Invalid Arguments

[Everybodyknows]

Of course everyone is free to make unfalsifiable claims and thereby postulate they are excempt from being put to scrutinity.
The question, however, is: How do we go about dealing with unfalsifiable claims, then?
Until someone can present a method for that, I guess we are left with a shoulder shrugging "Yeah, whatever" as the most appropriate response.

How do you deal with mathematical axioms? They're unfalsifiable. Laws of logic? Unfalsifiable.

 

[quatona]

How do you deal with mathematical axioms? They're unfalsifiable. Laws of logic? Unfalsifiable.

Your point being?
1. Assertions and axioms aren´t the same.
2. Laws in formal systems aren´t statements about the world out there.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Your point being?
1. Assertions and axioms aren´t the same.

Agree

2. Laws in formal systems aren´t statements about the world out there.

Sure but we use them to come conclusions about the world out there which we wouldn't be able to without them. Science has its roots in philosophy, and the scientific method itself is unfalsifiable.

My point is simply that we all accept many things that are unfalsifiable. I'm not arguing for or against God in what I'm saying.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

1. Assertions and axioms aren´t the same.

How are they different?

 

[quatona]

Agree

Sure but we use them to come conclusions about the world out there which we wouldn't be able to without them. Science has its roots in philosophy, and the scientific method itself is unfalsifiable.

The scientific method isn´t an assertion. It´s a tool.

My point is simply that we all accept many things that are unfalsifiable.

As for example.
We are neither talking about "things" nor about "axioms in formal systems" nor about "tools" or "methods". We are talking about mere assertions about reality.

I'm not arguing for or against God in what I'm saying.

I understand that. We are talking about finding a method to evaluate unfalsifiable assertions.

 

[quatona]

How are they different?

LMGTFY

 

[Everybodyknows]

LMGTFY

Nice. I prefer this in relation to this discussion

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.​

 

[YouAreAwesome]

LMGTFY

The thing is, I know what an axiom is and I know what an assertion is, and I don't see much of a difference. Axioms are just rules that we make up out of thin air and see if we can use to have some fun with. Assertions are not like hypotheses because they aren't wanting to be tested; they are axioms that are either obviously true, or made up for exploration. So when you say axioms are not the same as assertions, I'm not trolling, I am asking for you to explain what you see the difference to be, because it will be in the semantics, not in the obvious.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The scientific method isn´t an assertion. It´s a tool.

Yes I'm not saying it's an assertion. It's a tool of which the foundation lies on unfalsifiable philosophical axioms. We can only assume they are true because the scientific method works.

As for example.
We are neither talking about "things" nor about "axioms in formal systems" nor about "tools" or "methods". We are talking about mere assertions about reality.

I don't understand the question.

I understand that. We are talking about finding a method to evaluate unfalsifiable assertions

I don't know if there is one. Philosophy maybe? It comes down to arguments and counter arguments, appeals to intuition, with no way of settling it definitely.

 

[quatona]

Nice. I prefer this in relation to this discussion

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.​

Ok. So there are quite a few requirements for an assertion to be an axiom.

 

[quatona]

Yes I'm not saying it's an assertion. It's a tool of which the foundation lies on unfalsifiable philosophical axioms.

Which ones, for example? ("Unfalsifiable axioms" is tautological, btw. Which doesn´t mean that all it takes for an assertion to become an axiom is unfalsifiability. On another note, axioms in a formal system are a completely different thing altogether. Aristotelean logic, for example, is simply there to make binary language workable. It doesn´t say anything about the reality out there.)

We can only assume they are true because the scientific method works.

It seems to work because it doesn´t accept unfalsifiable claims.
Now, here we are talking about unfalsifiable assertions, and I am asking if - beyond simply demanding to be excempted from being scrutinized - somebody can present a reliable, working method for evalutating such assertions. If not, I see no reason to even pay attention to them.

I don't understand the question.

It wasn´t a question.
It was me telling you that you were confusing a couple of concepts.

I don't know if there is one.

Ok, fair enough. However, as long as there isn´t one, the entire "but science..., too" is just apples and aeroplanes.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The thing is, I know what an axiom is and I know what an assertion is, and I don't see much of a difference. Axioms are just rules that we make up out of thin air and see if we can use to have some fun with. Assertions are not like hypotheses because they aren't wanting to be tested; they are axioms that are either obviously true, or made up for exploration. So when you say axioms are not the same as assertions, I'm not trolling, I am asking for you to explain what you see the difference to be, because it will be in the semantics, not in the obvious.

I think of it this way. It's all about how widely accepted it is as truth. Axioms are things just about anyone can intuitively accept as true (eg. I think therefore I am). Assertions on the other hand aren't nearly as widely accepted and one can come up with many good reasons why it might not be true. With axioms it's difficult or near impossible to question their validity.

 

[quatona]

The thing is, I know what an axiom is and I know what an assertion is, and I don't see much of a difference. Axioms are just rules that we make up out of thin air and see if we can use to have some fun with.

I don´t think that that´s how careful philosophy goes about it. Axioms are typically used because they are inevitable starting points, without which every further consideration would be a dead end.

Assertions are not like hypotheses because they aren't wanting to be tested;

Not?

they are axioms that are either obviously true, or made up for exploration.

"Obviously true" and "made up for exploration" are two entirely different things (and when I hear "axiom" I think of the first - but we can go with your definitions, as long as I know them).
So which are you talking about?
An unfalsifiable claim like "Magical Pixies exist" isn´t obviously true.
If, however, it is made up for exploration, I am asking for a method to explore the accuracy of such claims.
If there isn´t such a method, the call for exploration rings hollow.

 

[quatona]

I think of it this way. It's all about how widely accepted it is as truth. Axioms are things just about anyone can intuitively accept as true (eg. I think therefore I am). Assertions on the other hand aren't nearly as widely accepted and one can come up with many good reasons why it might not be true. With axioms it's difficult or near impossible to question their validity.

I think that´s pretty close. I doubt, though, that in epistemological matters the wide acceptance is the criterium. Rather, it seems to me that it is the inevitability for the further process that renders a premise a valid axiom.
"Something exists" would be such an axiom - because without this premise epistemology (or the exploration of reality) would be obsolete (because there wouldn´t be anything to explore).
(On a sidenote, the validity of the axiom "I think therefore I am" depends a lot on where you want to go from there. If e.g. the task is to prove the existence of an "I", it´s just circular reasoning.)

 

[Everybodyknows]

Which ones, for example?

Existence exists - because science explores existence
Law of identity - because science explores the properties of various things in existence.
Laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle - because we need falsifiablility in order to establish truth

Which doesn´t mean that all it takes for an assertion to become an axiom is unfalsifiability.

Yes of course.

It seems to work because it doesn´t accept unfalsifiable claims.

It's always seemed curious to me that after a couple thousand years of philosophy we arrive at methodological naturalism and the scientific method, but in order to have a methodology that doesn't accept unfalsifiable claims we first have to accept some unfalsifiable claims. I don't claim to be a philosopher, but am I the only one that sees the irony here? Btw I'm all for science and not arguing against the validity of the scientific method.

Now, here we are talking about unfalsifiable assertions, and I am asking if - beyond simply demanding to be excempted from being scrutinized - somebody can present a reliable, working method for evalutating such assertions.

No, I don't think a reliable method for evaluation unfalsifiable assertions can exist.

If not, I see no reason to even pay attention to them.

Well philosophers have been paying attention to them for thousands of years, so I guess there is reason enough for some, even if we can't ultimately say anything about their truth or falsehood.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I think that´s pretty close. I doubt, though, that in epistemological matters the wide acceptance is the criterium. Rather, it seems to me that it is the inevitability for the further process that renders a premise a valid axiom.
"Something exists" would be such an axiom - because without this premise epistemology (or the exploration of reality) would be obsolete (because there wouldn´t be anything to explore).

Perhaps I didn't phrase that well, I wasn't trying to establish wide acceptance as criterion. I was thinking more along the lines of how we establish axioms in the first place, in that they arise out of a deep sense of intuition gained from our experience of the world around us.

On a sidenote, the validity of the axiom "I think therefore I am" depends a lot on where you want to go from there. If e.g. the task is to prove the existence of an "I", it´s just circular reasonin

Well I don't see it as circular if I'm trying to prove my existence to myself. If I am capable of contemplating my own existence I can be fairly certain that I exist. If I want to establish the existence of things outside myself then I probably need to go a bit further.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I don´t think that that´s how careful philosophy goes about it. Axioms are typically used because they are inevitable starting points, without which every further consideration would be a dead end.

Sorry, I'm thinking mathematically for some reason... you are right, I should be thinking philosophically for this discussion.

If, however, it is made up for exploration, I am asking for a method to explore the accuracy of such claims.

Do you begin to answer your own question here:

Rather, it seems to me that it is the inevitability for the further process that renders a premise a valid axiom.

Because I read your comment in this way: To test the accuracy of an axiom, we must examine the consequences of the axiom. If i'm reading you correctly, then are you not beginning to answer your own question?

 

[quatona]

Existence exists - because science explores existence
Law of identity - because science explores the properties of various things in existence.
Laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle - because we need falsifiablility in order to establish truth

I don´t agree that "the laws of logic" are axiomatic claims. As I said, they aren´t claims about reality - they are inevitable rules without which binary language can´t produce meaningful results (except when it´s about poetry and such). They govern the formal, binary system language - nothing else.
I find it, however a bit odd to single out science as using this formal system. Everybody does, once they start engaging in binary speaking (and thinking); and there´s no alternative to it.
If somebody wants their claims to be excepted from that, all I need to do is asking for the same privilege for my claims, and they will see the problem. It´s almost as if someone wants to remove the goals in the midst of a soccer game.
[For me, however, this raises a totally different issue: I don´t believe that binary thinking (which comes so natural to us because we are taught to think via language) is doing reality justice. The problem, though: It´s impossible to communicate analog thinking in the formal binary system language, so I won´t even try. So, to summarize: If I want to communicate meaningfully in the formal system language, I need to accept the rules of logic for that task.]

As to "existence exists": Sorry to be blunt, but I think that this statement is complete nonsense. It creates a category error (a category is included in itself), and this will inevitable run us into problems. Laws of logic....
Of course, I know what you mean ("something exists - whatever it is"). But again, this isn´t an axiom exclusive to science. It´s quasi inevitable for everyone. Of course, we can just take the alternative "nothing exists" and see what happens.

It's always seemed curious to me that after a couple thousand years of philosophy we arrive at methodological naturalism and the scientific method, but in order to have a methodology that doesn't accept unfalsifiable claims we first have to accept some unfalsifiable claims. I don't claim to be a philosopher, but am I the only one that sees the irony here?

I don´t know, but I for one don´t see any irony whatsoever here.
The first problem here seems to me that you (as pointed out above) still equivocate "unfalsifiable claims". A method needs formal rules, by definition. There is no point in calling those rules "unfalsifiable claims" (and then try to make it look like they were the same as unfalsifiable claims about reality). They provide a frame of reference (and the accuracy of the resulting insights doesn´t and can´t transcend this frame of reference. The idea that science or philosophy can go without such frames of references is absurd. The question is: Are they open about them?
So, on the one hand we have science, which
- has a consistent method
- is explicit about its frame of reference
- has a method that gets us very far within this frame of reference.
On the other hand we have a metaphysical idea (unfalsifiable claim) that has nothing like that. It has no method; while being clear that it doesn´t accept the scientific frame of reference and claims to be about a bigger one, it is unable/unwilling to define that frame of reference (except ex negativo). It has no consistent terminology, doesn´t provide any formal system of exploration, and btw. relies on the 3 "axioms" you have listed above just like science does.

So this is no comparison at all, and simply pointing to the fact that science relies on logic just like everybody else, and therefore the scientific method and wild metaphysical claims are on equal footing, strikes me as a tad intellectually dishonest.

No, I don't think a reliable method for evaluation unfalsifiable assertions can exist.

We agree, that´s actually implicit in the definition of "unfalsifiable". Then let´s not equate the scientific method and unfalsifiable metaphysical claims, just on grounds of both accepting logic as necessary for communication.

Well philosophers have been paying attention to them for thousands of years, so I guess there is reason enough for some, even if we can't ultimately say anything about their truth or falsehood.

That´s not a good reason for me.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, I'm thinking mathematically for some reason... you are right, I should be thinking philosophically for this discussion.



Do you begin to answer your own question here:



Because I read your comment in this way: To test the accuracy of an axiom, we must examine the consequences of the axiom. If i'm reading you correctly, then are you not beginning to answer your own question?

In order to respond meaningfully to you, I would need a piece of information:
You keep talking about a question I have, even though there hadn´t been a question in the post you responded to - which question are you referring to?
Thanks for clarifying!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

In order to respond meaningfully to you, I would need a piece of information:
You keep talking about a question I have, even though there hadn´t been a question in the post you responded to - which question are you referring to?
Thanks for clarifying!

#20

The question, however, is: How do we go about dealing with unfalsifiable claims, then? Until someone can present a method for that, I guess we are left with a shoulder shrugging "Yeah, whatever" as the most appropriate response.