believe a false Trump statement, and my answer is still, I don't know. But tell me that they do believe a false Trump statement, and my answer becomes, no, that person is not reasonable. You see what I'm saying?

The problem with your proposed method of finding a counterexample is that I can't identify whether a given person is reasonable or not. Even if we take the 80% number at face value, it's not possible to tell whether any given person is in the 80% or the 20%. If you wanted me to go through the 320 million people in the country and identify each as reasonable or not, maybe I could do this with infinite time and resources, but even if I did, and you found someone I called reasonable who believed false Trump statements, that still wouldn't disprove the definition - it would just mean that my determination of the person's reasonableness was wrong!

So my definition is unfalsifiable because it is not possible for there to be any counterexamples. That's because it is not a statement of fact. You can evaluate definitions for their usefulness and their resonance, but not for their truth or falsity.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!