A Critique of Biological Materialism

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post Number:#346  Postby Togo1 » March 19th, 2017, 7:08 pm

JamesOfSeattle wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Ask them why they've chosen to have faith that everything in the universe is emperically verifiable rather than the equally unprovable and bizarre idea of a big guy in the sky?

Okay, I'll ask myself. Oh right, the answer is: results.


No, it really isn't.

If you find a village where they figure that boiling the water appeases the god of the stream, and that keeps them from being cursed with illness, they get plenty of good results out that. But you wouldn't place that above a scientific theory that didn't happen to be useful, even if, technically speaking, it got better results.

JamesOfSeattle wrote: In any case, if it really isn't verifiable, then there's nothing I can do about it, or with it, so why should I care?


The idea that there is nothing you can do with unverifiable statements, that they aren't useful or of value, is in itself unverifiable.
Togo1
 
Posts: 353 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post Number:#347  Postby -1- » March 19th, 2017, 9:18 pm

Togo1 wrote:The idea that there is nothing you can do with unverifiable statements, that they aren't useful or of value, is in itself unverifiable.


I am not quite sure what you mean by unverifiable... in the sense that a falsified statement is verified, if it's proven to be wrong; is it then verified in the negative sense? Or does it remain unverified (if no instances can be shown to repeat it).

Is the a posteriori instance that denies an unverified claim a form of verifying that very claim (in the negative)?

Yes, or no?

If yes, then the quoted statement is not true.

Proof: for instance, by saying "eating large amount of arsenic improves your health". This can be shown to be false, and as such, its usefulness is nil.

Question is, do you regard a denial (a showing of falsehood) to be a verified occurrence if it is repeated over and over again? Because technically, you fail to verify it, so it's unverified.
Sweat the small stuff... because then the big stuff will take care of itself.
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post Number:#348  Postby Togo1 » Yesterday, 12:52 pm

I was thinking that verifiability and falsifiabilty were two seperate things, and that the reason why Popper went with falsifiability is the difficulty of verifying anything in practice.

The point I was making to James, that his denial of certain kinds of claim was the kind of claim he was denying, applies regardless.
Togo1
 
Posts: 353 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post Number:#349  Postby -1- » Today, 1:14 am

Togo1 wrote:I was thinking that verifiability and falsifiabilty were two seperate things, and that the reason why Popper went with falsifiability is the difficulty of verifying anything in practice.

The point I was making to James, that his denial of certain kinds of claim was the kind of claim he was denying, applies regardless.

I had got that in the first place. It was clear what you were saying / doing.

But I am having issues with the expression "unverifiable". How do you unverify something? You can only verify something, or fail at it. But how can you prove or show that no matter what you do, you can't verify something?

This is my issue with your statement. "Unverifiable". That is a strange apple. "Unverified", yes, I can see how that can come into existence. But "unverifiable" is something I can't grasp as a concept. It is not simply the negation of "verifiable". It is a positive statement of a quality that something is not possible to verify. I can't see that a real or imagined event can't be verified, if it happened in reality or in imagination. If it happened, then there must be a way to verify it happened. If it did not happen, then verification is not possible.

-----------------

Another meaning of "unverifiable" could be a relationship to "verifiable" as "doable" is to "undoable". If you tie a knot, you undo it by unraveling the knot. A knot is undoable. A verified knot, after you undo it, gets unverified. It is no longer verificable that there is a knot, since there is no longer a knot; a once verified fact gets unverified. Is this what you guys mean with "unverifiable"? That it can be verified that it is undone, reversed, no longer is as it had been?
Sweat the small stuff... because then the big stuff will take care of itself.
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST