Infinite Quack

Karl Popper made a big stink about falsifiability . If you’re making a statement about the real world, there had better be some way to disprove (falsify) your statement. Let’s say your statement is “It’s raining”. I should be able to open my window and stick my arm outside and see if it gets wet. Writing as a software developer, I might use the shorter word “testable”. If your assertion is testable, it may be right or it may be wrong. I and others are empowered to figure that out. If the assertion is that life continues after death, how does one render that assertion testable? We must say more. “Ghosts exist”, for example, is testable, as long as your definition of “ghost” includes that they have some observable impacts on the living world. It should be possible to take a picture of a ghost, record a ghost saying something or moving an object. People make ghost hunter TV shows, of course, but the wider scientific community remains unconvinced because this “evidence” doesn’t meet the hi...

Here’s the problem with Superman as a character: He’s boring. Sure, all the Superman movies are packed with exciting drama. He’s facing off against world-ending threats, the odds always seem stacked against him, and though he ultimately triumphs, it always seems to have been a close call. Dramatic plots, no question. Superman movies are exciting, but Superman himself, as a character, generally isn’t. The trouble is that Superman is, traditionally, perfect: a demi-god, who always turns out to have whatever power he needs to defeat whatever enemy he faces. He can fly, he brushes off bullets and explosions, he can survive in the vacuum of space, and he’s always optimistic and kind. The trouble with a perfect character is that it leaves no room for character growth. We may admire people who seem to have it all, but (as Superman literally is) they also strike us as rather alien. They aren’t relatable. We look up to people who can face any challenge. We love people who have flaws. Making us ...