Timeline for Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2013 at 20:41 | comment | added | labreuer | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 20:30 | comment | added | labreuer | @Jason_c_o: (1) Not all claims are falsifiable; for example, "There exists an invisible pink unicorn standing next to you." More interestingly, atomism was unfalsifiable when Democritus lived; often the question is, "Should we spend time thinking about things which are currently unfalsifiable? Falsification is a big topic and it seems like you haven't read a whole lot on it? (2) On what basis was it better to hold to atomism than some other metaphysic? You aren't allowed to appeal to the fact that we now find it an extremely useful theory. :-p | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 20:25 | comment | added | Jason_c_o | @labreuer: (1)Aren't all claims falsifiable? Something is only true until proven false, and it is simply that some things prove resilient to falsification. (2)It was a 'belief' that was eventually falsified and replaced, but was he "wrong" to hold it? Instruments at the time did not offer the information required to falsify the position and, until they did, it was the best position to hold. Though, this is tough to argue as "Science" at the time usually meant logical reasoning without much empirical testing or evidence. (3)To be honest I'd have to read it before I fathom a response. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 20:07 | comment | added | labreuer | @Jason_c_o: (1) Are you saying that we ought only believe falsifiable claims? This threatens to deconstruct the word 'believe', but perhaps 'belief' can be defined as "premises upon which thoughts and/or actions are predicated". (2) Would you say Democritus was wrong to believe in Atomism? That philosophy seems to have turned useful, and arguably it was helpful to have it before the requisite science was done. (3) Polanyi's discussion of crystal structure makes the whole idea of 'falsifiability' fuzzy. Have you thoughts on this? | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 19:46 | comment | added | Jason_c_o | Until the Higgs Boson was found Scientists around the world were prepared to throw out the entire model we use to understand the universe. The key to the Scientific Method is falsifiability: There are no truths, only supported hypotheses; At any time the things we believe are true can be turned on their head, thrown out in favor of something new and (hopefully) more informative. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 19:40 | comment | added | labreuer | "Then only the things science explorers could be true." — I'm not sure this is quite correct. My question doesn't claim that only the things science can demonstrate could be true; instead, it talks about which truth-claims we can be justified in holding. There are many unfalsifiable truth-claims which we should arguably remain agnostic on. We clearly ought not go about believing whatever we want when there's no evidence, so it seems like there exists a rule for what ought not be believed. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 19:36 | comment | added | labreuer | Hmm, I wonder if a different Q on faith would be a better idea. I'd rather not muddy this one up too much with the word 'faith'. I hesitated on using the quotations, but they seemed more 'real' than anything else I could muster. How much would it damage your answer to remove the word 'faith' and replace it with other stuff? Think about it. :-) | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 15:11 | history | answered | Neil Meyer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |