Propositions

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you really want to become a philosopher, may I suggest you actually become a student of one (and only one to begin),

I choose the Prophet Muhammed. Would that be ok? I would guess not. I think not assuming one philosopher is correct is by far the safest and most rational way to go about things.

reading his works (not just reading about him nor just listening to someone else talk about him) and examining the workings of your own being through his descriptions. I would suggest Aristotle, who is good about definitions, because with any later teacher you would still have to go back to Aristotle to find the root of many ideas.

It’s clear there is an importance in Aristotle’s work, but he is certainly not the be-all and end-all of philosophy. Hylomorphism? Substance and accidents? Bodies falling based on weight? Why would I want to regress in my knowledge but studying only Aristotle?

Believe in Aristotle as your “true teacher” and see yourself through him.

You started by saying to pick a philosopher, you gave Aristotle as an example of a philosopher, then said to believe in the philosopher. Would you ask me to believe in the philosopher if I chose one that ran counter to Catholic thought? How on earth does one just believe in something without gauging its merit?

Is this really not about you wanting me to pick one philosopher and following him all the way and instead you telling me I should believe everything Aristotle says because Catholic thought uses Aristotle?

Then, after you say, “I understand”, only then go on to others and try the same. You will see the mistakes in others and the truth in others because you will have already come to know many things clearly that cannot be denied. Aristotle is comparatively easy reading compared to some, and most, if not all, of his extant works are available in English online, and some in Greek if you have learned that yet (which I have occasionally found helpful).

Again, this isn’t about you saying to pick a philosopher then check out others from there. You are poorly trying to set it up so that I specifically follow Aristotle, “believe” what he says (although how one just makes an effort to believe something I have no idea), then once I’m fully in line with Aristotle I can then look at other philosophers and find them wanting compared to Artistotle. Have I missed anything in your off-topic explanation?

Be a student rather than joking under the bleachers at the high school football game with slackers who try to appear adult. Begin with Aristotle’s Categories - and believe in him until you have learned all he has to show you about yourself and the world.

I am always a student. Being a student means taking this as they are and not how we want them to be. It means showing a modicum of intellectual curiousity and not shouting to the rafters that you don’t care if others point out the lack of verifiability in something I think is true.

Being a student all comes back to the OP: How can we show something is true (verifiable) or is not true (falsifiable)? How does one accomplish this with the supernatural?

 

[MPat]

Live and learn, I guess. I never met anyone, atheist or believer who had a problem with the physical sciences and the abstract sciences and their epistemological methods.

What would it be?

Just for the fun of it, I will present a “THIRD epistemological” method. When one encounters a yes/no type of problem, flip a coin. If the result is “heads” decide that the answer is “yes”, when the result is “trails”, decide that the answer is “no”. In about 50 percent of the cases your result will be correct. Is that an “epistemological” method you are suggesting?

I have to agree with JuanFlorencio - you are not even close to addressing the question I have asked.

So, let’s restate it. In the original post you have offered many propositions like “When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences.” or “When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms.”. Are those propositions themselves:

1. 
   *]“about the objective, physical reality”?
   *]“about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences”?
   *]about something else?
   *]just not true?
   
   In case of choice 1, you will have to show some experiments to support them (as the first proposition demands).
   
   In case of choice 2, you will have to show the axioms that support them (as the second proposition demands).
   
   In case of choice 3, you will have to tell us what is that “something else” and how do you know those propositions are true.
   
   In case of choice 4, the discussion seems to come to an end (but you can still explain if they are false, meaningless, unknowable or something else, if you want to).
   
   Make a choice.

 

[zyzz]

I have to agree with JuanFlorencio - you are not even close to addressing the question I have asked.

So, let’s restate it. In the original post you have offered many propositions like “When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences.” or “When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms.”. Are those propositions themselves:

1. 
   *]“about the objective, physical reality”?
   *]“about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences”?
   *]about something else?
   *]just not true?
   
   In case of choice 1, you will have to show some experiments to support them (as the first proposition demands).
   
   In case of choice 2, you will have to show the axioms that support them (as the second proposition demands).
   
   In case of choice 3, you will have to tell us what is that “something else” and how do you know those propositions are true.
   
   In case of choice 4, the discussion seems to come to an end (but you can still explain if they are false, meaningless, unknowable or something else, if you want to).
   
   Make a choice.

1. 
   Well, I had no idea what you had in mind. Now that you spelled it out, I can answer.
   
   The answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE. The epistemological methods are not “true” or “false”, because they are not about reality ITSELF, they are about the investigation OF reality. Epistemology is not part of the sciences, either “physical” or “abstract”. It is a meta-science, about the methods of how do we find out if a proposition is true or false. Or, if you prefer, they are propositions about propositions.
   
   These methods either “work” or they “don’t work”. Either useful or not.
   
   I will have to retract my previous comment. I have seen people who are unaware of the difference between sciences and the meta sciences… Strangely they were all from the camp of believers. Of course there were only a few of those, and I just might have been unlucky to meet these people. But it is rather astonishing to see some people who have the audacity to post about philosophical questions, and have no idea about the branches of philosophy. But, as I said… live and learn.
   
   There are many kinds of propositions, which have no true/false labels associated with them. “This picture is beautiful” would be one of them. But those subjective assessments are not relevant for the purposes of this thread.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well, I had no idea what you had in mind. Now that you spelled it out, I can answer.

The answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE. The epistemological methods are not “true” or “false”, because they are not about reality ITSELF, they are about the investigation OF reality. Epistemology is not part of the sciences, either “physical” or “abstract”. It is a meta-science, about the methods of how do we find out if a proposition is true or false. Or, if you prefer, they are propositions about propositions.

These methods either “work” or they “don’t work”. Either useful or not.

I will have to retract my previous comment. I have seen people who are unaware of the difference between sciences and the meta sciences… Strangely they were all from the camp of believers. Of course there were only a few of those, and I just might have been unlucky to meet these people. But it is rather astonishing to see some people who have the audacity to post about philosophical questions, and have no idea about the branches of philosophy. But, as I said… live and learn.

There are many kinds of propositions, which have no true/false labels associated with them. “This picture is beautiful” would be one of them. But those subjective assessments are not relevant for the purposes of this thread.

Then, do you think that propositions about propositions are not true nor false?

If someone says “this method works”, do you think his proposition is not true nor false? If so, the contradictory proposition “this method does not work” would be equivalent. If that was the case, who would care about method? Do you think that epistemology is just a set of subjective assessments, like “this picture is beautiful”?

Aren’t actions real? And aren’t methods certain action modes?

 

[zyzz]

Then, do you think that propositions about propositions are not true nor false?

It depends. Not ALL propositions are equal. The epistemological methods are not subject to the “true/false” dichotomy. The propositions ABOUT these methods certainly are. But do not confuse the methods with the propositions ABOUT the methods.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It depends. Not ALL propositions are equal. The epistemological methods are not subject to the “true/false” dichotomy. The propositions ABOUT these methods certainly are. But do not confuse the methods with the propositions ABOUT the methods.

I don’t confuse them, but you are, because all you have presented here are propositions, and MPat is asking you how you did to obtain some of them.

 

[zyzz]

I don’t confuse them, but you are, because all you have presented here are propositions, and MPat is asking you how you did to obtain some of them.

I did not present an essay about all the different propositions. I only introduced three different kinds, the ones about the physical reality, the ones in axiomatic systems and the ones about the purported non-physical and non-conceptual reality. Instead of giving an answer to the actual OP, MPat made an attempt to change the goalposts. Once she spelled out her intention clearly (because the first attempt was not clear) I gave the answer. What else do you want?

I am ONLY interested in propositions about the physical reality, the propositions of abstract sciences and the propositions about the hypothesized non-physical and non-conceptual reality. And that was very clearly spelled out in the OP. Why not address the actual questions? These attempts to change the goalposts are getting rather tiring.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I did not present an essay about all the different propositions. I only introduced three different kinds, the ones about the physical reality, the ones in axiomatic systems and the ones about the purported non-physical and non-conceptual reality. Instead of giving an answer to the actual OP, MPat made an attempt to change the goalposts. Once she spelled out her intention clearly (because the first attempt was not clear) I gave the answer. What else do you want?

I noticed that! You assumed there was no problem with the old statements that you proposed, and then started rejecting every comment you received, as if you wanted to practice your refutation skills. That is not terribly smart, boy.

I am ONLY interested in propositions about the physical reality, the propositions of abstract sciences and the propositions about the hypothesized non-physical and non-conceptual reality. And that was very clearly spelled out in the OP. Why not address the actual questions? These attempts to change the goalposts are getting rather tiring.

To respond to your questions, zyzz (which of course are not yours!), takes long. You should know that, and must prepare your mind to avoid tiredness. I guess people here want to make sure first that you are writing about something you know.

Do you know what is the role of physical laws in scientific research? You have said that the applicable method in the physical sciences comprises “Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality”. Where do you leave the accepted physical laws?

 

[Vico]

We are inundated with all sorts of propositions. How do we find out if those propositions are true or false? Obviously these questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion, they need to be investigated within the realm they are part of.

1. When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences. Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality. The verification / falsification is the cornerstone of the process.
2. When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. Here we also verify / falsify the proposition against the axioms. We do not “measure”, but use logic.

So far, so good.

But some people offer propositions about a “supernatural” realm. How can we know if those propositions are correct or not? What kind of epistemological process can they offer to separate the wheat from the chaff? What is the method of verification / falsification to be employed in this case?

The view of the Catholic faith is that truth is revealed by God. That truth is believed through the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the belief is not a matter of reasoning. There is more merit in assenting to the faith where there is not a reason available, such as is the case with mysteries.

 

[MPat]

There are many kinds of propositions, which have no true/false labels associated with them. “This picture is beautiful” would be one of them. But those subjective assessments are not relevant for the purposes of this thread.

Good, I am going to use that.

Well, I had no idea what you had in mind. Now that you spelled it out, I can answer.

The answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE. The epistemological methods are not “true” or “false”, because they are not about reality ITSELF, they are about the investigation OF reality.

These methods either “work” or they “don’t work”. Either useful or not.

Oh, but “When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences.” is not a method, but a proposition. And so, if it is not subjective, meaningless or unknowable (and you have claimed there is no subjectivity here), it will have to be either true or false.

And thus, you are going to have to find out if it is true or false - using some “method”, or in some “methodless” way.

And thus I am again asking you: how do you know that proposition is true? Or do you make such claims without actually knowing that they are true?

Epistemology is not part of the sciences, either “physical” or “abstract”. It is a meta-science, about the methods of how do we find out if a proposition is true or false. Or, if you prefer, they are propositions about propositions.

So, here you are actually choosing the third option: there are also propositions “about propositions” or “about science”.

And, interestingly enough, in the way you have described it, that seems to be a very pleasant “realm”, where one can simply say that something “is useful” or “is not useful” - no method (or “metamethod”, if you wish) to care about!

So, how are you going to stop someone from putting all supernatural claims there as well? And claiming that they do “work” in some way?

I will have to retract my previous comment. I have seen people who are unaware of the difference between sciences and the meta sciences… Strangely they were all from the camp of believers. Of course there were only a few of those, and I just might have been unlucky to meet these people. But it is rather astonishing to see some people who have the audacity to post about philosophical questions, and have no idea about the branches of philosophy. But, as I said… live and learn.

That sure is an interesting way to express yourself after calling for moderators some posts ago…

Anyway, you almost ended up saying that philosophical questions can be allowed to be in that same “third” or “metascience realm”. In that case existence of God or soul would go there as well. And if you only care about usefulness there, the method you seem to want is Pascal’s Wager.

I did not present an essay about all the different propositions. I only introduced three different kinds, the ones about the physical reality, the ones in axiomatic systems and the ones about the purported non-physical and non-conceptual reality. Instead of giving an answer to the actual OP, MPat made an attempt to change the goalposts. Once she spelled out her intention clearly (because the first attempt was not clear) I gave the answer. What else do you want?

I am ONLY interested in propositions about the physical reality, the propositions of abstract sciences and the propositions about the hypothesized non-physical and non-conceptual reality. And that was very clearly spelled out in the OP. Why not address the actual questions? These attempts to change the goalposts are getting rather tiring.

Yes, it does look like you are not very interested in answering questions that do not fit your “script”.

Anyway, the point is simple: the claims you made in the original post are just wrong. Such general and well defined methods that alone are suitable for some well defined “realms” do not exist. For example, if one wants to find out if it is snowing outside (certainly a claim that is “about the objective, physical reality”), one does not formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment etc. One either looks through the window (that would be “direct observation”) or asks someone else (that would be “witness testimony”). Unless you are going to make words like “hypothesis” almost meaningless, those “methods” are different from scientific method. And yet, they “work”.

And if those claims are wrong, there is little point in answering questions that presuppose those claims.

 

[zyzz]

Oh, but “When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences.” is not a method, but a proposition. And so, if it is not subjective, meaningless or unknowable (and you have claimed there is no subjectivity here), it will have to be either true or false.

I have never seen such a nonsensical attack on the scientific method, when it is applied to the objective, physical reality. But, what the heck.

The quoted proposition is considered to be provisionally true, until a better one comes around. The reason for that is that millions and zillions of experiments have been conducted, and the results were satisfactory.

It is not “true” in the mathematical sense.

So, how are you going to stop someone from putting all supernatural claims there as well? And claiming that they do “work” in some way?

How many experiments were conducted concerning the existence of the “immortal soul”? Or “demons” and “angels”? Properly designed, double blind experiments, of course.

I suggest you go back to the OP, and present your epistemological method about the purported “supernatural”. As a starting point consider the proposition: “all human beings and only human beings have an immortal soul”. If you wish to discuss it, fine. If you don’t, that is fine, too. Derail attempts are dime a dozen, and I am not interested in them.

 

[davidv]

I have never seen such a nonsensical attack on the scientific method, when it is applied to the objective, physical reality. But, what the heck.

The quoted proposition is considered to be provisionally true, until a better one comes around. The reason for that is that millions and zillions of experiments have been conducted, and the results were satisfactory.

It is not “true” in the mathematical sense.

How many experiments were conducted concerning the existence of the “immortal soul”? Or “demons” and “angels”? Properly designed, double blind experiments, of course.

I suggest you go back to the OP, and present your epistemological method about the purported “supernatural”. As a starting point consider the proposition: “all human beings and only human beings have an immortal soul”. If you wish to discuss it, fine. If you don’t, that is fine, too. Derail attempts are dime a dozen, and I am not interested in them.

There was no attack, nonsensical, or otherwise, on science. There was an “attack” on the unstated assumptions made in the OP.

 

[zyzz]

There was no attack, nonsensical, or otherwise, on science. There was an “attack” on the unstated assumptions made in the OP.

“Unstated assumptions”??? What the heck are those “unstated” assumptions?

 

[MPat]

I have never seen such a nonsensical attack on the scientific method, when it is applied to the objective, physical reality. But, what the heck.

The quoted proposition is considered to be provisionally true, until a better one comes around. The reason for that is that millions and zillions of experiments have been conducted, and the results were satisfactory.

It is not “true” in the mathematical sense.

How many experiments were conducted concerning the existence of the “immortal soul”? Or “demons” and “angels”? Properly designed, double blind experiments, of course.

I suggest you go back to the OP, and present your epistemological method about the purported “supernatural”. As a starting point consider the proposition: “all human beings and only human beings have an immortal soul”. If you wish to discuss it, fine. If you don’t, that is fine, too. Derail attempts are dime a dozen, and I am not interested in them.

I guess I could list the many ways in which this post misrepresents, ignores and misses my arguments, and what else is wrong with it… But I see little need for that - I do not expect to persuade you anyway, and your post itself seems to make your position look bad enough without any help…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Logical proofs are only as valid as the underlying metaphysical assumptions.

Even if those “proofs” were logically sound (and they are NOT), they would never establish the existence of the Christian God… at best they would only point to some faceless, deistic entity.
.

Well, if you’ve already got your mind made up then there is no point in talking to you. God bless.

 

[davidv]

“Unstated assumptions”??? What the heck are those “unstated” assumptions?

Please tell us. You are the OP, are you not?

The responses to the OP have been attempting, apparently to no avail, to reveal them.

 

[fhansen]

Why would it be “strange”, especially on a philosophy forum? Epistemology is the cornerstone of philosophy.

I agree. And it’s simply an honest, basic question.

Even if those “proofs” were logically sound (and they are NOT), they would never establish the existence of the Christian God… at best they would only point to some faceless, deistic entity.

Sure, but that’s a start.

And say if this deity *happened *to be the Christian God. *That *God could certainly reveal the truth to you, don’t you think? I mean, presumably such a God could cause you to know the truth about anything, something relatively mundane even. Say if you had no knowledge of physics but were suddenly-or gradually-simply infused with that knowledge: now you know, before you didn’t. What if the truth about God is just as knowable, even if, in that case, most of the knowledge could only be had by its being imparted to you, by grace so to speak? Would that be objectionable for some reason?

 

[zyzz]

I agree. And it’s simply an honest, basic question.

Thank you.

Sure, but that’s a start.

It would be, if it were successful. I have seen many (if not all) attempts to create a “philosophical proof” for God. All of them contained some unfounded metaphysical assumptions and/or logical errors.

And say if this deity *happened *to be the Christian God. *That *God could certainly reveal the truth to you, don’t you think?

Certainly. If “someone” would approach me with the claim: “I am God” and would be able to give sufficient evidence for this claim I would be ready to accept his “revelation”. Of course it does not even have to be God. I am willing to accept rational arguments, no matter who would use them. This might be another difference between us. In my world it does not matter, WHO says something, what matters is WHAT has been said. In other words, “authority” alone is not a deciding factor. Authority is someone, anyone who can substantiate the claim, WITHOUT appealing to another “authority”.

I mean, presumably such a God could cause you to know the truth about anything, something relatively mundane even. Say if you had no knowledge of physics but were suddenly-or gradually-simply infused with that knowledge: now you know, before you didn’t. What if the truth about God is just as knowable, even if, in that case, most of the knowledge could only be had by its being imparted to you, by grace so to speak?

I am ready to accept it. Take a funnel and imbue me with the truth.

Would that be objectionable for some reason?

Nothing is a-priori objectionable to me. I am willing to contemplate any kind of REAL evidence. The problem is that REAL evidence in your eyes is not necessarily real evidence in my eyes. What is sufficient evidence is highly personal. I have been accused of making your task “impossible”, because I do not accept authority-based or hearsay evidence. But this rejection is not unique to the claims of supernatural. I would demand real evidence even for the most mundane claims, if the acceptance or rejection would carry some significant consequences.

I do not try to limit you to my kind of empirical evidence, if you can present something else. That is the point of this thread. What evidence can one bring up to substantiate claims about the supernatural?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We are inundated with all sorts of propositions. How do we find out if those propositions are true or false? Obviously these questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion, they need to be investigated within the realm they are part of.

" who are not Catholic? Or perhaps you would like to ask: “Hey, catholic guys, why do you state propositions about the “supernatural”? How do you dare to do that!?”

Or perhaps you just arrived to this world, found this forum and wanted to ask your question…, I don’t know.

Why would it be “strange”, especially on a philosophy forum? Epistemology is the cornerstone of philosophy.

I agree. And it’s simply an honest, basic question.

It was not precisely the question, but the way zyzz stated it (“some people offer propositions…” In a catholic forum) what was amusing to me. But, besides…

Of course there are plenty of propositions in our human world! And some of those propositions are definitions, or axioms or principles, while others are stated as logical consequences of them. And some propositions intend to describe particular aspects of reality, while some others intend to describe regular behaviors of entire systems. And some propositions are believed to be true now, but will be rejected as false tomorrow (either popular, scientific, philosophical, religious or whichever).

There are also plenty of actions in our human world. And some of those actions are the origin and/or the object of some propositions, and some might not be, or at least not yet. And some of those actions are influenced by some of those propositions and some others are not. And the results of some of our actions allow us to strengthen our belief in the truth of some propositions while others allow us to discard some propositions as false. And some people (be them scientists, or philosophers or…, whatever) act based on certain propositions while others act based on propositions which are different or even opposed to them.

No body in this world has ever been able to act based only on propositions that he himself has tested beforehand; and nobody will ever be able to do that. And no body has ever been able to live a human life based only on propositions which are verifiable or falsifiable. If there are more propositions in this world than those which are verifiable or falsifiable, it is because these ones are not enough to live a human life… “But in the future it will be possible for human kind to live a human life based only on tested and verified propositions!” Oh, my God! Oh, my God!

Should we really be surprised for the existence of non-verifiable/ non-falsifiable propositions in this world? And, in particular, should we Catholics be ashamed because many of our actions (I should say, all of them!) are influenced by our beliefs on the supernatural?

 

[zyzz]

Should we really be surprised for the existence of non-verifiable/ non-falsifiable propositions in this world?

Not all propositions are “created” equal. It would be counterproductive to verify or falsify ALL the propositions. However, NOT verifying important propositions, with far reaching consequences is not a good idea. If you would receive an e-mail from Nigeria, which would assert that you just won a few hundred thousand dollars, and all you have to do is to provide your bank account number, I hope you would not just hand over that number.

And, in particular, should we Catholics be ashamed because many of our actions (I should say, all of them!) are influenced by our beliefs on the supernatural?

It is for you to decide. In my eyes the belief in supernatural would carry significant or important consequences, so I do not accept it without proper justification. Your mile may vary, but that is your business.