Yes, of course, coherence is implied in a philosophical system a philosopher builds. Why don't you read Aristotle's substance and form so you could pick up the coherence there too? The parts of the explanation (the theoretical explanation) must logically connect to make a up a whole system of philosophical view -- that's coherence.What about the necessity for coherence? Any philosophical theory must necessarily jibe with/square with other existing theories, including scientific ones like the 1st law of thermodynamics, ja? If not, anyone could think up any theory, no matter how discordant it is with the current framework of knowledge. — Agent Smith
I just explained to you in my previous post. If a substance is accessible to you, it means you can understand it objectively -- epistemically it makes sense. In Descarte's cogito, he explained the self as intelligible, and through deliberation, one could understand the mind.Could you explain a bit more about intelligibility? Thanks in advance. — Agent Smith
Disprove? Is there proof for dualism? You don't disprove something that never itself presented proof for its existence. I don't think any of the dual philosophers had presented proof. You either reject it or accept it.A question: How would we be able to disprove dualism? — Agent Smith
Disprove? Is there proof for dualism? You don't disprove something that never itself presented proof for its existence. I don't think any of the dual philosophers had presented proof. You either reject it or accept it. — L'éléphant
The word "disprove" is incorrect to use here. Like I said, no one in dualism community had presented a proof. If you don't know the techniques on how they present their philosophical system, then say so and, perhaps, I can explain further. The rest of your post above is a repetition of "disprove".So, you mean to say no one, no philosopher, has even attempted to prove dualism? — Agent Smith
The word "disprove" is incorrect to use here. — L'éléphant
Good question. To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. If dualism were true, this would be false (there would be energy that can't be explained materialistically) and we could/should then hypothesize another source (immaterial) for the extra energy. That's how I understoosd it, could be wrong. — Agent Smith
I don't think most ontological claims are possible to vet empircally, so they can't be scientific — Count Timothy von Icarus
This presupposes that what cannot be empirically verified is non-scientific
I don't think most ontological claims are possible to vet empircally, so they can't be scientific. That said, science often informs our ontology and sometimes ontologies do make claims that science may be able to support or undermine.
With that in mind, parts of any ontology can be scientific. For example, the rise of information based ontologies comes from insights in quantum mechanics and the physics of how information is stored, particularly in black holes — Count Timothy von Icarus
:) You need to read up on how theories are presented. This is like going to a fight and bringing with you the wrong training.Why? Dualism is a statement, oui? It is either true/false, ja? Disproving dualism is to show that it's false. — Agent Smith
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.