I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[tsig]

Yes that all sounds good and rational, but unfortunately it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are numerous problems with it, not least the arrogance to think that humans can determine what exists and its dimensional basis. Or presume to be able to determine principles about things beyond their understanding.
Perhaps an omniscient being might, hypothetically, be able to consider the principle.
This is putting the blinkers back on

So the saying goes; anything which is not supported by scientific evidence is worthless, meaningless, incoherent, irrational.

Anything which is does not have evidence which can be assessed to be either falsifiable in principle or not by a human is meaningless and should be cast aside as not existing(to avoid irrationality)

Its Blinkers all the way down.

It's arrogance to think our senses actually work?

The height of arrogance is to think you have some insight into the universe that others lack.

 

[punshhh]

Those are claims - have you evidence for any of those claims?

Well it's staring me in the face that the assumption is that whatever the mechanism of existence is, it can be determined whether it is in set Y or Set X. There's your arrogance(in italics)

The other claim about whether we can in principle determine principles about things beyond our understanding. Again reason would expect either that one should know what one was making assumptions about, or that one is making the assumption that all things beyond our understanding follow patterns, unreservedly, of phenomena that we can currently detect. Neither can be supported.

 

[punshhh]

And yet without these supposed blinkers, what happens is that anyone can make up anything they want, claim it to be true, and everyone else has to accept it. Regardless of the clear fact that it's entirely made up and backed by nothing.

That invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage? I don't need evidence. You simply have to agree with me that it's there. Otherwise I get to insult you with a claim that you're intentionally blinding yourself to the truth.

This is a philosophical discussion, it is concerned with rational thinking about the philosophy of materialism. You don't need to worry about dragons here.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you. I will take this to be the "falsifiable principle," that every true statement is falsifiable.

In that light, I don't understand why it should be thought valuable at all. For certainly, we operate on axioms which cannot be falsified and we use those axioms to derive everything else we believe about the world around us.

Axioms are taken as fundamental assumptions. Falsifiability may or may not apply.

I believe I am a thinking, living creature. I have no way to falsify this

Of course you do.

and hence, according to the principle, it cannot be true.

No, that is not at all what falsifiability is. You did not understand at all. I said you can dismiss the claim until it is adjusted, not that it is false.

 

[Belz...]

Except you can't assert that Y is valid and X isn't.

Actually, yes we can. If the logic of a claim is invalid, we can call it invalid.

"presumably there is a method of determining which set something is in?"

I did not think you needed an answer to this, but here goes: yes.

 

[punshhh]

Actually I think the point in those idealistic approaches (if I remember correctly) is that it transcends human consciousness to some higher consciousness.

Yes, I agree there is a slight problem with falsifiability in such rarefied air though.

I am interested in whether there can be some kind of higher information.

 

[Belz...]

Belz said things that can’t be falsified don’t happen (in principle…of course…the usual cop-out).

It's not that they don't happen; it's that you can't determine if they do. Rationally you can ignore them entirely.

You continue to be confused by language, which seems to bolster your impression that everybody else is an idiot.

 

[punshhh]

Actually, yes we can. If the logic of a claim is invalid, we can call it invalid.

Yes, this happens to be just machinations of the mind. What about claims about things outside the mind, say for example, the monad.

I did not think you needed an answer to this, but here goes: yes.

How is it applied to things beyond current understanding. Like for example the mechanism resulting in dimensional space?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, this happens to be just machinations of the mind. What about claims about things outside the mind, say for example, the monad.

What are you talking about ?

How is it applied to things beyond current understanding?

You can make claims and hypotheses about things you don't yet understand. It's very simple: either it can, in principle, be falsified, or it cannot. If it can't, that's a big strike against the idea.

 

[punshhh]

What are you talking about ?

I am drawing a distinction between theoretical objects and real objects(outside the mind).

You can make claims and hypotheses about things you don't yet understand. It's very simple: either it can, in principle, be falsified, or it cannot. If it can't, that's a big strike against the idea.

I'm surprised at your position. You do recognise that there are likely to be objects and processes in existence which we either have not perceived, or do not have the capacity to perceive, do you not?

If so perhaps it is also possible to rationally consider their existence, or not and to speculate on their falsifiability or not? While recognising that one might be mistaken, naive, or considering something inconceivable(to a human)?

 

[Belz...]

I am drawing a distinction between theoretical objects and real objects(outside the mind).

Theoretical objects don't exist. That's a pretty important distinction, but I don't see how this relates to what I said. It seems to me like you want a specific answer to be true and you are fishing for it. Why don't you state what you think plainly ?

You do recognise that there are likely to be objects and processes in existence which we either have not perceived, or do not have the capacity to perceive, do you not?

In principle or in practice ? If they cannot be observed in practice, they can be falsified. If they cannot, then they cannot be falsified. They also do not matter.

If so perhaps it is also possible to rationally consider their existence, or not and to speculate on their falsifiability or not?

As a purely academic exercise ? Sure, if we're looking to entertain ourselves or hone our thinking skills.

 

[LarryS]

I am drawing a distinction between theoretical objects and real objects(outside the mind).

I'm surprised at your position. You do recognise that there are likely to be objects and processes in existence which we either have not perceived, or do not have the capacity to perceive, do you not?

If so perhaps it is also possible to rationally consider their existence, or not and to speculate on their falsifiability or not? While recognising that one might be mistaken, naive, or considering something inconceivable(to a human)?[/QUOTE



[This will be a test of whether or not I understand what Belz is suggesting] In principle, all objects ( photons and pink unicorns ) are subject to being perceived - and therefore claims as to their existence are falsifiable. The distinction between theoretical and real objects is not necessary.

You could make a claim regarding a 'monad' that would be falsifiable - What would that claim be?

 

[annnnoid]

Everyone of the statements you came up with can be falsified.

So you claim. It's called hand-waving.

 

[Belz...]

So you claim. It's called hand-waving.

How is it hand-waving to address your concerns directly ?

The fact is that all of the things you mentioned ARE falsifiable in principle. That's the whole idea. There are good examples and explanations of falsifiability all over the net. Perhaps the fault of your ignorance lies with your unwillingness to educate yourself.

 

[punshhh]

Theoretical objects don't exist. That's a pretty important distinction, but I don't see how this relates to what I said. It seems to me like you want a specific answer to be true and you are fishing for it. Why don't you state what you think plainly ?

Theoretical objects do exist as mental states along with intellectual objects like questions, answers, assumptions, conclusions, truths etc. Yes I agree with you that logic can be applied to these objects and their falsifiability can be to a large extent determined. Real objects outside the mind are a different matter for numerous reasons. For example the truth about the origin of our existence, or the actual ontology most applicable, may not be logical, rational, likely from our perspective, conceivable, related to any modelling we may come up with. Yes we have worked out some things about the nature of matter, but we have not come up with any understanding of the basis of the existence we find ourselves in.
Are all these real objects and processes of no importance in our philosophies? to be discarded?

In principle or in practice ? If they cannot be observed in practice, they can be falsified. If they cannot, then they cannot be falsified. They also do not matter.

There are aspects of our existence which may not be falsifiable in principle, I'm sure it is debatable in many cases and it cannot be denied that they exist in some form.

As a purely academic exercise ? Sure, if we're looking to entertain ourselves or hone our thinking skills.

Yes and that is what we're doing here, in this case falsifiability is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

Theoretical objects do exist as mental states

I expected you to come back with this; but you said you wanted to distinguish theoretical objects from real objects. Since now you are saying they exist as mental states, then there is no distinction. You will have to make up your mind.

There are aspects of our existence which may not be falsifiable in principle

Such as ?

 

[annnnoid]

How is it hand-waving to address your concerns directly ?

The fact is that all of the things you mentioned ARE falsifiable in principle. That's the whole idea. There are good examples and explanations of falsifiability all over the net. Perhaps the fault of your ignorance lies with your unwillingness to educate yourself.

Can you not read???

Darat very explicitly claimed that every one of the statements I came up with can be falsified. He didn't provide a shred of evidence to support this nonsense.

Hand------waving!

As for your worthless claims...I can, without too much difficulty, locate a principle that legitimizes the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

...so much for principles...but congratulations just the same. Now you're in the religion threads at least you've got that part right.

 

[Darat]

Can you not read???

Darat very explicitly claimed that every one of the statements I came up with can be falsified. He didn't provide a shred of evidence to support this nonsense.

Hand------waving!

I know you are handwaving but can't you try to address the opening post and also provide evidence for your claims?

 

[marplots]

Martin Gardner wrote a nice essay critiquing Popper. It was in the Skeptical Inquirer: http://www.godslasteraar.org/html/a_skeptical_look_at_karl_poppe.html

The main point is that, while this "falsifiablity" business is popular, it has little pragmatic value and isn't really the way we go about understanding the world.

 

[annnnoid]

I know you are handwaving but can't you try to address the opening post and also provide evidence for your claims?

…excuse me…it was you who made the claim that all those events could be falsified. That’s an extraordinary claim by any standard (I’m not going to assume you know why but it would be very easy to establish that this is the case). You provided not a shred of evidence to support it.

That’s called hand-waving.

If you’re going to back-track when your feet land in the fire…then don’t make the claims in the first place.

My claim was simply that Belz gospel of the omniscience of science (and, by extension, the primacy of materialism) is nothing but religion with another name. That is self-evident for any number of reasons…not least of all because science cannot even begin to explain its own existence.