Skip to main content

New answers tagged

2 votes

Can "Chance" be considered a metaphysic answer to the question of why evolution and similar happen to be?

The Human Observer recognizes patterns. Some patterns are classified as "deterministic". Some patterns are classified as "random". Some patterns are classified as "chaotic&...
SystemTheory's user avatar
  • 1,929
0 votes

Can "Chance" be considered a metaphysic answer to the question of why evolution and similar happen to be?

While I agree that randomness can play a role to have variations within a species (e.g. different skin, hair color, body mass, etc.) I don't accept chance as an explanation for new biomechanical ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 4,075
1 vote

Can "Chance" be considered a metaphysic answer to the question of why evolution and similar happen to be?

This is an absolutely legitimate question. But it hits the psychological wall. For many reasons, scientists refuse to explicitly put 'the unknown' outside the scope of research. Instead, they would ...
TheMatrix Equation-balance's user avatar
0 votes

Can "Chance" be considered a metaphysic answer to the question of why evolution and similar happen to be?

No. Scientific theories of abiogenesis make no reference to "Chance" as a metaphysical force. There is no evidence or argument presented in the question to support this assertion. The ...
Brian Z's user avatar
  • 1,337
1 vote

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

Additionally to the provided answers: All knowledge derived from Holism. excerpt from Wikipedia: "Holism in all contexts is often placed in opposition to reductionism, a dominant notion in the ...
Laurence R. Ugalde's user avatar
1 vote

Are there any philosophers after Kant but before Peirce that developed the Kantian concept of schema further?

Kant's notion of a schema is nothing but the idea of a operational definition, a rule on how concepts are to be applied to intuitions or, in other words, a spontaneous (repeatable, non-ostensive) ...
abracadabra's user avatar
1 vote

Do we consider theoretical physics as metaphysical theories?

It's a mistake to think of metaphysics as just, what cannot be verified by experiment, or is outside of being physically verifiable. As Aristotle used the word metaphysics it meant 'before physics', ...
CriglCragl's user avatar
  • 22.1k
0 votes

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

The underlying reason is that the processes of separation as well as approaching — in time as well as in space — are in fact symmetrical, even if we perceive them in an asymmetrical fashion. Two ...
Peter - Reinstate Monica's user avatar
4 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

Justification through science is about reliability. There isn't a categorical difference between science and non-scientific sensory experiences. For the purposes of this question, science can broadly ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
4 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

Can I be justified in believing in a proposition X through a justification that doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method? This is dependent on your notion of justification, though given a ...
Max Maxman's user avatar
5 votes

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

I see a lot of answers with personal conjecture without reference, so I'm going to point you towards one published response to your question, that of the linguist and philosopher George Lakoff. You ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.7k
6 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

There are no universally acceptable criteria for justifying our beliefs. If there had been, we would all agree on which beliefs are justified. In principle, though, everybody would probably agree that ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 8,089
1 vote

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively? Because the concept of objectivity includes accepting that we are ourselves moving into a larger and fixed whole, ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 8,089
1 vote

Philosophers who wrote about limits of knowledge?

What if "the truth" about any concept (consciousness, reality, religion,physics, etc.), turns out to be a complex idea such that our brains can't simply process it in a single lifespan. I ...
mudskipper's user avatar
14 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

Ethical and moral beliefs are justified but they are non scientific. Aesthetic beliefs , metaphysical beliefs , epistemological beliefs , religious beliefs , intuitive beliefs , cultural and social ...
SacrificialEquation's user avatar
1 vote

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

The challenge, "For what?" is often issued on this site to any request for or issuance of a definition, rule, concept, etc. Because, it is the important aspect of those things. One part of ...
Scott Rowe's user avatar
  • 1,292
4 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

There is no easy or simple answer to that question, possibly the question needs more focus to be answerable. The area of philosophy dealing with this is called Epistemology. It provides significant ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 4,075
8 votes

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

One of the key notions of physics is that motion is relative- to say that A is moving towards B is equivalent to saying that B is moving towards A. Had you applied that notion to time, you would not ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
0 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Good question. Personally, I do believe in levitation without "scientific evidence". The problem is what exactly constitutes as "scientific evidence"? Well, scientific evidence is ...
PonderChrist's user avatar
2 votes

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

Physicists know just as well as anybody else that wherever you go, there you are. In mathematical physics it is conventional to assign observers to the origins of their own coordinate systems. It's ...
g s's user avatar
  • 6,199
2 votes

Why is time, when viewed objectively, in reverse from when it's viewed subjectively?

Usually when dealing with physics related phenomenon like space-time or time cone everything usually should be seen relatively i.e., Einstein's theory of relativity works for this particular reason. ...
How why e's user avatar
  • 1,276
1 vote

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation? Yes. This way is referred to in general terms as Faith. In particular, see Faith beyond (orthodox) theism : Can there be faith ...
Vector's user avatar
  • 489
3 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Yes, there are many ways to justify a belief. Wikipedia helpfully lists 12 of them under the title of "Theories of justification". To let me pick a few... Reliabilism – A belief is ...
AnoE's user avatar
  • 2,897
1 vote
Accepted

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

You ask: Is it possible to have a justified belief in levitation without scientific evidence for levitation? Philosophically, yes. This is because what constitutes "justification" is a ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.7k
8 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

This might be one of the easiest supernatural claims to demonstrate (if it were possible), because pretty much all you need to do is confirm that (1) someone is in the air, (2) they aren't attached to ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
2 votes

How do you respond to this common critique of American Pragmatism?

I'm not sure labelling pragmatism as 'anti-epistemological' is the best approach here. Pragmatism is anti-idealist or anti-Platonic; or perhaps better put it's Bayesian, not normative. It certainly ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 20.2k
4 votes

How do you respond to this common critique of American Pragmatism?

There are two main replies I think are important to point out: In pragmatism, a truth is an assumption that has predictive value when acting upon it. We know from experience that acting upon that ...
Philip Klöcking's user avatar
  • 14.2k
1 vote

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

As you are asking for utility, not general "value" or "morals" or anything of that kind, let me point out some very concrete aspects: So, stating falsifiability as something which ...
AnoE's user avatar
  • 2,897
1 vote

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

Good question. We certainly have to be careful with hypotheses that do not allow for the existence-in-principle of evidence against them, but we cannot do science by throwing out everything that does ...
Deipatrous's user avatar
6 votes

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

Quoting from Section I of the introduction to "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Popper: The problem of demarcation is to find a criterion that permits us to distinguish between statements ...
alanf's user avatar
  • 7,994
5 votes
Accepted

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

I understand that Popper's falsifiability criterion is meant to demarcate science from pseudoscience. But, is that all one can expect from it? Falsifiability allows more generally to distinguish ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 8,089
4 votes

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

Falsificationism at best provides a demarcation between mature scientific theories and other theories. Even if the multiverse isn't currently falsifiable, it is clearly science - it is part of the ...
Dikran Marsupial's user avatar
3 votes

Does Popper's falsifiability criterion hold any utility?

I mean I do not care about science, but the values it holds, like explanatory power and predictability, many of which can also provided by unfalsifiable statements Not really, that's kinda the point. ...
haxor789's user avatar
  • 6,172
2 votes

What were the reactions to Hume's problem of induction from scientists practicing in the field?

The claim that science was not actually based on induction, but actually on falsifiability, was not first brought up by Karl Popper. It dates back at least to Blaise Pascal: In order to show that a ...
FlatAssembler's user avatar
10 votes

What were the reactions to Hume's problem of induction from scientists practicing in the field?

I can't speak for people in the 18th century, but there isn't really much for scientists to do about it. The principle of induction has proven to be exceedingly useful for predicting things, and for ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
4 votes

Is science value-free?

Science is not value free You said it yourself. You said that water is to parts hydrogen and one part oxygen - you have made a leap of faith based on your values. You believe that a measurement of ...
Stian's user avatar
  • 177
3 votes

Is science value-free?

Absolutely, this is a thought-provoking question. Philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have explored the philosophy of science, emphasizing that while scientific facts, such as the ...
Ryan Smith's user avatar
7 votes

Is science value-free?

This seems to be the quote with some context. "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can ...
Simon Crase's user avatar
6 votes

Is science value-free?

Yes, science has values, and specifically they are values of academic inquiry. First there is the value that we should seek knowledge with high priority (by no means a culturally universal priority); ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13.6k
5 votes

Is science value-free?

This answer replies only to this part: But I don't think that it is value-laden, it is simply a factual statement. It's both. Given appropriate definitions of water, hydrogen, oxygen, parts, and ...
g s's user avatar
  • 6,199
4 votes

Is science value-free?

Sam Harris (sigh…) Science is designed to be value-neutral. I mean that literally: the motivation behind trying to establish a scientific method was to separate out human desires by testing against ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 20.2k
16 votes

Is science value-free?

When Harris cites the atomic description of water as being thoroughly value-laden, the two questions that come to mind are If all those hidden, unspecified values he is talking about are removed from ...
niels nielsen's user avatar
6 votes

Is science value-free?

Separately, I'll address this: "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" is value-laden. But I don't think that it is value-laden, it is simply a factual statement. Importantly, ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.7k
24 votes

Is science value-free?

I'm happy to report, that science is a human endeavor, and humans are never value-free, so neither is science. That's a feature, and not a bug. For instance, some of the most important values of ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.7k
1 vote

Does any interaction necessarily imply emergence in physics and chemistry?

A general method in science is to isolate the object under consideration from the “rest of the world” – as far as it is possible. Then one first studies the isolated objects, and later the interaction ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 33.2k
-1 votes

Does any interaction necessarily imply emergence in physics and chemistry?

There are two different concepts of emergent behavior, which we may call weak and strong. The weak notion is not very interesting; it's hard to define exactly what weak emergent behavior is, but it ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
1 vote

Does any interaction necessarily imply emergence in physics and chemistry?

Another way of wording this question is, are there interactions which DON'T produce emergent behaviour? To which I would say, probably not, with the possible exception of very very weak interactions - ...
TKoL's user avatar
  • 3,467
1 vote

Does any interaction necessarily imply emergence in physics and chemistry?

... because this notion (emergence) seems to be a mere corollary, an ancillary concept to that of interaction. A common beleif of modern science (after the scientific revolution) was that everything ...
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
0 votes

How does dialectical causality work in practice?

As far as I understand your paraphrase from Evan Thompson's book he speaks about: Linear chains of causality and circular chains of causality. It is well-known that “circular chain of causality” is ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 33.2k

Top 50 recent answers are included