A truth-claims' "status" changes from undecided to positive truth-value when demonstrated and then to negative truth-value when refuted. "Earth is flat" is a refuted truth-claim aka a falsehood rather than a true statement, no? — 180 Proof
I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora. — T Clark
If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless. — T Clark
Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim. — T Clark
A person observes a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable stream of phenomena. Over time, that chaos resolves itself into regularities and patterns after the observer tries on for size various templates and schemes to make sense of what they are seeing( the ‘facts’ as you call them).
They then produce from this template a formal hypothesis (value system) and test it out on subsequent events( facts) to see how well it predicts the future based on the past. These subsequent events can either validate or invalidate the hypothesis( true and false as you call it).
Even if the hypothesis is validated by experience, one can try out alternative hypotheses. One of these may produce a different way of organizing ones experience that may be preferable to the older way, even if the older way has not technically been invalidated. — Joshs
The homunculus, sitting in its body-machine, making observations and hypotheses. A pervasive myth.
Again, we are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. A baby does not derive the world from first principles and observation. — Banno
Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science. — Janus
If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy. — Artemis
Science consists in empirical observations, hypotheses and theories... — Janus
Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. — Janus
...by empirical observations. They are certainly testable.(philosophy's) hypotheses and theories are not testable... — Janus
Hypothesis and prediction seem to consist in imagining, given the empirical observations that have been made. what forces or mechanisms could have been involved in producing the phenomena that have been observed, and then, when some hypothetical system has been conceived and explicated, predicting what other phenomena would likely be observed if the hypothesis were correct.If the predicted phenomena are observed then we have a theory, which remains falsifiable by further possible observations.
That doesn't seem to be significantly analogous to philosophical reasoning as far as I can see. — Janus
and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy? — Banno
And bottle-washing. Lots of bottle washing. — Banno
Debatable, but if true, then we agree that the difference between science and philosophy is content, not method. — Banno
...by empirical observations. They are certainly testable. — Banno
Sounds precisely like philosophy. — Artemis
That's why scientists have PhDs to this day! — Artemis
Not to me. I have no idea why you would say that. Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is. — Janus
Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines, and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics." — Artemis
:up:Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is. — Janus
No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual. — 180 Proof
Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things. — Artemis
The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.
Both are (as Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. — Artemis
"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement. — T Clark
In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.