Every single science is practiced independent of the PSR, which is a philosophical hypothesis. I wonder if most scientists have even heard of the PSR!
no science is practiced independently of the PSR. name a single physical science that doesnt rely on the PSR as its very foundation. every scientist expects, and rightly so, that there is an cause for the effect that he has observed.
it is literally the basis for the scientific method.
Perhaps you are confusing falsity of the PSR with complete and utter chaos. But please remember that just because most things in our experience have potential explanations doesnāt mean there are absolutely no exceptions.
no, im not confusing it with chaos, im saying that
an effect without a cause is impossible!
**no effect is possible without existence, otherwise the effect wouldnt exist. the ultimate cause of any effect is existence itself. no matter the steps between the bare fact of existence, and any particular effect, we can be assured that each and every effect has a cause. **
if your a little light on philosophy, then there is this rejection.
the PSR is tested an untold number of times and always found to be true, what more proof do you need? it is more rock solid than any of the laws of physics. we know it in ways more intimate and familiar than any of the physical laws, that you surely do not deny.
i propose that if you deny the PSR, you deny the ability to know anything, as there āmay beā an exception to any laws at all. but some how i doubt your level of skepticism rises to such things as denying gravity, max light speed, the laws of conservation of mass, energy, momentum. etc.
if you reject the PSR on the basis of a lack of evidence, then you necessarioly deny the ability to actually know anything at all.
As I said, I do not believe it is an appropriate generalization since we have insufficient evidence to conclude that every last real proposition, without exception, has a potential, coherent explanation.
see above.
Fermatās last theorem was a hypothesis lacking any evidenceāuntil it was proved, of course.
and what of fermats evidence? number theory was the basis in reality of his theorum. number theory is ultimately based on integers we see correspond to physical objects.
thats not a theory based on no evidence. there is no such thing. how does one theorize from nothing? i think maybe we are talking past eachother on this part. we may be having different ideas of language here, surely you dont think hypothesis are real objects floating about somewhere?
)
