If, as he argues, life were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected fulfillment of the natural order, then we truly are at home in the universe.
Among the estimated one hundred billion solar systems in the known universe, evolving life is surely abundant. That evolution is a process of "becoming" in each case. Since Newton, we have turned to physics to assess reality. But physics alone cannot tell us where we came from, how we arrived, and why our world has evolved past the point of unicellular organisms to an extremely complex biosphere.
Hence - not physicalist. Science itself has evolved beyond materialism, 1960's academic philosophy is about 100 years behind. — Wayfarer
The paper makes a good point : not all "influential" theories are "confirmable". :smile:An article worth reading: Confirmable and influential metaphysics. — Banno
Note "natural order", not supernatural order, and you purport to be an opponent of naturalism — Janus
metaphysical claims stand today between the absolutist claims of science (scientism) and the complete relativism of postmodernism and deconstructionism. — Gnomon
And of course you then must conclude that when Kaufman, whom you brought up, says that ‘physics alone can not tell us’, that actually he’s saying that there’s nothing beyond physics. — Wayfarer
Isn't this dealt with in the article - being the topic of Section VII? Or have I misunderstood you? — Banno
I do not think that any single criterion, such as conformity with existing science, can be laid down for assessing haunted-universe doctrine. This task is more like assessing the worth of a man's character than the legality of his acts...
But although these doctrines cannot be proved or refuted they can be criticised and weighed
But although these doctrines cannot be proved or refuted they can be criticised and weighed
This has flared up in physics in respect of string theory and the multiverse; one side is arguing that these theories are not falsifiable in principle, so, not empirical, so, not really science; the other side is accusing those critics of being popperazi. — Wayfarer
Falsification fails to demarcate science from non-science both because scientists make use of non-falsifiable theories (as Watkins shows) and because falsification fails to solve the problem of induction. — Banno
Well, three levels are offered; disguised analysis; Lewis-Carol-like nonsense; and the intermediary of not having any truth value. For my part I don't see that a statement without a truth value has much by way of meaning...
But that's not quite right, either. — Banno
But this implies that no proposition is decidable prior to test. Which further implies that for all propositions for which no appropriate test is available, truth or falsity is indeterminable/undecidable. — tim wood
You're forgetting the other half of the picture. If the proposition is also unverifiable, then why should we believe it is true? — Janus
As the article pointed out there are kinds of propositions which are unverifiable: "all x are Y", but falsifiable, and there are other kinds of propositions which are unfalsifiable: "some x are Y", but verifiable. In the latter case your position would entail that it is necessarily true that some x are Y, but that is nonsense; we could not know that until and unless it had been verified. — Janus
...all and some statement should somehow engender a falsifiable statement; — fdrake
Circumscribing reduces all-and-some statements to falsifiable form. — Banno
Rolling marbles, for example, can be used to display conservation of momentum in a limited case. — Banno
You know your logic, so I'm sure you can see that they're not following by modus ponens. They seem a lot more artful, more similar to transcendental deductions or interpretive links than strict logical entailments. — fdrake
At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is a scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes (proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people. — Harry Hindu
There's quite a body of discussion on falsifiability. SOme familiarity with that would be helpful. — Banno
So Galileo wasn't doing science when he devised the modern scientific method and performed his experiments in private, away from the watchful eyes of the theocracy?This errs in failing to notice that science is social. One individual making their own observations is not science. A group actively engaging in a conversation aimed at explaining what they see, and willing to adjust their view to account for what others claim, is at least a start. — Banno
As I explained, these two are contradictory. Unfalsifiable means impossible to falsify, which implies necessarily true, therefore proven. — Metaphysician Undercover
.Finally, since influential haunted universe doctrines are neither demonstrable nor testable, it becomes urgent (my italics) to investigate the ways in which they may be rationally supported or criticised
So Galileo wasn't doing science when he devised the modern scientific method and performed his experiments in private, away from the watchful eyes of the theocracy? — Harry Hindu
So, are mathematical axioms concerning infinity not level 4 statements? — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it implies necessary truth. For example, the claim that there is some particular configuration of stars and planets beyond the edge of the observable universe. That's unfalsifiable, because we can never check it out, no matter how close to the speed of light we accelerate a probe. But it's certainly not necessarily true. — bert1
Give an example. — Banno
I don't agree that such a claim is unfalsifiable. — Metaphysician Undercover
...the axiom of infinity? How would it be empirically verified? How could it be falsified? — Metaphysician Undercover
All that means is that you are misusing the term "unfalsifiable". — Banno
It can't be, nor has anyone claimed that it can be. — 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.