So you're claiming that those who respond to your argument by demanding proof are being disingenuous, but your own technique appears to be to simply write something and then refuse to explain it when pushed. I'm not sure I see the improvement.

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that some calls for proof may be less valid in philosophy than they would be in science. — Pseudonym

No, that is not what I am saying.

It is the nature of the proposition that determines whether a demand for empirical "proof" is appropriate.
And a philosophical proposition is different than a scientific proposition.

As a result, applying criteria developed for evaluating scientific propositions to philosophical propositions is not a good idea.

No one would suggest we apply the criteria developed for evaluating music to evaluating pizza.

Has it occurred to you that I chose the word "demand" (as opposed to request) for a reason?

I am rarely bothered by a reasonable counter argument that raises the issue of empirical "proof" in regard to a reasonably argued philosophical proposition.

But yes, I am always pained when a reasonably argued philosophical proposition is met with a "demand" for empirical "proof."

Aren't you?

It is the nature of the proposition that determines whether a demand for empirical "proof" is appropriate. — Arne

You can demand empirical proof as much as you like, you are never going to get it.

And a philosophical proposition is different than a scientific proposition. — Arne

Because the methods of criticism available are different.

But yes, I am always pained when a reasonably argued philosophical proposition is met with a "demand" for empirical "proof." — Arne

Have you got any examples of that?

Because the methods of criticism available are different. — tom

I would say because the criteria of validity are different.

I would say because the criteria of validity are different. — Arne

There are no criteria of validity in science.

yes.

And it is the example that motivated the OP.

There was a discussion this morning regarding what happens after we die.

I do not believe I participated in the discussion. If I did, it was tertiary.

One comment was to the effect:

that the soul is not a material thing so it could certainly live on after our material death.

that statement was met with the one word demand "proof!"

It just struck me as extremely rude to demand "proof!" when the person making the demand knew there was no such proof to be had and to thereby perfunctorily dismiss such a personal and intimate statement.

We expect philosophical propositions to be supported by reasonable argument. We expect scientific propositions to at least in theory be supportable by empirical evidence — Arne

Can't philosophical propositions be supported by empirical evidence? Can't certain philosophical propositions be considered more reasonable--more likely to be correct--than others, based on empirical evidence? Can't certain philosophical positions reasonably be considered fatuous given empirical evidence?

Take solipsism, for example, or any philosophical position which maintains that what we encounter and interact with from moment to moment isn't "really real" or can't actually be determined, or that fabulous, ever-popular tree that falls without a sound. The evidence that other people and things exist beyond ourselves, the evidence that we constantly interact with use things for certain purposes, successfully construct buildings and roads, etc., hurt ourselves when we run into walls, would seem to make such philosophical propositions as "I am the only thing that exists" highly unlikely, and would seem to indicate that it's very probable that the things we constantly interact with have the characteristics we think they have.

There are no criteria of validity in science. — tom

Almost as if there is no such thing as the scientific method or controls or stuff like that.

I will let my boss know and we can all go home. Of course, we will to find new jobs. But whatever.

We code scientific research papers.

Most of them do meet our requirements.

One of the keywords for rejecting papers is CRITERIA.

And guess what that means?

of course. But as I stated in the OP, when a particular proposition reaches the point that it can likely be resolved by empirical evidence, then they are likely to become scientific propositions and philosophy will move on.

That is why science split from philosophy in the first place. It was the place to go with those ideas amenable to empirical proof. Aristotle is not Plato and no one expected Plato to provide "proof." Plato was a philosopher. Aristotle was a philosopher very much interested in science. And the rest is history.

As for solipsism, there are few adherents and empirical evidence is not the reason.

it is nonsensical to expect me to tell you what I am saying when you are continually telling me what I am saying.

You have entreated us to "not demand proof" — Pseudonym

my choosing the word "demand" was no accident.

So, I'm saying, of those situations you are taking issue with, many fall into one of two camps, both of which can actually be defended. — Pseudonym

very few fall into the camp of amenable to empirical "proof."

And none of mine do.

I leave to science the empirically provable.

That is their thing and they are good at.

I suppose a better term for what people are actually looking for (or should be looking for) is "evidence." Most of science and most of philosophy are just working with evidence which supports or weakens any given argument. Any good scientist or philosopher will admit that "proven" is just shorthand for "there is so much evidence for x that we can reasonably assume it is true."

However, both fields do sometimes work with "proof." Like math and logic actually often do prove their conclusions.

I agree. But it is not just that "evidence" may be terminologically better than "proof", it is also the "demand"ing nature of the response.

The OP was prompted by a discussion I was following about "what happens after you die." Someone commented to the effect "we do not know if the soul is a material thing. it could be that it lives on after the body dies."

The comment was met with the one word demand "proof!"

I was struck by the rudeness of the response in light of the personal and intimate nature of the comment.

Not only was the response rude, the person making the demand knew there would be no proof forthcoming.

It is anti-philosophical.

Why would anyone do that?

I suppose a better term for what people are actually looking for (or should be looking for) is "evidence." Most of science and most of philosophy are just working with evidence which supports or weakens any given argument. Any good scientist or philosopher will admit that "proven" is just shorthand for "there is so much evidence for x that we can reasonably assume it is true." — NKBJ

Science really can't work that way. Progress is made by finding problems with our theories and proposing solutions to these problems, not by certifying theories as true. Right now there is zero evidence that there is a problem with either quantum mechanics or general relativity. No one knows even how to perform an experiment to discover any problems with them, since both LHC and LIGO have failed to find one, but we know there IS a problem, and it has nothing to do with evidence.

But as I stated in the OP, when a particular proposition reaches the point that it can likely be resolved by empirical evidence, then they are likely to become scientific propositions and philosophy will move on. — Arne

What are these propositions? What is it that philosophy has "moved on" from that has been resolved by empirical evidence? I think the kind of epistemological/metaphysical issues I mentioned continue to be addressed to this day. There are those who still address the fascinating case of the pencil in the water glass, still maintain that we are "deceived" by our senses in such instances and therefore can't rely on them, and ponder whether we are in The Matrix or are brains in a vat.

And I understand that those who seriously consider solipsism don't do so because of empirical evidence, but the question I have whether the empirical evidence establishes solipsism is highly unlikely.

Note the recently created thread entitled "The Probability of Simulation."

Your examples prove my point. There is very little in the major fields of philosophy that are amenable in any significant way to resolution by empirical evidence.

Demanding proof of reliability of the senses one relies upon is a self revealing absurdity.

How do these people get to work in the morning?

My point, though--and perhaps you already grasp it but I don't grasp that you do--is that empirical evidence can and should be referred to in judging the correctness of philosophical propositions, at least in some cases.

I am rarely bothered by a reasonable counter argument that raises the issue of empirical "proof" in regard to a reasonably argued philosophical proposition.

But yes, I am always pained when a reasonably argued philosophical proposition is met with a "demand" for empirical "proof." — Arne

So your proposition is now just that some people are quite rude?

I do not disagree. But certainly the nature of the proposition should indicate to most whether a demand for empirical "proof" is appropriate. And scientific propositions and philosophical propositions are not the same. I go out of my way to avoid advancing philosophical propositions amenable to empirical proof. I leave those to science. That is their thing and they are good at it. I do not apply to music the criteria I use for assessing the quality of pizza.

no. Though I don't disagree with that.

So, the issue is about fulfilling criteria?

Science really can't work that way. Progress is made by finding problems with our theories and proposing solutions to these problems, not by certifying theories as true. Right now there is zero evidence that there is a problem with either quantum mechanics or general relativity. No one knows even how to perform an experiment to discover any problems with them, since both LHC and LIGO have failed to find one, but we know there IS a problem, and it has nothing to do with evidence. — tom

How do you know that there is a problem? It makes no sense to say you know something without having a shred of evidence in favor thereof. You're simply failing to count the reasons we have to believe QM is flawed in someway as evidence.

It is anti-philosophical.

Why would anyone do that? — Arne

Possibly because they had nothing else to say in favor of their own pet theory and people are pretty unwilling to admit defeat (especially around here) :wink:
Also, possibly, they were being rude about a legitimate concern that any such hypothesis should only be given credence when accompanied by at least a shred of evidence... but I also do not understand the need for rudeness if that is the case.

So, the issue is about fulfilling criteria? — Posty McPostface

No. The issue is the criteria to be applied, if any, given the nature of the premise. I have little patience for people who demand their music taste like pizza.

Within the context of philosophical discussion groups, I have never seen a demand for empirical "proof" from any one regarding a philosophical proposition with which they agree. Not. One. Time.

Not only was the response rude, the person making the demand knew there would be no proof forthcoming.

It is anti-philosophical.

Why would anyone do that? — Arne

How much time have you spent on Internet forums?

Can't philosophical propositions be supported by empirical evidence? — Ciceronianus the White

I often reflect on the broader implications of the meaning of 'empirical evidence'. What does it amount to, other than an argument be referenced by something that can be detected by the senses (or by scientific instruments, which amplify the senses)? Many times the demand for 'evidence' in regard to subjects such as the nature of personal identity, the nature of number, the nature of mind, and so on, amounts to an implicit requirement of this kind. Hence appeals to the science, to evolutionary psychology, neuro-science, and so on, as arbiters of any such claims. But already that is tending towards 'scientism'.

So, nowadays, the demand for something that is 'scientifically rational', really amounts to 'show me something material, tangible, measurable'. And that amounts to a kind of philosophical orientation, often implicit. What we talk of as 'real' has to be tangible, measurable, understable, at least in principle, by science - otherwise what are you talking about? (Which is basically what @Pseudonym is asking.)

Classical philosophy had very different criteria for what constitutes a 'rational proof'. Such arguments as the 'principle of sufficient reason', or Kant's transcendental arguments, cannot in principle be made subject to empirical validation. They're analyses of the nature of experience or of knowledge or of the implications of logic. But they also belong to a different cultural context than ours; ours is dominated by (often implicit) assumptions about what constitutes 'knowledge', the demand for empirical validation being one hallmark of that attitude.

It comes down to a 'way of being', and 'ways of being' are very hard things to talk about.

A couple of refs:

The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, Jacques Maritain
Science, Materialism and False Consciousness, Bas van Fraasen.

How much time have you spent on Internet forums? — Wayfarer

I have been on internet forums as long as there have been internet forums. And I have been in philosophy discussion groups since my days as a philosophy undergrad and that was before there were internet forums.

Here is the distinction I make:

If my proposition is not an empirical proposition, then do not demand empirical proof. Simply put, it makes no sense to demand proof that you know cannot be provided.

As for constitutes other kinds of proof, I do not care. And I do not care because they are gibberish and can all be boiled down to whether you have made a good argument.

If someone makes a good argument that I disagree with and I feel entitled to respond, I will make a counter argument and hopefully it will be good.

But demanding empirical proof in support of a non-empirical claim while you are heading out the door is the philosophical equivalent of flipping someone off because they do share your viewpoint. It is a red herring.

This ain't facebook.

If my proposition is not an empirical proposition, then do not demand empirical proof. Simply put, it makes no sense to demand proof that you know cannot be provided. — Arne

Hey I’m totally in your camp. I was just surprised that you were surprised by the kinds of comments you were talking about.