Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

I don't know.

Thats a rational answer then, and is what someone should say if they don't insert a premise.

 

[TBDude65]

According to the answer you just gave, physics and chemistry provide 0 facts about reality. So there is no point in demanding falsifiability for real epistemology.

We don't learn a fact about the experienced world without having a premise to cross the gap. Without that we simply have analytic facts that in themselves say nothing more about reality than analytic facts about The Hobbit.

Why do you think I have argued that physics and chemistry have not produced facts?

 

[Sanoy]

Why do you think I have argued that physics and chemistry have not produced facts?

I didn't say that you said they didn't produce facts. You answer entails that they have not produced facts about reality.

 

[TBDude65]

I didn't say that you said they didn't produce facts. You answer entails that they have not produced facts about reality.

Then what do you think I have argued that they have produced facts about?

 

[Sanoy]

Then what do you think I have argued that they have produced facts about?

Analytic facts.

Q)Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts?

A) No

 

[TBDude65]

Analytic facts.

Q)Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts?

A) No

I do not believe you are drawing a real distinction between what you see as different ideas of the word "fact." Again, if you don't think I have argued that facts can be derived from different scientific subjects through the scientific method, what do you think I argue for? I ask this again because I want to make it clear that a fact is something, that by definition, is something that is demonstrably true about reality because it has failed to have been falsified. What piece do you keep trying to add to this?

 

[Sanoy]

I do not believe you are drawing a real distinction between what you see as different ideas of the word "fact." Again, if you don't think I have argued that facts can be derived from different scientific subjects through the scientific method, what do you think I argue for? I ask this again because I want to make it clear that a fact is something, that by definition, is something that is demonstrably true about reality because it has failed to have been falsified. What piece do you keep trying to add to this?

There are many types of facts. There were two types of facts in the question you answered.

I don't understand this question. "Again, if you don't think I have argued that facts can be derived from different scientific subjects through the scientific method, what do you think I argue for?"

 

[TBDude65]

There are many types of facts. There were two types of facts in the question you answered.

I don't understand this question. "Again, if you don't think I have argued that facts can be derived from different scientific subjects through the scientific method, what do you think I argue for?"

There are numerous facts about various subjects, including internally consistent facts about fantasized scenarios created by the human imagination, but I don't understand what distinction you continue to refer to

 

[Sanoy]

There are numerous facts about various subjects, including internally consistent facts about fantasized scenarios created by the human imagination, but I don't understand what distinction you continue to refer to

The distinction of analytic facts vs synthetic facts, which was the specific distinction in the question you answered

 

[TBDude65]

The distinction of analytic facts vs synthetic facts, which was the specific distinction in the question you answered

Are you asking how we know if something is a fact about reality versus a fact about a fiction? You're not explaining the difference between the two in a comprehendible way

 

[Sanoy]

Are you asking how we know if something is a fact about reality versus a fact about a fiction? You're not explaining the difference between the two in a comprehendible way

This is what I explained in post 68.
An analytic fact is true within itself. Like "Bilbo had hairy feet". A synthetic fact is true about the real world.

So "Large rocks are heavy" is an analytic fact that may also be a synthetic fact.

 

[TBDude65]

This is what I explained in post 68.
An analytic fact is true within itself. Like "Bilbo had hairy feet". A synthetic fact is true about the real world.

So large rocks are heavy is an analytic fact that may also be a synthetic fact.

Right. Now, why do you think chemistry and physics do not produce facts about reality? We know that they have produced incorrect facts (meaning that they initially made claims that were false in part or whole) that were then corrected and/or updated. That's the reason I use fact when discussing something that has been tested by numerous people in a way that can be replicated. If you and I can each test a specific idea and see the same results, what are we observing if not a fact about our shared reality as it is clearly something that is true external to our own imaginations?

 

[Sanoy]

Right. Now, why do you think chemistry and physics do not produce facts about reality? We know that they have produced incorrect facts (meaning that they initially made claims that were false in part or whole) that were then corrected and/or updated. That's the reason I use fact when discussing something that has been tested by numerous people in a way that can be replicated. If you and I can each test a specific idea and see the same results, what are we observing if not a fact about our shared reality as it is clearly something that is true external to our own imaginations?

It's not that I have no reason to believe that they don't describe reality... it's that without a premise there is no reason to believe that they do describe reality within the thought experiment. You need a premise that can acquire that conclusion.

 

[TBDude65]

It's not that I have no reason to believe that they don't describe reality... it's that without a premise there is no reason to believe that they do within the thought experiment.

What premise do you refer? Why is a premise necessary, and what premise is one that has been demonstrated observationally true?

 

[Sanoy]

What premise do you refer? Why is a premise necessary, and what premise is one that has been demonstrated observationally true?

Observationally true is a posterori remember? The premise has to be a priori. It can be anything that acquires the conclusion that physics and chemistry describe reality within the thought experiment.

 

[TBDude65]

Observationally true is a posterori remember? The premise has to be a priori. It can be anything that acquires the conclusion that physics and chemistry describe reality.

What method exists for discovery of reality that humans are capable of?

 

[Sanoy]

What method exists for discovery of reality that humans are capable of?

Very little I am afraid. Mainly just bits of logic and mathematics and the experience and observation of our own consciousness.

 

[TBDude65]

Very little I am afraid. Mainly just logic and mathematics and the experience and observation of our consciousness.

Do you believe your existence is anything other than physical? If so, why? What gives you reason to believe this?

 

[Sanoy]

Do you believe your existence is anything other than physical? If so, why? What gives you reason to believe this?

Within this thought experiment I can doubt my body, but not my mind.

 

[TBDude65]

Within this thought experiment I can doubt my body, but not my mind.

Why can you doubt your body? Do you not possess independent means of verifying the existence of your body?