Is Aquinas' First Way Falsifiable? (jd!)

[JDaniel]

Hi jd,

Short on time for responding just now, but I did read your several responses, thank you. Will just offer this for now:

Setting aside the “alpha and omega-ness” of falsifiability of the First Way, can we get some closure on it’s status? I’m not pressing you on whether it’s necessary for science, but thank you for that understanding of your position. I’d like to know if you think the First Way is falsifiable, and if so, how would it be falsified?

TS:

I promise to get back to the rest of your post, but tomorrow. It’s late and I must go to sleep now. A quick answer: Yes. It’s right in front of us.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Setting aside the “alpha and omega-ness” of falsifiability of the First Way, can we get some closure on it’s status? I’m not pressing you on whether it’s necessary for science, but thank you for that understanding of your position. I’d like to know if you think the First Way is falsifiable, and if so, how would it be falsified?

TS:

I think the falsification of Prime Mover is its antithesis: no Prime Mover. But, obviously, that cannot be subjected to per se lab coat wearers. It must be falsified through its manner of being: through dialectical induction. Exactly how, I’m not sure . . . yet. Do you have any ideas?

I’m fine with “no, because I don’t think falsification is such-a-much”. That’s clarity between us, and that’s good. But I keep hearing your comments on everything but the question I’m politely trying to concentrate on, from the thread title right on down. Do you have a position on the First Way’s falsifiability, your esteem for falsification notwithstanding?

I thank you for that. You are a scholar and “hat-full of rabid rodents!” Kidding, of course. You are a gentleman.

Curious, your choice of the hot stove and danger. This is manifestly something humans do NOT know intuitively, but learn empirically.

Hmmm. My life experience is different. I touched a hot burner, but, by sheer accident. But, neither of my brothers disbelieved in the potentials of radiant heat to the extent that they wanted to touch it. (Although, my middle brother rather enjoyed pushing bobby pins into electric sockets - and, I think he still does.) I have three children and I don’t think any of them did either. But, I’ll ask them. (You’d think I would know! )

I’m the father of six children and my youngest two, identical twins who now four, both had the occasion to learn the lesson of hot surfaces the super-non-intuitive way within a couple days of each other, which I found interesting, a kind of parallel right of passage it seems in that case.

You know what they say, “Like Father . . .” Well, never mind.

The reason any parent, six kids or no, has to be diligent in warning kids away from hot surfaces is that that is a great example of a perfectly non-intuitive bit of knowledge. They can’t intuit the danger – the glass on fireplace looks the same as it does when it’s cool, but… ouch! The child learns a painful lesson, and uses that sense experience as a way to (hopeful) apply some caution in similar situations. An 11month old doesn’t know, intuitively, that even “red hot” signals danger. But pain is a stern schoolmaster.

The never ending joys of parenthood. Although I am still relatively young, all of my kids have provided me with grand babies. Now, it’s their turn.

Anyway, that’s not to say you couldn’t have come up with an example of knowledge we commonly suppose is intuitive, but that was a peculiar choice, one that springs to mind as the perfect counterexample to what you were saying.

I guess I used it based upon my experiences with it, but, I see your point.

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

TS:

I think the falsification of Prime Mover is its antithesis: no Prime Mover.

OK, we reach the crux. I agree that “antithesis” opposes “thesis” dialectically (calling Dr. Hegel…), but I use “opposes” so as to avoid what looks like equivocation or overloading of “falsification”. “not-A” is the NEGATION of “A”, but negation is not falsification. “not-A” denies, objects, dialectically opposes “A”, but none of that has any bearing on falsification, or the alethic value of “A”.

When my kids get into this loop: “is not!”… “is so!”… “is not!” … “Is so!”… this is dialectical opposition. But nothing has been established about the truth-value of either claim.

I grant you’ve identified negation. We understand what the negation of “A Prime Mover” might mean. But this isn’t dispositive. We still need (name removed by moderator)ut or feedback or some basis for selecting options from a phase space of possibilities. It’s just arguing, but not investigating, or demonstrating anything.

But, obviously, that cannot be subjected to per se lab coat wearers. It must be falsified through its manner of being: through dialectical induction. Exactly how, I’m not sure . . . yet. Do you have any ideas?

I don’t know of a way, and that is what I have to contribute, chiefly, in this thread. This is the epistemic poverty of the First Way, and all of Aquinas’ Five Ways, so far as I can see.

Note that doesn’t mean it’s not true, the First Way. It might be. But it might not be. Importantly, Aquinas has not given us ANY POSSIBLE WAY to understand “true” as distinct from “false”. There is NO POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE we can imagine that would develop such that Aquinas’ First Way was identified to be false, if it is indeed false.

At least as far as I can tell. You’re smart as a whip, so I really was interested to hear what method or criterion you would apply.

If we can agree on the distinction between dialectic opposition and falsification, that would be ground gained.

In a previous post, I think you hit on something interesting, though. You told me that the world where the First Way was falsified was an “unknowable world”. That I would agree with, but I guess it can be understood in two ways. First, such a world is one where nothing can be known. In such a world, by definition, the falsification cannot be known, either. Falsification is impossible in such a world, just as any other realization is.

Perhaps by “unknowable” world, you simply meant “there may be a world-scenario which indicates the falsification of the First Way, but I can’t identify what it might be like”. Fair enough, but that would put us in the same boat, with me just more loudly announcing our inability to provide grounds for falsification; neither you or I can think of any such development.

Just to return to a quick example where falsification obtains: (A) all swans are white. We can imagine a world where falsification of this would be indicated – a world where someone found and produced a black swan, or a flock (gaggle?) of black swans. The point I want to stress here is the even if we have yet to find a black swan, and all known swans are white, (A) is not falsified, but it is falsifiable.

And that doesn’t take science. An Australian farmer who finds a black swan, and brings it to town where it can be shown off would be all that is needed.

Hmmm. My life experience is different. I touched a hot burner, but, by sheer accident. But, neither of my brothers disbelieved in the potentials of radiant heat to the extent that they wanted to touch it. (Although, my middle brother rather enjoyed pushing bobby pins into electric sockets - and, I think he still does.) I have three children and I don’t think any of them did either. But, I’ll ask them. (You’d think I would know! )

I think you may just have more intelligent kds than I do, and than I was a child!

You know what they say, “Like Father . . .” Well, never mind.

Ahh yes, we were tracking in the same direction I see.

The never ending joys of parenthood. Although I am still relatively young, all of my kids have provided me with grand babies. Now, it’s their turn.

I guess I used it based upon my experiences with it, but, I see your point.

God bless,
jd

Best,

-TS