Although haunted-universe doctrines are unempirical in the sense that they are compatible with every conceivable finite set of observation statements, they are not analytic or vacuous, but synthetic or factual, because there are empirical theories with which they will not be compatible
Yes. Most of those theories are meaningful, but non-empirical. That's why I say that Quantum Physics has inadvertently crossed the line into Meta-physics. Yet, by "meta-physics", I don't mean ghosts & gods, but merely those aspects of our world that are not directly accessible to the Scientific Method. That's why there is still some fertile territory for philosophical exploration.Examples given include determinism, historicism, mechanism (the denial of the existence of empty space), its opposite - field theories, vitalism and its denial, various aspects of mind, and conservation doctrines of all sorts. — Banno
Determinism: Every event has a cause. This has the form given for Level 4 statements, an existential statement nestled in a universal. Hence, if Watkins is correct, it can not be proved - doing so would require the impossibility that we examine every possible event and determine its cause; nor can it be falsified; that we have not so far found the cause of some given event does not imply that there is no such cause. — Banno
The doctrine of psycho-physical correspondence says that for every mental event experienced by an organism there exists corresponding physical event in the organism such that recurrence of the mental event implies recurrence of the physical event.
The article here is very much in the Popperian tradition, looking at the logical structure of unfalsifiable metaphysical propositions, but does not simply dismissing them as meaningless
Unprovable and unfalsifiable. — Banno
As I explained, these two are contradictory. Unfalsifiable means impossible to falsify, which implies necessarily true, therefore proven. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, not quite, although that's the pop view. Unfalsified theories are not assumed to be true. They are taken as helpful, to greater or lesser extents, and hence the need for Lakatos' research programs to acknowledge the variety of unfalsified theories. For my money, Feyerabend put paid to Poppers program (alliteration unintended...), showing firstly that it did not solve the problem of induction, and secondly that it is not the way science actually works.it assumes a [scientific] theory to be true based on it not being falsified. — TheMadFool
I also noted the mention of physicalism with regard to theory of mind, and intend to check that out for more interesting arguments. — Banno
Reichenbach said that mental events can be identified by the corresponding stimuli and responses much as the (possibly unknown) internal state of a photo-electric cell can be identified by the stimulus (light falling on it) and response (electric current flowing) from it. In both cases the internal states can be physical states.
My argument is this: The definitive characteristic of any (sort of) experience as such is its causal role, its syndrome of most typical causes and effects. But we materialists believe that these causal roles which belong by analytic necessity to experiences belong in fact to certain physical states. Since these physical states possess the definitive character of experiences, they must be experiences. — David Lewis
The causal approach was also characteristic of D.M. Armstrong's careful conceptual analysis of mental states and processes, such as perception and the secondary qualities, sensation, consciousness, belief, desire, emotion, voluntary action, in his A Materialist Theory of the Mind...
Armstrong's central state materialism involved identifying beliefs and desires with states of the brain.
it reinforced my prejudice that Kantian metaphysical notions didn't survive 19th century developments in maths and physics. — Banno
... are easy to test and clearly not metaphysical. Never heard of conservation of information though. — Olivier5
it reinforced my prejudice that Kantian metaphysical notions didn't survive 19th century developments in maths and physics. — Banno
Hmm. God exists. Therefore God exists? Or to round out, God does not exist. Therefore God does not exist? Or even, God either exists or does not exist. Therefore either God exists or does not exist? — tim wood
Hmm. 1) God exists. Therefore God exists? Or to round out, 2) God does not exist. Therefore God does not exist? Or even, 3) God either exists or does not exist. Therefore either God exists or does not exist?
— tim wood
None of these qualify as an "unprovable" inductive conclusions, or universals, which is the substance here. One could make up all sorts of nonsense and insist that its both unprovable (due to inadequately defined terms) and also unfalsifiable (due to the impossibility of testing what is inadequately defined), but that's not really relevant.
What is relevant is that valid inductive conclusions are rejected under the pretense of "unfalsifiable". — Metaphysician Undercover
In reality, either [if] the proposition is truly unfalsifiable, therefore [then] necessarily true,. — Metaphysician Undercover
We could just say that one of the characteristics of metal is that it expands when heated. Anything else would be, at best, semi-metal. We can simply redefine words or make up new words to resolve the first example. It's a language issue.The difference between Level 1 and Level 3 is in the degree of verifiability. The car is in my garage today - take a look; but the metal that doesn't expand when heated - I don't have a sample as yet, but it's out there, somewhere... prove me wrong!
Uncircumscribed existential statements are the stuff of conspiracy theories. There's a flying saucer in a US military base. I know we've looked in all the military bases we know of, but this base is secret...
Anyhow, the key point here is that Level 2 statements are unfalsifiable, Level 3 statements are unverifiable, and their conjugate, Level 4 statements, are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. — Banno
Again, here we could just define effects as having causes. Any event without a cause would be classified as being a non-effect. It seems that many metaphysical problems can be resolved by changing the way we use words.Determinism: Every event has a cause. This has the form given for Level 4 statements, an existential statement nestled in a universal. Hence, if Watkins is correct, it can not be proved - doing so would require the impossibility that we examine every possible event and determine its cause; nor can it be falsified; that we have not so far found the cause of some given event does not imply that there is no such cause. — Banno
I still reject the view that there is more to the mind than neural functions embedded in a body embedded in a world. — Banno
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.