.and you can ask these questions only because you are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. — Banno

Yes.

A truth-claims' "status" changes from undecided to positive truth-value when demonstrated and then to negative truth-value when refuted. "Earth is flat" is a refuted truth-claim aka a falsehood rather than a true statement, no? — 180 Proof

Yes exactly. Truth claims can either be falsehoods or true statements.

The suposition is that science deals with propositions that are either true or false, and that this differentiates it from philosophy.

So let's put it to the test:

Is F=ma true?

I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora. — T Clark

This Quora user is mistaken. Descartes was not assuming a unified self. He was asserting that thought requires/implies a thinker. It's almost a truism (and truisms, though potentially trivial, are still true!).

If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless. — T Clark

Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things.

Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim. — T Clark

The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.

Both are (as @Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. They differ in content, though not in form or kind from:
"I exist."
Or
"There is a an observer-independent reality."

A person observes a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable stream of phenomena. Over time, that chaos resolves itself into regularities and patterns after the observer tries on for size various templates and schemes to make sense of what they are seeing( the ‘facts’ as you call them).
They then produce from this template a formal hypothesis (value system) and test it out on subsequent events( facts) to see how well it predicts the future based on the past. These subsequent events can either validate or invalidate the hypothesis( true and false as you call it).
Even if the hypothesis is validated by experience, one can try out alternative hypotheses. One of these may produce a different way of organizing ones experience that may be preferable to the older way, even if the older way has not technically been invalidated. — Joshs

The homunculus, sitting in its body-machine, making observations and hypotheses. A pervasive myth.

Again, we are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. A baby does not derive the world from first principles and observation.

The homunculus, sitting in its body-machine, making observations and hypotheses. A pervasive myth.

Again, we are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. A baby does not derive the world from first principles and observation. — Banno

I was tailoring my post for T. Clark’s interests.The point I was trying to emphasize was the relation between science and philosophy. If I were writing to you I would compose it differently.

Sure. I was tailoring my post for T. Clark’s interests, too, in that I think he's working with a faulty picture, part of which you described very well. I'm looking for a crack into which to force a suitable wedge.

The difference between science and philosophy is not going to be reducible to some simple formulae. On this I suspect you and I agree.

Science consists in empirical observations, hypotheses and theories. Empirical observations are either true or false, hypotheses and theories are testable.

Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science.

Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science. — Janus

If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy.

If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy. — Artemis

Hypothesis and prediction seem to consist in imagining, given the empirical observations that have been made. what forces or mechanisms could have been involved in producing the phenomena that have been observed, and then, when some hypothetical system has been conceived and explicated, predicting what other phenomena would likely be observed if the hypothesis were correct.If the predicted phenomena are observed then we have a theory, which remains falsifiable by further possible observations.

That doesn't seem to be significantly analogous to philosophical reasoning as far as I can see.

:lol:
.
:up:

Just in case there is any confusion:

"Truth claim" is not the same as "true claim." It is a "claim to truth," in other words, "I claim X to be true."

This summarizes it neatly:

"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true. "

And:

"A major division of truth claims is that between positive and negative truth claims. Positive truth claims proclaim the existence of an object or entity. Negative truth claims, which are the opposite of truth claims, proclaim the non-existence of an object or entity."

https://handwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy:Truth_claim

Science consists in empirical observations, hypotheses and theories... — Janus

And bottle-washing. Lots of bottle washing.

Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. — Janus

Debatable, but if true, then we agree that the difference between science and philosophy is content, not method.

(philosophy's) hypotheses and theories are not testable... — Janus

...by empirical observations. They are certainly testable.

If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy. — Artemis

...and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy?

Hypothesis and prediction seem to consist in imagining, given the empirical observations that have been made. what forces or mechanisms could have been involved in producing the phenomena that have been observed, and then, when some hypothetical system has been conceived and explicated, predicting what other phenomena would likely be observed if the hypothesis were correct.If the predicted phenomena are observed then we have a theory, which remains falsifiable by further possible observations.

That doesn't seem to be significantly analogous to philosophical reasoning as far as I can see. — Janus

Sounds precisely like philosophy.

and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy? — Banno

Which shouldn't be surprising, considering science originated in philosophy and was generally accepted as part of philosophy until rather recently in human history (roughly, the Enlightenment period). That's why scientists have PhDs to this day!

And bottle-washing. Lots of bottle washing. — Banno

Depends on the branch of science.

Debatable, but if true, then we agree that the difference between science and philosophy is content, not method. — Banno

It seems the principles of valid reasoning should be central to both philosophy and science, as they should be to all aspects of everyday life, if that is what you mean by method. Too broad a brush, perhaps?

...by empirical observations. They are certainly testable. — Banno

Are they definitively testable as empirically testable observations are? Can you give an example?

Sounds precisely like philosophy. — Artemis

Not to me. I have no idea why you would say that. Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is.

That's why scientists have PhDs to this day! — Artemis

You can get a PhD in literature, and many other disciplines. So all these disciplines originated in philosophy? And theology?

Yeah, but I didn't confuse them, I just pointed out that "the status of truth claims" do, in fact, change: undecided, demonstated or refuted. For instance, an undecided truth-claim is not the same as a demonstrated truth-claim (just as an unbitten apple is not the treated the same as a bitten apple even though both are "apples").

Not to me. I have no idea why you would say that. Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is. — Janus

I don't think we need to overthink it or leave it opaque:
"Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."

And some additional background which clears up some of this science distinction:

"Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher.[14] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics.[15] For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics.

In the 19th century, the growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to professionalize and specialize.[16][17] Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines, and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Okay, good. That's what I thought, but then your emoji threw me off and I figured I'd better make sure we're actually on the same page :wink:

Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines, and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics." — Artemis

That's a nice historical story; so what is left for philosophy then, or in other words, what does philosophy consist in today?

You said the status of truth-claims do not change and I say they do. Not the same page or even the same book. And "science and philosophy both make metaphysical claims"? Nope. Not in the same library either. :roll:

Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is. — Janus

:up:

Nope. Not in the same library either. :roll: — 180 Proof

Meh, life is too short to deal with rude people. Have a nice life!

Quote: "Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality, epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief, ethics, which is concerned with moral value, and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from true premises.[18][19] Other notable subfields include philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind."

:rofl: :up:

No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual. — 180 Proof

I just wanted to check if you and I are in agreement. For me, making generalizations from observations and the results of experiments and creating theories and models is part of science and is not metaphysical. From what you wrote, I think you agree with that.

Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things. — Artemis

"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement.

:up:

The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.

Both are (as Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. — Artemis

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.

"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement. — T Clark

I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif.

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement. — T Clark

It's a statement about the state or nature of an aspect of reality.