One line responses are often sufficient to make a point.
Agreed, especially in the social sciences where even agreeing on what is to be observed can be difficult, but at the end of the day science is self-correcting.
Yes, the arts haven’t been mentioned either, imho they also help explain reality, and I guess all of us go in for a bit of over-simplifying hyperbole at times.
Sure, there’s a time and place for everything.
I enjoyed your use of the success of science as the ultimate arbiter on philosophy by which solipsism is rejected.
That is well said, and includes, imho, all “proofs” of God. Or of the unfortunate idea of “design.” Can anything be more futile? God cannot be the result of a proof, or an object of consideration. That endeavor has more slipperynes than trying to know the position and momentum of an electron or other such things. Ain’t gonna happen by simple low order logic.
Science is not the sole arbiter but it is certainly paramount. In philosophy - unlike science - all is grist to the mill because it is concerned with reality as a whole.
A theory can be falsified without observation or experiment, e.g. by being shown to be uneconomical, unintelligible, uninformative, inconsistent, incoherent or inferior with regard to another theory.
I take fertility to include predictive accuracy, coherence and elegance but they can certainly apply to philosophy as well as science.
Yes! In another thread I have given reasons why materialism/physicalism is untenable. The fact that theism and materialism are the main contenders in modern philosophy is evidence that not all metaphysical theories are equally cogent - unless we assume that most philosophers are unreasonable!
Not really, there you’re speaking of disproof, which is different from falsify. The dictionary definition of falsifiability is as Popper used it, it means a theory which can be tested against nature.
Methinks you’re using another private definition unless you can cite one from a dictionary which includes those elements. An example of predictive accuracy is quantum theory making a prediction to six decimal places, surely philosophical theories are not even intended to do such things?
The fact that materialism and physicalism are alive and kicking is testament that many people must not agree with your case.But in practice, would your test criteria really let us decide which if any is the true explanation of reality from philosophical alternatives such as monism, phyicalism, idealism, existentialism, phenomenalism, substance dualism, etc.?
tonyrey;9320470:
Yes! In another thread I have given reasons why materialism/physicalism is untenable. The fact that theism and materialism are the main contenders in modern philosophy is evidence that not all metaphysical theories are equally cogent - unless we assume that most philosophers are unreasonable!
And yet they both have something absolutely in common which they neither account for or factor in.
Still sounds a bit nihilist and downbeat to me Alan. But science doesn’t really try to prove good theories, instead it has the easier task of ruling out bad theories, so reducing the options for what we take to be real.
I’d go with that compromise, we’re all human and can only see through human eyes (provided they’re not watering too much from the previous stick experiment).
OK, well I don’t know anything about “nihilism” so maybe I’m not being clear or maybe it’s in the Wichita water supply. If you see something I don’t, please let me know.
I’ve decided that I don’t need proof that I’m not dreaming, because I have restructured my ways of thinking so that I can behave optimally in all states of awareness, and recalibrate to new ones as they come along. If you suggest to yourself that you will submit to the will of God by obeying the intents of the spirit no matter what reality you are experiencing, then you’re gold. God’s in every reality we’re ever in, and more, of course!! In one dimension God would have me carry out this experiment, but sure as hell not through this body on planet Earth as long as He still gives me free will.I mean if you’re a pragmatist you can rule out whether you’re dreaming right now: just poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick and if it really hurts then the chances are you’re not dreaming. (If you’re not a pragmatist and think the procedure is logically unsound, just keep poking the stick in your eye until you become a pragmatist.)
Correction:
If that is the case we need to proclaim “Credo quia absurdum” for lack of rational justification!
It’s the opposite way round, falsification (to show that nature is not observed to behave as predicted) is a category of disproof. In philosophy anything goes, while to be classed as scientific a theory must be open to being falsified.
While a casual approach to definition of terms may be acceptable in philosophy, it isn’t in science.
Even with all this linguistic anarchy, surely “accuracy” is meaningless unless quantified?
A materialist could say the same about the survival of theism. It’s all a long way from the decisive tests used in science, rock-paper-scissors is a poor substitute for litmus.
Disagreement does not imply that either is anywhere near the truth, and modern science owes as much to alchemy as philosophy.
My turn not to understand. It sounds way deep but I couldn’t catch the meaning.
I like movies that suspend reality. Gives me an excuse to post this cartoon - Terminator would have been a much shorter movie if Skynet was a philosopher:
So if philosophical arguments disagree, they are probably all wrong. When scientists disagree, there are “alternative explanations,” or “alternate theories.”