Invalid Arguments

[AV1611VET]

Why am I not at all surprised!

Because it's over your head too?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Because it's over your head too?

It seems like a pretty straightforward experiment to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks, Sarah, but I read your OP four times and it's over my head.

Aw, come on, I know voting for two features that don't conflict with each other isn't over your head. I made this experiment just for creationists, and not a single creationist has done this bare minimum of participation.

 

[quatona]

However, you did challenge for someone to present a method...



And later...



And then you provide one kind of method...



Hence my replies.

Sorry, I may be a bit thick, but I fail to see how "Rather, it seems to me that it is the inevitability for the further process that renders a premise a valid axiom." is, provides or implies a method for testing unfalsifiable claims. Would you be willing to help me?

 

[quatona]

Right, I'm beginning to understand what you mean now. So do you think there is anything particularly special or universal about the laws of logic? Christian philosophers in particular like to speak of them as absolutes. They aren't claims about reality (premises don't exist in reality) but we use them to make claims about truths in reality, so they must have some relationship to reality.

Well, Christian philosophers tend to talk about "absolutes" a lot, anyway. I usually don´t agree with them.
Anyway, I don´t think that your conclusion follows. I do, however, think that this has been a common mistake throughout the history of philosophy.
In my understanding, e.g. the logic rule "A is not A-" isn´t much more than a tautology "A is not notA". It simply defines the signifiers "not" and/or "-" to be synonymous. It´s mere semantics. If we´d allow for "A is notA", "not" is rendered a meaningless, redundant, obsolete signifier.
But, as I have already said before, even though I don´t agree with your reasoning here, I´d like to point out that the rules of logic govern binary thinking (i.e. a thinking that assumes that every insight can be expressed in a series of yes/no questions and answers), IOW analytical thinking that relies on distinction and separation, and also an object-based thinking if you will.
Where I'm coming from, and I may be wrong, is that science emerged as a branch of philosophy so the rules that we use to reason in philosophy also apply to science. I'm not singling out science, it's just that the conversation has progressed to talking about it. Logic is the perfect frame of reference for this kind of thinking, but indeed it is a frame of reference that can be questioned. And I do question it. For me, there is a different kind of thinking (analogous, process-oriented, a thinking that doesn´t a priori believe that reality is inherently separated into distinct objects).

I find that a really interesting point. I wonder how our understanding of reality would differ under a some other system? Would we still arrive at the same scientific theories? Would we still have the same mathematics? Anyway, that will probably take us off track so maybe its best left for another thread.

Well, I seem to be at a loss at what our track is right now, anyway.
We are having an interesting conversation, and as long the thread opener doesn´t object, we can go for, don´t you think?
A different kind of thinking would, of course, produce a completely different understanding or reality. That doesn´t mean that other kinds of thinking (mathematically, logically, scientifically) would be rendered obsolete.
Think of our conceptualization as drawing a map. As we know, there can be countless different maps of the same landscape, depending on the purpose of the map. That every map emphasizes some aspects (that are important, by means of its purpose) and ignores others (that are irrelevant for the given purpose), is actually very important. A complete map would be an exact copy of reality (why would we need such?).
So, as long as we keep in mind that a certain map (system of thinking) necessarily creates a limiting frame of reference, different maps (systems of thinking) can easily coexist, and can each be used for the purpose they serve.

It's definitely not my intention to throw all that is unfalsifiable in the same basket. But nonetheless, the formal rules of a method or axioms of mathematics are still unfalsifiable. My next question is how do we arrive at these formal rules in the first place? Did people just arbitrarily choose some rules or do they come from somewhere else?

Fair enough, for sure.
However, I can´t help pointing out that it makes a huge difference what makes them unfalsifiable.
E.g. the definition of a word is unfalsifiable (simply because it´s arbitrarily defined and isn´t even meant to be a claim about reality). Soccer rules are unfalsifiable (they aren´t a claim about reality). A painting or a piece of music are unfalsifiable.
So I think that the unfalsifiability of things that aren´t even meant to be truth claims, and the unfalsifiability of a truth claim shouldn´t be equivocated.

I wasn't saying the scientific method and all unfalsifiable claims are on equal footing.

Ok.

The irony (and it's only a small irony) to me is that we all still have to accept some formal rules as a starting point in order to even begin to reason and have a conversation about what is true and false.

Sorry, but I am still not seeing the irony. That a formal method needs a frame of reference and formal rules seems almost tautological to me when I look at the definition of "method". It´s what makes a method a method.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Sorry, I may be a bit thick, but I fail to see how "Rather, it seems to me that it is the inevitability for the further process that renders a premise a valid axiom." is, provides or implies a method for testing unfalsifiable claims. Would you be willing to help me?

I can help you with the context once again, @Everybodyknows commented:

Axioms are things just about anyone can intuitively accept as true...it's difficult or near impossible to question their validity.

And you replied:

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.

So in the context of the thread, remembering we are discussing unfalsifiable claims, your answer is how the "inevitability for the further process" as a criterion for a "valid axiom" seems to be leading towards, or at the least, a starting point towards answering your own question.

In other words:
1. Unfalsifiable claim is made
2. Test the claim by examining its inevitable consequences

Non-logical axioms in math are verified using this method.

 

[quatona]

I can help you with the context once again, @Everybodyknows commented:



And you replied:



So in the context of the thread, remembering we are discussing unfalsifiable claims, your answer is how the "inevitability for the further process" as a criterion for a "valid axiom" seems to be leading towards, or at the least, a starting point towards answering your own question.

In other words:
1. Unfalsifiable claim is made
2. Test the claim by examining its inevitable consequences

Thanks for trying to help, but since I am not agreeing with you conflating "unfalsifiable claims" and "axioms", this certainly doesn´t make much if any sense to me. A statement about "axioms" doesn´t lead towards a method to scrutinize "unfalsifiable claims", in the way I used these terms.
Statements like e.g. "There are invisible magical pixies responsible for the grass growing" don´t even allow for examining its consequences. That´s exactly why we call them "unfalsifiable claims".

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Thanks for trying to help, but since I am not agreeing with you conflating "unfalsifiable claims" and "axioms", this certainly doesn´t make much if any sense to me. A statement about "axioms" doesn´t lead towards a method to scrutinize "unfalsifiable claims", in the way I used these terms.
Statements like e.g. "There are invisible magical pixies responsible for the grass growing" don´t even allow for examining its consequences. That´s exactly why we call them "unfalsifiable claims".

No worries, and sorry to continue with the same question, but as I asked initially, what do you see as the difference between unfalsifiable claims and axioms?

 

[quatona]

No worries, and sorry to continue with the same question, but as I asked initially, what do you see as the difference between unfalsifiable claims and axioms?

Look, YouAreAwesome, we wouldn´t have this problem, hadn´t you immediately replaced my operational term "unfalsifiable claim" with "axiom". If you can make your point regarding the topic "unfalsifiable claims" without doing that, please do it. If you can´t, it´s obvious that there is a crucial difference between the two, and you aren´t addressing the topic.
That´s why I am a bit frustrated right now.

 

[Ophiolite]

Look, YouAreAwesome, we wouldn´t have this problem, hadn´t you immediately replaced my operational term "unfalsifiable claim" with "axiom". If you can make your point regarding the topic "unfalsifiable claims" without doing that, please do it. If you can´t, it´s obvious that there is a crucial difference between the two, and you aren´t addressing the topic.
That´s why I am a bit frustrated right now.

Hang in there kid, we're right behind you!

 

[Everybodyknows]

Well, Christian philosophers tend to talk about "absolutes" a lot, anyway. I usually don´t agree with them.

Either do I half the time. I find they would rather abandon reason than cherished beliefs when reason challenges them.

Anyway, I don´t think that your conclusion follows. I do, however, think that this has been a common mistake throughout the history of philosophy.

I don't know weather to feel proud our silly that people much much smarter than me make the same error.

Well, I seem to be at a loss at what our track is right now, anyway.
We are having an interesting conversation, and as long the thread opener doesn´t object, we can go for, don´t you think?

Sure why not.

A different kind of thinking would, of course, produce a completely different understanding or reality. That doesn´t mean that other kinds of thinking (mathematically, logically, scientifically) would be rendered obsolete.
Think of our conceptualization as drawing a map. As we know, there can be countless different maps of the same landscape, depending on the purpose of the map. That every map emphasizes some aspects (that are important, by means of its purpose) and ignores others (that are irrelevant for the given purpose), is actually very important. A complete map would be an exact copy of reality (why would we need such?).
So, as long as we keep in mind that a certain map (system of thinking) necessarily creates a limiting frame of reference, different maps (systems of thinking) can easily coexist, and can each be used for the purpose they serve.

Thanks. Do you think our difficulty with grasping quantum mechanics is a result of our yes/no thinking system not really fitting in with the quantum world where things aren't so discrete?

However, I can´t help pointing out that it makes a huge difference what makes them unfalsifiable. E.g. the definition of a word is unfalsifiable (simply because it´s arbitrarily defined and isn´t even meant to be a claim about reality). Soccer rules are unfalsifiable (they aren´t a claim about reality). A painting or a piece of music are unfalsifiable.

Right it makes more sense when you put it that way.

So I think that the unfalsifiability of things that aren´t even meant to be truth claims, and the unfalsifiability of a truth claim shouldn´t be equivocated.

Sorry, but I am still not seeing the irony. That a formal method needs a frame of reference and formal rules seems almost tautological to me when I look at the definition of "method". It´s what makes a method a method.

However I'm still not totally convinced that formal rules of a method are on the same footing as arbitrary definitions of words or rules of games. I kind of view them more like starting assumptions rather than simply arbitrarily chosen rules. I mean that in the sense that we arrive at our formal rules because they intuitively feel true rather than just randomly choosing some rules arbitrarily and seeing where they lead. I could of course be wrong, but this is my background thinking from where the sense of irony comes.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Look, YouAreAwesome, we wouldn´t have this problem, hadn´t you immediately replaced my operational term "unfalsifiable claim" with "axiom".

Where did I do that?

If you can make your point regarding the topic "unfalsifiable claims" without doing that, please do it. If you can´t, it´s obvious that there is a crucial difference between the two, and you aren´t addressing the topic.

Genuinely confused. I wasn't the one making the point. You were. You said there is no criteria for testing an unfalsifiable claim (if there were, it would be falsifiable). @Everybodyknows replied "What about axioms"? You still have not answered that question and I've been trying to get an answer out of you ever since. I don't see what the problem is other than that you simply can not answer the question. In fact, initially all you replied was "Google it". If you can't answer the question that's fine, just say, I don't know. If you think it's super-obvious then just explain it. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Hang in there kid, we're right behind you!

I didn't realise there were sides to get behind...

 

[Everybodyknows]

I didn't realise there were sides to get behind...

Darwinists vs Creationists?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Darwinists vs Creationists?

Ah, so when @Ophiolite said "we're right behind you" it includes me as well... got it

 

[Everybodyknows]

Ah, so when @Ophiolite said "we're right behind you" it includes me as well... got it

So... you've sold out to Satan...
That's it I'm unfollowing you!

 

[Ophiolite]

Ah, so when @Ophiolite said "we're right behind you" it includes me as well... got it

When I said "we" I actually meant me and my string quartet. I should have been clearer.

 

[Everybodyknows]

When I said "we" I actually meant me and my string quartet. I should have been clearer.

Is it strings vs percussion then?

 

[quatona]

I don't know weather to feel proud our silly that people much much smarter than me make the same error.

I am well aware that daring to tackle a long philosophical tradition may come across as arrogant. But what can I do?

Thanks. Do you think our difficulty with grasping quantum mechanics is a result of our yes/no thinking system not really fitting in with the quantum world where things aren't so discrete?

I am not a scientist, and I am by no means well versed in quantum mechanics - that´s why my response "yes" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
To answer more generally: I am convinced that methodological naturalism is about to face the borders of its explanatory power and to demonstrate the limitations of binary thinking (and, yes, I expect quantum mechanics to play a part in that).
This, however, doesn´t mean that methodological naturalism falsifies itself - if only for the reason that it isn´t based on the axiom of metaphysical naturalism, in the first place. Methodological naturalism means just being clear about the field you are investigating. It´s almost like deciding to first look for the lost key in your house - which doesn´t mean you make the claim that it must be in your house. Deciding that "this is gonna be my method" isn´t epistemologically axiomatic. Methodological naturalism has been proven extremely useful and has gotten us a long way; if, at some point, it manages to falsify metaphysical naturalism I will consider this another proof for its great usefulness.
(Btw. I think that metaphysical naturalism has long been falsified logically - but that´s another can of worms).
The big question is: Once we have reached that point - will we be able to come up with a method (similarly useful as the scientific method has been) for exploring these new fields?
Or, IOW, does analogous thinking allow for a systematic methodology? (I doubt it, at this point - but what do I know?).


Right it makes more sense when you put it that way.

However I'm still not totally convinced that formal rules of a method are on the same footing as arbitrary definitions of words or rules of games.

Don´t get me wrong: I didn´t mean to lump them all together or to say that they are all equally arbitrary. My point was merely: Definitions of words, game rules and formal methodologically rules aren´t even meant to be claims about reality, and thus calling them "unfalsifiable" is like advertising a vacuum cleaner as "low calory food".

I kind of view them more like starting assumptions rather than simply arbitrarily chosen rules.

Yes, oftentimes they aren´t that arbitrary. Oftentimes they are inevitable by virtue of the method chosen. I.e. if I decide to articulate my view by means of language, there´s no way around accepting the axiom "Something exists" as well as the basic rules of binary logic. This doesn´t have to do much with intuition, it has to do with the nature of the frame of reference that I have decided to accept in the given situation.

I mean that in the sense that we arrive at our formal rules because they intuitively feel true rather than just randomly choosing some rules arbitrarily and seeing where they lead.

They may be intuitive, but I do not really believe that that´s the reason why they are so broadly accepted. The reason is: It doesn´t take a lot cognitive effort to know that they are inevitable (within the chosen frame of reference, that is). That "Nothing exists" is an epistemological dead end jumps right in your face with whatever first step you make, based on it.

I could of course be wrong, but this is my background thinking from where the sense of irony comes.

Yeah, that´s probably nothing that can be discussed.
Maybe the reason why I don´t see any irony whatsoever: I have always taken it for a given that in our attempts to understand/explain reality, we want, need to understand it on our terms, make it accesible to our faculties. Understanding/explaining creates a relationship between me and the subject, and it would strike me as somewhat absurd to postulate that I seek to have a relationship which I am not part of.

 

[quatona]

Where did I do that?



Genuinely confused. I wasn't the one making the point. You were. You said there is no criteria for testing an unfalsifiable claim (if there were, it would be falsifiable). @Everybodyknows replied "What about axioms"? You still have not answered that question and I've been trying to get an answer out of you ever since.

The answer is: "Axioms" and "unfalsifiable claims" are completely different concepts.
So the question "What about axioms?" in response to a statement about "unfalsifiable claims" is an obvious change of topic. I feel ignored when that happens.
I did define my operational term, so I am not quite understanding why I find myself hard pressed to define a term that I hadn´t used and which is irrelevant for the statement I made.