Or perhaps a metaphysician/scientist can or has deduced the law of gravity from a more general law (gravity is just an example, not at all my interest here). Then this "law" is itself either deduced from yet a more general "law" or itself has "just because" status. Infinite regress or bust, in other words. Hence the "shallowness if explanation." — who
Asked why X occurred, we deduce X from a ascending chain of more and more general laws, but crucially from the just-because postulation at the top. — Hoo
For instance, in Newton's time it was postulated that matter must be (is necessarily) attracted to all other matter according to an inverse square law. Why was matter attracted to matter? Just because. Or perhaps a metaphysician/scientist can or has deduced the law of gravity from a more general law (gravity is just an example, not at all my interest here). Then this "law" is itself either deduced from yet a more general "law" or itself has "just because" status. Infinite regress or bust, in other words. Hence the "shallowness if explanation." — Hoo
Without knowing anything about science, one can be certain from basic logic that one of those statements cannot be correct.According to current experimental evidence, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are perfectly correct theories of reality
.......
we know they are incompatible because their deep explanations do not agree. — Tom
Without knowing anything about science, one can be certain from basic logic that one of those statements cannot be correct. — andrewk
Adding my knowledge of physics to the mix, I can point out that it is the first one. — andrewk
Philosophy's greatest (IMHO) ever contribution to science was Popper's notion of Falsifiability. Any scientist that claims to have a perfectly correct theory of reality needs to go back to university and start learning from the beginning again. ALL theories are only ever currently non-falsified hypotheses. — andrewk
Without knowing anything about science, one can be certain from basic logic that one of those statements cannot be correct. — andrewk
Only if you're a scientific realist, right? If you're an instrumentalist then two incompatible theories are both valid if they both make successful predictions about their target subject matter. — Michael
Then this "law" is itself either deduced from yet a more general "law" or itself has "just because" status. Infinite regress or bust, in other words. Hence the "shallowness if explanation." — Hoo
Asked why X occurred, we deduce X from a ascending chain of more and more general laws, but crucially from the just-because postulation at the top. Except that we usually stop before we get to that embarrassing or anti-climactic summit. — Hoo
The genius of "why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it aims at this apex. — Hoo
On a less mystical note, I think this only supports the idea that reason is perhaps unavoidably instrumental. — Hoo
My knowledge of Popper's works is much less than that of physics, but nevertheless I think you may be mistaken here. Did you mean 'logically impossible to verify any theory'? If so, then that matches my understanding of Popper, and agrees with what I was saying.But if your expertise in Popper matched your expertise in physics, then you would know that, according to Popper, it is logically impossible to falsify any theory. [bold added by andrewk] — tom
Good point. I'm a little uncomfortable using the word 'valid' about a theory, as it doesn't seem to convey the aspect of provisionality (temporariness) that attaches to any theory (IMO), but I can't think of a better word, so let's go with 'valid'.Only if you're a scientific realist, right? If you're an instrumentalist then two incompatible theories are both valid if they both make successful predictions about their target subject matter. — Michael
My knowledge of Popper's works is much less than that of physics, but nevertheless I think you may be mistaken here. Did you mean 'logically impossible to verify any theory'? If so, then that matches my understanding of Popper, and agrees with what I was saying.
If you really meant 'falsify' then could you please provide a direct quote from Popper where he says this. — andrewk
In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are [my emphasis]. — Popper
Falsification of a theory is not equivalent to disproof of a theory, and you appear to be conflating the two in you responses to andrewk. — John
LSD section 19: "...the theoretical systems of the natural sciences are not verifiable, but I assert that they are not falsifiable either." — tom
I admit, a conventionalist might say [my emphasis], that the theoretical systems of the natural sciences are not verifiable, but I assert that they are not falsifiable either.
...
Thus, according to the conventionalist [my emphasis], it is not possible to divide systems of theories into falsifiable and non-falsifiable ones. — Popper
LSD section 6: "...it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified."
A third objection may seem more serious. It might be said [my emphasis] that even if the asymmetry is admitted, it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified.
...
I must admit the justice of this criticism; but I need not therefore withdraw my proposal to adopt falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation. For I am going to propose (in sections 20 f.) that the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which, as my imaginary critic [my emphasis] rightly insists, are logically possible. — Popper
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.