Apriori knowledge about the weather from a metaphysical Naturalist perspective

[DoubtingThomas29]

Alright I can tell this is going to be fun, if you ever thought you couldn't be 100% sure about something consider this statement that is absolutely true. Here is a fact that is impossible to not be a fact.

Here is the statement the poll is refering to:

It is either raining or not raining right now.

This is a statement about the weather, that cannot be false. When we look outside at the weather it is either raining or it is not raining but not both.

I tried this idea on another forum, and people were going nuts man. I can remember being in my metaphysics class, and it is being taught by a professor with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford, who had tenure at my university. He was a metaphysician and chair of the philosophy department.

I dont see what is so hard to accept this statement as a fact. I can't believe it takes like a tremendous amount of education with an IQ of 180 to accept this fact. I can't believe it, I am speechless.

Here I am making this a poll, who agrees it is impossible for the weather like outside to be both raining and not raining right now?

 

[The Nihilist]

It's called a tautology. It's a quirk of language, and it's not really that fancy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I suppose the only problem you might run into with this issue is someone who prefers fuzzy logic. He might ask you just how little rain counts as no rain at all. What if there are clouds overhead and only one drop falls somewhere in the entire day? Was it a rainy day?

But assuming that one can simply set a cutoff point somewhere, your tautological statement is a true statement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Patashu]

If it's raining over Sydney but not over Newcastle is it both raining and not raining?

To formulate a logical statement like this you first need to pinpoint a specific time, a specific place and give a precise, unambiguous formulation of what it means for it to be raining at a certain set of spacetime co-ordinates.

 

[acropolis]

Logically it will always be true that either [condition] is true or untrue, but the example you're using isn't very useful. You would need to more clearly define your terms, as has been said already.

 

[Washington]

Alright I can tell this is going to be fun, if you ever thought you couldn't be 100% sure about something consider this statement that is absolutely true. Here is a fact that is impossible to not be a fact.

Here is the statement the poll is refering to:

It is either raining or not raining right now.

This is a statement about the weather, that cannot be false. When we look outside at the weather it is either raining or it is not raining but not both.

It constitutes a disjunctive statement. And can be used to form a valid disjunctive syllogism called Modus tollendo ponens.

P or Q
P
therfore, not Q
​

"raining" or "not raining"
"raining"
therefore, not "not raining"
​

​

OR

P or Q
Not P
Therefore, Q
​

 

[acropolis]

It constitutes a disjunctive statement. And can be used to form a valid disjunctive syllogism called Modus tollendo ponens.

P or Q
P
therfore, not Q
​

"raining" or "not raining"
"raining"
therefore, not "not raining"
​

OR

P or Q
Not P
Therefore, Q
​

A better way to put it would be ¬((¬P)P), which is true if either P or ¬P is false. The Q is redundant.

 

[Washington]

A better way to put it would be ¬((¬P)P), which is true if either P or ¬P is false. The Q is redundant.

"Better"? The purpose here is communication with the readers, and I doubt many would understand you. I could have stated it in terms of operational notation using "q"

p V q,
¬ p
l— q
​

but I don't think even that would be very meaningful to most CF participants. My goal was to get the idea across, not to simplify.

 

[acropolis]

"Better"? The purpose here is communication with the readers, and I doubt many would understand you. I could have stated it in terms of operational notation using "q"

p V q,
¬ p
l— q
​

but I don't think even that would be very meaningful to most CF participants. My goal was to get the idea across, not to simplify.

I figured as long as we were getting needlessly pedantic, we might as well do it right.

 

[Washington]

I figured as long as we were getting needlessly pedantic, we might as well do it right.

Nah. Yours was just an attempt at oneupmanship. I took a poll and the vast majority of respondents said my post explaining Modus tollendo ponens was of immense help in understanding the OP, and that they were very grateful I posted it and would share it with their family and friends. They said yours was just so much poo-poo.

 

[quatona]

It is either raining or not raining right now.

I am pretty sure it´s both raining and not raining right now.

 

[quatona]

It is either raining or not raining right now.

This is a statement about the weather, that cannot be false.

1. It´s not a statement about the weather, it´s a statement about logic.
2. It doesn´t communicate a priori knowledge about the weather, but merely an unability or unwillingness (or both) to make a statement about the weather.

 

[us38]

The main problem with tautologies is that, though true, they do not convey any information.

 

[quatona]

The main problem with tautologies is that, though true, they do not convey any information.

Well, they seem to convey quite some information about the speaker, at least.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps the statement "It is either raining or not raining right now" could contain some information. It is stating that there are two possibilities.

Let's say that you are an interstellar colonist, and you have colonized a planet where it never rains. (Dune... Arrakis... Desert Planet...) For someone to declare that it might be raining, not merely as a logical hypothetical, but as a serious statement, would be a momentous event in the history of the planet.

I think one problem with all this talk of the uselessness of tautologies is to treat logic as some sort of game played by philosophers instead of something that could actually be used in dealing with the real world.

So, do I have a point? (Or not?)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

Perhaps the statement "It is either raining or not raining right now" could contain some information. It is stating that there are two possibilities.

Let's say that you are an interstellar colonist, and you have colonized a planet where it never rains. (Dune... Arrakis... Desert Planet...) For someone to declare that it might be raining, not merely as a logical hypothetical, but as a serious statement, would be a momentous event in the history of the planet.

I think one problem with all this talk of the uselessness of tautologies is to treat logic as some sort of game played by philosophers instead of something that could actually be used in dealing with the real world.

So, do I have a point? (Or not?)


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think anyone is disputing that the concept of rain has meaning, just that tautologies don't indicate any a priori knowledge. It will also be true that it is either floofing or not floofing outside, but this does not give us any information about anything.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that we are saying something about the weather. We are saying it is "either raining or not raining." It is a basic fact about the weather outside, and you can't make a universe where it is both raining and not raining at the same time, like outside your window, or your house, however you need to think about, a description of the weather outside. It isn't much I admit that, however to me this has profound implications for human knowledge. I feel that we can have apriori knowledge that is absolute, 100% certain, with no doubt whatsoever.

I know that a lot of philosophers, and different people disagree, but this is something I see as being absolutely true, and I like to think that, all the rules of physics, and nature are brute facts, like this tautology. I feel that someday, we may kno to the finest of details how everything works, from the Nuclear Fusion in the Sun, to how the first DNA molecule got created in the ocean. We can do it, it'll take hundreds of years, but we will be able to do it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think anyone is disputing that the concept of rain has meaning, just that tautologies don't indicate any a priori knowledge. It will also be true that it is either floofing or not floofing outside, but this does not give us any information about anything.

I don't see how you are addressing what I wrote. I am not merely asserting that the concept "rain" has meaning. I'm saying that the statement "it might be raining today (on Arrakis)" taken in context has information content, and makes an assertion about Arrakis. The statement only becomes "empty" when it is taken out of the context of real world applications and treated like a philosopher's game. This would be fine... if life were only ever like a philosopher's game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

I don't see how you are addressing what I wrote. I am not merely asserting that the concept "rain" has meaning. I'm saying that the statement "it might be raining today (on Arrakis)" taken in context has information content, and makes an assertion about Arrakis. The statement only becomes "empty" when it is taken out of the context of real world applications and treated like a philosopher's game. This would be fine... if life were only ever like a philosopher's game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"It might be raining on Arrakis" only has meaning once it is known whether or not 'raining' means anything on Arrakis. If you had no other information about Arrakis, other than it is a planet, you could not know whether or not it could be raining by merely saying 'it could rain there, or not'. That possibility, which is also the meaning, is not called into existence, but must be known by other means. There is no a priori knowledge about the weather of Arrakis. Once the statement is made 'in context', the knowledge of Arrakis has already been acquired, and only then can the meaning of rain be.

 

[elcapitan]

I feel that we are saying something about the weather. We are saying it is "either raining or not raining." It is a basic fact about the weather outside, and you can't make a universe where it is both raining and not raining at the same time, like outside your window, or your house, however you need to think about, a description of the weather outside. It isn't much I admit that, however to me this has profound implications for human knowledge. I feel that we can have apriori knowledge that is absolute, 100% certain, with no doubt whatsoever.

Alright, but that's not knowledge in any meaningful sense. Your apriori "knowledge" doesn't tell you anything about how the external world (e.g. the weather) actually is.

I know that a lot of philosophers, and different people disagree, but this is something I see as being absolutely true, and I like to think that, all the rules of physics, and nature are brute facts, like this tautology. I feel that someday, we may kno to the finest of details how everything works, from the Nuclear Fusion in the Sun, to how the first DNA molecule got created in the ocean. We can do it, it'll take hundreds of years, but we will be able to do it.

This doesn't make sense. How could a tautology describe the chemical mechanism that led to the synthesis of DNA, for example? For that matter, how could you possibly know that from a priori knowledge?

Your version of a priori knowledge wouldn't even prove the existence of DNA, as it would simply stay "DNA either does or does not exist" and leave it at that.