Timeline for Is naturalism falsifiable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2023 at 3:00 | comment | added | Hudjefa | What? When? Where? Who? Which? How? Why? Whose? Supernatural as in ... ? | |
| Mar 3, 2023 at 21:35 | answer | added | user64825 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 3, 2023 at 20:58 | comment | added | user64825 | @48437 "Is there any empirical test that could possibly show Naturalism to be false?" This question is not valid! It commits several Fallacies of Logic: Straw Man Argument, Law of Non-contradiction, etc. That which could and would falsify Naturalism deals with the Spiritual realm, and Empirical scientific methods do not apply, per se. A rational answer to this question is not possible. This question presumes an empirical test is valid, yet the object to be tested on for falsification is spiritual in nature. It is amazing that no one has picked up on this quest of futility. | |
| Oct 5, 2022 at 21:12 | comment | added | Double Knot | Lewis and Plantinga's insight here is that naturalism is nothing but the old descriptive philosophy of nature which science took as its implicit (default) background philosophy thus positive science itself cannot be used to verify or falsify its own philosophy and its scope is always limited to exclude those metaphysics which science cannot judge such as epistemology, ethics and aesthetics... If naturalism is all there really are ontically then what's the substance of this supposed spontaneousness? Mountains were formed naturally then is mountain its substance? Of course not, then what is... | |
| Sep 28, 2022 at 6:38 | comment | added | armand | @causative. Agreed. That's my point. | |
| S Sep 28, 2022 at 5:28 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 28, 2022 at 4:18 | answer | added | causative♦ | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 28, 2022 at 2:11 | comment | added | causative♦ | @armand There aren't any phenomena that are empirically proved and that are incompatible with the rest of science, that fit with the superstitions traditionally called "supernatural," i.e. ghosts, demons, angels, souls, magic. There have never been any such empirically demonstrated phenomena. The closest I can think of would be the "spooky action at a distance" objection to EM theory, but that is pretty far from folk superstitions of ghosts angels etc. | |
| Sep 28, 2022 at 1:54 | answer | added | csmatyi | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 27, 2022 at 16:00 | answer | added | anon | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 27, 2022 at 12:14 | history | edited | user48437 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 69 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2022 at 1:58 | comment | added | armand | Plantinga's argument demonstrates he does not understand evolution, but not much more. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 13:58 | answer | added | yters | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 9:38 | comment | added | NationWidePants | In so far as the supernatural is governed by a set of laws of unknown causes: if you can't repeat and fabricate supernatural events it is logical to conclude that natural causes cannot be falsifiable by definition. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 3:25 | comment | added | Double Knot | Plantinga's argument: if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value, not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves...the actual conflict lies between naturalism and science. And your own source: Steiner...the applicability of mathematics constitutes a challenge to naturalism... | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 3:14 | comment | added | Double Knot | Lewis had a famous argument from reason against naturalism which Plantinga extended to his own version: Lewis's argument at best refutes only strict forms of naturalism that seek to explain everything in terms ultimately reducible to physics or purely mechanistic causes. So-called "broad" naturalists that see consciousness as an "emergent" non-physical property of complex brains would agree with Lewis that different levels or types of causation exist in nature, and that rational inferences are not fully explainable by nonrational causes. | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 2:14 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 28, 2022 at 5:28 | |||||
| Sep 26, 2022 at 1:10 | answer | added | flkhjdflkj | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 26, 2022 at 0:50 | answer | added | philosodad | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1574051110083596288 | ||
| Sep 25, 2022 at 14:47 | answer | added | NotThatGuy | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 10:01 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 25, 2022 at 5:59 | history | edited | user14511 |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 25, 2022 at 5:43 | answer | added | armand | timeline score: 25 | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 4:58 | comment | added | armand | There is a vast number of unexplained phenomena in science, otherwise researchers would all be unemployed. None of those phenomena are qualified of "supernatural", so no, if ghost were empirically found to be real we would not label them as supernatural. A bit like when it was found out that speed of light was the same in all directions, it would trigger people to find new paradigms for physics.what is more empirically prove the existence of ghosts would imply there are experiments to reliably observe them, measure them, etc, which would make them a natural phenomenon. | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 3:53 | comment | added | Conifold | There is no empirical test that could possibly show even empirical theory to be false, let alone a philosophical doctrine. The idea of "crucial experiments" is long abandoned, testability is understood in a much more diffused sense now even in science. If naturalist methodology is fruitful in directing scientific research it is a plus, but not dispositive, and it would take a very long stretch of perceived failure for a tangible risk of its abandonment to materialize. | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 2:34 | comment | added | causative♦ | Well, suppose ghosts and souls were empirically found to be real and to be incompatible with all we know of physics. Then one of two things might happen: we might expand the definition of "natural" to also include ghosts, or we might continue to label ghosts as supernatural and say that naturalism is falsified. I think we would collectively go with the second one, because we would need some kind of label for these unexplained phenomena, and "supernatural" already fits. | |
| Sep 25, 2022 at 2:01 | history | asked | user48437 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |