Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:11 pm I uphold the principle of Requisite Determination, thinking that it is ontologically impossible for something to have some determinable property without having any determinate property belonging to that determinable property.

There is a disjunctive reductionism about determinable properties:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dete ... /#DisjRedu

"The most common reductionist strategy takes determinables to be identical to disjunctions of (ultimately maximal) determinates (…). On this view, for example, color is identical to a disjunctive property having every maximally specific color shade as a disjunct.
Disjunctivism explains several features of determination: Requisite determination is accommodated since the instancing of a disjunction requires the instancing of a disjunct."

From the perspective of disjunctive reductionism, it is logically impossible to instantiate a determinable without instantiating any determinate of it, because there is a contradiction implied: ((Fa v Ga) & (~Fa & ~Ga)) –> ((Fa v Ga) & ~(Fa v Ga)) – because (~Fa & ~Ga) <-> ~(Fa v Ga) [De Morgan's Law #1]

Consul wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:30 pmFrom the perspective of disjunctive reductionism, it is logically impossible to instantiate a determinable without instantiating any determinate of it, because there is a contradiction implied: ((Fa v Ga) & (~Fa & ~Ga)) –> ((Fa v Ga) & ~(Fa v Ga)) – because (~Fa & ~Ga) <-> ~(Fa v Ga) [De Morgan's Law #1]

In this formal example, the determinable property is (identical with) the disjunctive property of being F or G.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:28 pmOne might say that point particles ARE angular momentum per se. It would seem not possible for them to have internal properties. Then again, there's considerable room between quarks and the Planck scale for things to happen.

"Intrinsic property" and "internal property" aren't synonyms. "Internal" means "situated or existing within or in the interior of something; of or pertaining to the inside" (OED); and an intrinsic property of a point-particle (qua 0D object) cannot be internal in this sense, since it lacks an interior or inside.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intrinsic-extrinsic/

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!

Cambridge Dictionary" wrote: Proof — noun A fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true.

I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:45 amWhat you describe isn't proof, it's something more like confidence. This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm I disagree. It can be shown that "A causes B" with regard to experiment, verified by an independent observer. If you drop a rock it falls to the floor. Why?

We don't know. That's sort of the point of scientific investigation. So far, we have no valid explanation for gravity. We know that rocks drop to the floor, but we have no idea why. Our reference is apparent reality, if only because it's the only reference we have. Reality is always right. So is the evidence — assuming no observational or measurement errors — but all else is speculation.

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm F=Gx(M/R^2)

F = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass of object
r = distance between centers of the masses

If you say A does not cause B, then you imply that planets don't orbit the sun. Consequently, it's not inductive reasoning to say A causes B. When it is shown by experiment that the rock falls to the floor in accord with the same principle that explains how planets orbit the sun; that's proof - not merely that A causes B, but that reality is consistent in nature, and that generalised principles can be described, and employed to predict what will happen when the rock is dropped. It falls to the floor, every time! Only a lunatic or a philosopher would think otherwise!

"F=Gx(M/R^2)" is a mathematical model that seems to fit the evidence. Thorough testing has shown us this. But "F=Gx(M/R^2)" is not an explanation for gravity. It's a simple mathematical model of how gravity seems to work, but it can't and doesn't tell us why.

This is what you don't seem to get. There is no "principle that explains how planets orbit the sun", but only our models that we have curve-fitted to the evidence. It's not an "explanation".

Finally, of course science is inductive. How could it be otherwise? Science is evidence-based and evidence-centric. It attempts to go from the specific to the general, which is what induction is. The evidence is specific, and the theory/hypothesis/etc is general.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.

Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."

"proof
* The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration."

So there is a broad sense of "prove"/"proof", in which empirical science does prove things or provide proofs; but there is also a narrow logical sense, in which proofs are sound deductive arguments. (An argument is sound if and only if it is inferentially valid and its premises are true.).

"[A]s part of his formal system, Frege developed a strict understanding of a ‘proof’. In essence, he defined a proof to be any finite sequence of statements such that each statement in the sequence either is an axiom or follows from previous members by a valid rule of inference. Thus, a proof of a theorem of logic, say φ, is therefore any finite sequence of statements (with φ the final statement in the sequence) such that each member of the sequence: (a) is one of the logical axioms of the formal system, or (b) follows from previous members of the sequence by a rule of inference. These are essentially the definitions that logicians still use today."

Gottlob Frege: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/

Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode

Consul wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm
Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode

Keep in mind, though, that the premises ("laws") of a DN argument are universals established inductively.

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:45 amWhat you describe isn't proof, it's something more like confidence. This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

Mercury wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm I disagree. It can be shown that "A causes B" with regard to experiment, verified by an independent observer. If you drop a rock it falls to the floor. Why?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 11:42 amWe don't know. That's sort of the point of scientific investigation. So far, we have no valid explanation for gravity. We know that rocks drop to the floor, but we have no idea why. Our reference is apparent reality, if only because it's the only reference we have. Reality is always right. So is the evidence — assuming no observational or measurement errors — but all else is speculation.

Right, but we know that a rock dropped will fall to the floor - every time. Because there is a thing called gravity. We know how it works. We can model it mathematically. Gravity explains how everything else acts - so you cannot say this rock - when dropped, may or may not fall to the floor. Because that would be to negate the principle we see operating in everything else.

The absolute nature of reality is another question entirely. The mechanism of gravity aside; we know that:

F=Gx(M/R^2)

F = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass of object
r = distance between centers of the masses.


such that....if you say A does not cause B, then you imply that planets don't orbit the sun. Consequently, it's not inductive reasoning to say A causes B.

Let me try and express this another way:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge." Daniel C. Dennett.

Do you see how there's a cross referenced form of scientific proof here; where the rock must fall to the floor because the planets orbit in the heavens? The problem with the problem of induction is that it excludes all this -it has scientists snatching an hypothesis from thin air, and working methodologically, left to right through the scientific method, reducing the scientist to the absurdity of checking that every swan in the world is white - before he can claim knowledge.

And this is my point; in the philosophical tradition that was excluded by a massive overemphasis on Cartesian subjectivism, there is scientific proof.

Consul wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.

Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."

OK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 1:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode

Keep in mind, though, that the premises ("laws") of a DN argument are universals established inductively.

Even if the nomological premise of a DN argument is an inductive generalization from empirical cases, a sound deductive argument including it is still a proof.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pmOK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

"In a deductively valid inference, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In an inductively strong inference, it is improbable (to some degree) that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true. In an abductively weighty inference, it is implausible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The abductive type of inference tends to be the weakest of the three kinds."

(Walton, Douglas N. "Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments." Informal Logic 21, no. 2 (2001): 141-169. p. 143)

Only deductively valid arguments are logically conclusive in the sense of it being "impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." That is, in a sound deductive argument the probability of the conclusion's truth is 100%.

For example:
1. For all materials x, if x is copper, then x conducts electricity. (nomological premise)
2. This material here is (a piece of) copper. (premise)
3. Therefore, this material here conducts electricity. (conclusion)

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pm But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

To say that empirical science cannot prove anything is to say that there cannot be any sound deductive arguments in it. But given the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation, there are proofs in empirical science, even if the premises used aren't a priori axioms but principles based on and inductively derived from experience.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pmOK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:

This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

You keep repeating the same thing, but you haven't addressed anything I've said.

My main point is that there's a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy. The conspicuous absence of a philosophical tradition describing, developing and defending scientific knowledge as proof, as truth, as a moral authority etc, should act as a clue. Considered in relation the vast number of anti-science, metaphysical subjectivist philosophers in the Western cannon - whose arguably specious arguments you cite as if they were inviolable laws of nature; against the indisputable fact that science surrounds us with technological miracles, should at least give you pause for thought. The normative reliance on science in industry, agriculture, medicine etc, etc, against a philosophical tradition that argues, almost without dissent 'science cannot prove anything' - should tell you something is wrong. We can consider the works of each of those philosophers in turn - from Descartes to the present day; about 400 years worth, or you can move yourself one inch onto my territory, and consider the argument I'm making - that there's something missing.

If we dig deeply enough, we might doubt everything. However, scientific testing is the most reliable means of working out what is real or not. The proofs, gained after exhaustive testing, are reliable enough to be considered to be true. As Kant et all pointed out, knowing the absolute truth is out of reach for us large-ish simians, so that is a qualifier to note. Once noted, one can safely put that proviso aside and move on.

When it comes to what's real and what's not, I figure that everything is real, be they physical things presence or subjective notions. Then there's the quantum realm and, seemingly, the grey area between macro and quantum entities. As far as I'm concerned, that's all arcane physics stuff - entanglement, superposition, tunnelling, non-locality - which will be increasingly leveraged in future technology. So that realm's applicability to our everyday lives is tiny.

The fact is that different scales are rather like different worlds. Consider the world of microbes under a microscope glass - or how scary they look under an electron microscope. The world of insects is alien to us too, as would the world of giant whales. So it's to be expected that a realm that is so much smaller than ours would be radically different.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pm

Consul wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.

Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."

OK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.

Right. I think it helps if we're clear about the differences between What Works, What Is and What Is Knowable.

Gravity is a good theory because from what we observe it works. Same for evolution.

But the irony with evolution is that it tells us we're not 'designed' for complete and perfect observation and reasoning (ways of knowing), rather we're 'good enough' for functional utility - what works.

Never-the-less the scientific method has produced an incredibly complex, coherent and reliable physicalist model of the universe and how it works. So it's getting something right, at least at levels of resolution we can make sense of.