Definition of falsifiable? (for non-materialists)

[gnome]

A wee test.

This one's for Interesting Ian, Whodini, hammegk, and others who tend to argue against naturalism/materialism... this is something I think has been a barrier to communication here:

Could you define, in your own words, the meaning of "falsifiable" and its purpose in debate?

Somehow I think there's been a big misunderstanding.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome
A wee test.

This one's for Interesting Ian, Whodini, hammegk, and others who tend to argue against naturalism/materialism... this is something I think has been a barrier to communication here:

Could you define, in your own words, the meaning of "falsifiable" and its purpose in debate?

Somehow I think there's been a big misunderstanding.

It's a term within the philosophy of science which Popper introduced which is supposed to function as a guideline as to whether scientists should abandon a particular theory or not, or indeed, as to whether we should judge a given theory as being scientifically vacuous if it is immune to such falsifiability criteria.

Whatever the merit of Poppers ideas here (and generally speaking philosophers of science view it unfavorably), it was never meant to apply outside the realm of science.

And incidentally, how many people realise Popper was not a materialist but was in fact a dualist? :rolleyes:

So tell me Gnome, what is it I'm not understanding??

[thaiboxerken]

Ian, you've given a brief history of the term but you haven't defined it. You've given your opinion of the term, but you haven't answered the question.

What does falsifiable mean?

[athon]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It's a term within the philosophy of science which Popper introduced which is supposed to function as a guideline as to whether scientists should abandon a particular theory or not, or indeed, as to whether we should judge a given theory as being scientifically vacuous if it is immune to such falsifiability criteria.

Whatever the merit of Poppers ideas here (and generally speaking philosophers of science view it unfavorably), it was never meant to apply outside the realm of science.

And incidentally, how many people realise Popper was not a materialist but was in fact a dualist? :rolleyes:

So tell me Gnome, what is it I'm not understanding??

Could I ask people (not just you, Ian, but your statement inspired me to write this) to not address the person and their beliefs when quoting a term. Indeed, Popper was first to coin the term 'falsification', but the idea has been alive in scientific experimentation as far back as the positivist movement, with the foundations of the concept obvious even in Bacon's writings.

Popper's personal beliefs have as much to do with the extent of falsification as Darwin's religious beliefs have to do with evolution.

Just a thought,

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

As an aside, Bacon was apparently strongly pushing the inductive strategy, which is addressed in Popper's first chapter of The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Logik der Forshung, 1934, imprint, 1935). "Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous: for any conclusion drawn in this way may turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white."(p. 27)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

So tell me Gnome, what is it I'm not understanding??

I see a history of the term and a discussion as to when it applies.

An actual definition would be nice, as was said... what does it mean for something to be falsifiable? And why is it a useful distinction?

Can you give an example of something that is falsifiable and an example of something that is not? That would convince me you understand it also.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome


I see a history of the term and a discussion as to when it applies.

An actual definition would be nice, as was said... what does it mean for something to be falsifiable? And why is it a useful distinction?

Can you give an example of something that is falsifiable and an example of something that is not? That would convince me you understand it also.

{sighs}

Yes of course I can. But this is irrelevant. The point is the falsifiability criteria was not meant to apply to metaphysical positions, and certainly not to logical arguments! If a "logical" argument is "falsifiable" then it's not a logical argument. But the word is not used in that context anyway.

Popper held the view that a theory which made many specific predictions was the mark of a good scientific theory as it is potentially highly falsifiable. On the other hand, those theories that are not falsifiable are therefore compatible with all possible states of affairs. If a theory is compatible with all possible states of affairs then it cannot possible be useful at all.

In practice "falsified" theories can often be saved by questioning the observations said to refute said theory, or by introducing auxiliary hypotheses etc.

[thaiboxerken]

You've talked all about the word, how the word came to be and what you opine the word should be used for.

Can you actually DEFINE what falsifiable means, Ian, or are you just simply evading the question?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You've talked all about the word, how the word came to be and what you opine the word should be used for.

Can you actually DEFINE what falsifiable means, Ian, or are you just simply evading the question?

It means it can be shown to be false should the theory concerned not correctly characterize the part of reality of interest. Duh! LOL

[Starrman]

If a "logical" argument is "falsifiable" then it's not a logical argument.

Saying that heavy smokers will, on average, die at an earlier age than non smokers is a logical argument. Is it not falsifiable? It may be true or false, but it is falsifiable (which I take to be synonymous with 'testable'). Or am I misunderstanding something?

[cbish]

Ian wrote:
It means it can be shown to be false should the theory concerned not correctly characterize the part of reality of interest. Duh! LOL

Or, how about this; that it is possible to conceive of a situation where a statement is made false.

For example; "the human life span does not excede 200 years". is falsifiable for the fact that if a person did live that long it would make this statement false. However, since no one has, we consider it a truth.

A nonfalsifiable statement: "god did it"

[Ed]

Ian forgets that evidence trumps logic.

[Keneke]

cbish, youre was the first attempt to make sense. Thank you.

[cbish]

keneke wrote:
cbish, youre was the first attempt to make sense. Thank you.

Well,..ummm....thanks!....I don't see why this has to be so difficult:(

[hammegk]

Interesting question.

Is any inductive statement ever not subject to being falsified?

Deductive statements certainly can be.



Damned semantics and the humans that use words.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a "logical" argument is "falsifiable" then it's not a logical argument. But the word is not used in that context anyway.

This is where I think the confusion lies. "Falsifiable" does not mean false. It doesn't mean that there's any evidence out there that makes the statement false. It means that there could be evidence that makes it false if it happened to turn up. In the context of a logical argument, a "falsifiable" proposition is one that can be tested for truth or falsity.

Popper held the view that a theory which made many specific predictions was the mark of a good scientific theory as it is potentially highly falsifiable.

This comes close to what I was looking for, though it unfortunately uses the term in its own definition.

I contend that a falsifiable proposition is necessary in any argument. If you're trying to convince me to accept your position over mine, it must be possible to distinguish between a world where your idea is true, and where your idea is false. Otherwise it's just word games.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a "logical" argument is "falsifiable" then it's not a logical argument. But the word is not used in that context anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is where I think the confusion lies. "Falsifiable" does not mean false.



I know, but it does admit the possibility of being false. Care to explain how 1+1 = 2 is falsifiable?



It doesn't mean that there's any evidence out there that makes the statement false. It means that there could be evidence that makes it false if it happened to turn up.



I know.



In the context of a logical argument, a "falsifiable" proposition is one that can be tested for truth or falsity.



Test it? How do you test a logical argument? An argument is either logical or not logical, we do not have to appeal to the world of experience. We can show that an alleged logical argument is not actually logical, but this isn't the same as testing it.

I have never heard of the term "falsifiability" used in the context of logic. Could you provide some links please?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popper held the view that a theory which made many specific predictions was the mark of a good scientific theory as it is potentially highly falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This comes close to what I was looking for, though it unfortunately uses the term in its own definition.



By highly falsifiable I simply mean that there are many conceivable states of affairs inconsistent with said theory, and if these coneivable states of effairs were to transpire, then this would demonstrate the theory is false.



I contend that a falsifiable proposition is necessary in any argument.



OK, in my argument that 1 + 1 = 2, where is the falsifiable proposition?


If you're trying to convince me to accept your position over mine, it must be possible to distinguish between a world where your idea is true, and where your idea is false. Otherwise it's just word games.


A logical argument must be true in all logically possible worlds.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by gnome


I contend that a falsifiable proposition is necessary in any argument. If you're trying to convince me to accept your position over mine, it must be possible to distinguish between a world where your idea is true, and where your idea is false. Otherwise it's just word games.

And that an objective what-is exists independently of the Terran anthropomorhic idea of consciousness is a damn good assumption, albeit just an assumption. On that basis the scientific method does "self-correct" often despite-of rather than because-of the best attempts of human scientists.

Once you tighten that to "objective material what-is" you are no longer in science with falsifiability. You are in a tautology. See the problem?

[DickK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know, but it does admit the possibility of being false. Care to explain how 1+1 = 2 is falsifiable?
It doesn't have to be Ian. "1+1=2" isn't a theory, it's called a fact. It's also evidence that number theory works.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DickK

It doesn't have to be Ian. "1+1=2" isn't a theory, it's called a fact. It's also evidence that number theory works.

I never claimed it was a theory. I am saying it is not falsifiable. Do you disagree with me?

[DickK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never claimed it was a theory. The current discourse requires it to be a theory de facto. A claim, either way is otiose.
I am saying it is not falsifiable. Do you disagree with me? You certainly are a fallacy-rich contender Ian, I'll give you that. Are you asking if I debate whether you said that or whether I agree with you? Ooooh, what a minefield, but a chimera, and rendered thus by my response above.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DickK


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never claimed it was a theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current discourse requires it to be a theory de facto. A claim, either way is otiose.



It most certainly is not a theory, nor have theories been the topic of discourse! See the original post in blue pasted below which precipitated this debate.

Anyhow, how can 1 + 1 be a theory? It is logically possible that 1 apple plus 1 apple might add up to 3 apples. But 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be said to be a theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am saying it is not falsifiable. Do you disagree with me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You certainly are a fallacy-rich contender Ian, I'll give you that. Are you asking if I debate whether you said that or whether I agree with you? Ooooh, what a minefield, but a chimera, and rendered thus by my response above.

You refuse to action the question? In case you don't know, this is an argument originating with CFLarsen in the thread "Why a Guy like Intersting (sic) Ian is a Dangerous Loon". He complained my following argument is not falsifiable.


BTW the following argument doesn't refute eliminative materialism, but that is a crazy position which no sane person would hold.

What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can obseve is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle!

This is what materialism entails and is just one of many [b]reasons why we should reject this metaphysic.

[DickK]

...sorry, all that blue caused my pet quantum theory to have some sort of seizure...jeez, you are Beelzebub! I abjure you Satan, get back back to the shadow, you're a loon.:k:

[thaiboxerken]

Anyhow, how can 1 + 1 be a theory? It is logically possible that 1 apple plus 1 apple might add up to 3 apples. But 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be said to be a theory.

This is the rantings of a mad man here, folks. I don't understand why anyone would even attempt to rationally debate someone that can spout this drivel.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DickK
...sorry, all that blue caused my pet quantum theory to have some sort of seizure...jeez, you are Beelzebub! I abjure you Satan, get back back to the shadow, you're a loon.:k:

You still haven't answered my question of whether 1 + 1 = 2 is falsifiable. Note I do not mean whether any 2 particulars added together will equal 2 or not, such as whether adding one apple to another apple will equal 2 apples. I'm talking about the pure abstract concept.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You still haven't answered my question of whether 1 + 1 = 2 is falsifiable.Sorry to give such a boring answer, but my answer is, 'it depends'.

If we are dealing with integers then it is not falsifiable - it is an axiomatic fact. I suspect this is the sense in which your question was meant.

If we are dealing with the symbols then it is certainly falsifiable, for example, in roman numerals, 1 + 1 = 11, in binary notation 1 + 1 = 10.

Now, say we take the numbers to represent speeds. Relativity theory predicts, that speeds to not add in a simplistic way, and this theory has been verified experimentally. If we measure speeds in units of the speed of light (which appears to be the universe's natural speed unit) then 1 + 1 = 1

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
[B]Sorry to give such a boring answer, but my answer is, 'it depends'.

If we are dealing with integers then it is not falsifiable - it is an axiomatic fact. I suspect this is the sense in which your question was meant.



Yes it was.


Now, say we take the numbers to represent speeds. Relativity theory predicts, that speeds to not add in a simplistic way, and this theory has been verified experimentally. If we measure speeds in units of the speed of light (which appears to be the universe's natural speed unit) then 1 + 1 = 1

This is like my apples example.

[LW]

The statement "1 + 1 = 2" is most definitely falsifiable, even without having to resort to silly tricks like changing the base of the number.

Where's the proposition, I hear you ask? Well, the whole expression is a proposition stating that "the sum of the successor of the zero and the successor of the zero is the successor of the successor of the zero."

There are few different ways to write it out in predicate calculus. I would choose the following:

(1) exists x : plus(s(0), s(0), x) and equals(x, s(s(0)).

where equals is defined as:

for all x : equals(x, x).

and plus recursively as:

plus(x, 0, x).
forall x y z : plus(x, y, z) -> plus(x, s(y), s(z)).

and numbers such that 0 denotes 0, and for all numbers x, s(x) denotes the number that is usually written x + 1.

How then we could falsify (1)? Well, we could prove that there does not exists a number x such that plus(1, 1, x) and equals(x, 2) holds at the same time. Of course, when we set out proving that we come to the conclusion that, whoa, there really exists such a number, and it is 2. (or s(s(0)) if we want to use the logical notation).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes it was.

This is like my apples example.
Change your example to nuts, and at least people will agree it suits you.

Ian, your arguments always come down to this same, old, tired, tiresome and irksome refrain:

I can define something to make it completely subjective.
You can't measure something completely subjective.
I win.

This is assinine and puerile. As was your 1+1 = 2 example. Here again, you wish to transform a concept from epistemology into an entirely different realm and attempt to hack off its head. As has been pointed out, however, again, you are dead wrong. Ceptimus made the point that, at the arithmetic level, it is definitional. The notation could as easily have been loon + loon = nutcase, so long as we have properly defined "loon", "nutcase" and the "+" operation. LW has pointed out that, at a deeper level, it derives from the predicate calculus. One of the implications of both these answers is the concept of "falsifiability" simply does not apply here. The concept of the validity of a proof is more appropriate.

Your somewhat derisive and dismissive comments on Popper were also wrong, as well as part of your same, old, tired, tiresome and irksome refrain. Popper's falsifiability criterion continues to be used today because it does distinguish between the vacuous and the useful.

Which brings me to three major points about your metaphysical hobby-horse:

1. Deduction can guarantee truth, but cannot yield new information
2. Induction can yield new information, but cannot guarantee truth
3. Hence, the methods of science, which have been designed over the past several centuries to yield new information with provisional truth

You root all your claims about consciousness in slippery definitions that ignore the above facts. All of the above points trace back to evidence for an assertion. All trace back to Ed's point, whose import you missed: "evidence trumps logic."

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
1. Deduction can guarantee truth, but cannot yield new information
I'd have to quibble with that. According to Popper (cited above) "Theories are not verfiable, but they can be 'corroborated'." (p.251).
Deduction cannot prove a theory or hypothess to be true (that would be modus ponens, the fallacy of affirming the consequent.). Modus tollens, however, allows for a theory to be falsified.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know, but it does admit the possibility of being false. Care to explain how 1+1 = 2 is falsifiable?

Well, one first has to clarify your definitions of 1, +, =, and 2.

Assuming you mean the most common usage of these symbols, it is very easy to falsify. Take one nut. Add another nut. Count the total. If the total is other than 2, the proposition is false.

Test it? How do you test a logical argument? An argument is either logical or not logical, we do not have to appeal to the world of experience. We can show that an alleged logical argument is not actually logical, but this isn't the same as testing it.

Maybe I'm not sure of what you mean by a "logical argument". By "logical" do you mean a valid syllogism, or do you mean a proposition in the language of logic?

I'm trying to come up with a response, but I keep tripping over what you might mean here.

I'm not above weakening my original statement--could I say instead that if your logical argument pertains to something real, then you are not excused from falsifiability just because you formalized your arguments into logic?

I have never heard of the term "falsifiability" used in the context of logic. Could you provide some links please?

This line of argument is my own, so I have no source to cite. In fact as you see I am willing to refine it.

By highly falsifiable I simply mean that there are many conceivable states of affairs inconsistent with said theory, and if these coneivable states of effairs were to transpire, then this would demonstrate the theory is false.

Ok. We're on the same page here and that's what I'd hoped for.

[gnome]

Originally posted by hammegk


And that an objective what-is exists independently of the Terran anthropomorhic idea of consciousness is a damn good assumption, albeit just an assumption. On that basis the scientific method does "self-correct" often despite-of rather than because-of the best attempts of human scientists.

Once you tighten that to "objective material what-is" you are no longer in science with falsifiability. You are in a tautology. See the problem?

Oh, indeed I do. But I'm not so hung up on demonstrating that objective material reality is the only game in town, in a cosmic truth sense. I have just yet to encounter a reason to speculate about it much--it all seems rather irrelevant if it doesn't affect reality.

Another reason that skeptics (or at least myself) may tend to be impatient with metaphysical arguments--it is rather common for someone to make paranormal claims that reality is definitely being affected, but then retreat to metaphysical arguments when asked for evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW
[B]The statement "1 + 1 = 2" is most definitely falsifiable,



Go ahead and falsify it then :rolleyes:



even without having to resort to silly tricks like changing the base of the number.

Where's the proposition, I hear you ask? Well, the whole expression is a proposition stating that "the sum of the successor of the zero and the successor of the zero is the successor of the successor of the zero."

There are few different ways to write it out in predicate calculus. I would choose the following:

(1) exists x : plus(s(0), s(0), x) and equals(x, s(s(0)).

where equals is defined as:

for all x : equals(x, x).

and plus recursively as:

plus(x, 0, x).
forall x y z : plus(x, y, z) -> plus(x, s(y), s(z)).

and numbers such that 0 denotes 0, and for all numbers x, s(x) denotes the number that is usually written x + 1.

How then we could falsify (1)? Well, we could prove that there does not exists a number x such that plus(1, 1, x) and equals(x, 2) holds at the same time.



Such prove is not in principle possible since 1 + 1 = 2 by definition. Quite different for scientific theories because they rely upon induction and there is a possibility they could be falsified at some future stage.

Besides, I don't believe that one don't falsifies logic, rather one refutes it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]
Change your example to nuts, and at least people will agree it suits you.

Ian, your arguments always come down to this same, old, tired, tiresome and irksome refrain:

I can define something to make it completely subjective.
You can't measure something completely subjective.
I win.

This is assinine and puerile. As was your 1+1 = 2 example. Here again, you wish to transform a concept from epistemology into an entirely different realm and attempt to hack off its head.



My original argument has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemology. The term falsifiable is simply inappropriate. If my argument is sound what does it mean to complain it is not falsifiable?? Larsen is an idiot, and so are all the people on here for agreeing with him. I've had enough of this puerile debate.



As has been pointed out, however, again, you are dead wrong. Ceptimus made the point that, at the arithmetic level, it is definitional. The notation could as easily have been loon + loon = nutcase, so long as we have properly defined "loon", "nutcase" and the "+" operation. LW has pointed out that, at a deeper level, it derives from the predicate calculus. One of the implications of both these answers is the concept of "falsifiability" simply does not apply here. The concept of the validity of a proof is more appropriate.



What you agree with me and disagree with Larsen. So why the flying f*ck are you arguing with me then rather than Larsen??

And the rest of yopur post is wholly irrelevant.

Get out of my sight.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know, but it does admit the possibility of being false. Care to explain how 1+1 = 2 is falsifiable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, one first has to clarify your definitions of 1, +, =, and 2.

Assuming you mean the most common usage of these symbols, it is very easy to falsify. Take one nut. Add another nut. Count the total. If the total is other than 2, the proposition is false.



Wrong. Makes no difference to the argument. Mathematics describes reality, but there doesn't seem any reason why it should. Nothing wrong with the conceivability of adding a nut to another nut and getting 3 nuts. But doesn't alter the fact that 1 + 1 = 2


Maybe I'm not sure of what you mean by a "logical argument". By "logical" do you mean a valid syllogism, or do you mean a proposition in the language of logic?

I'm trying to come up with a response, but I keep tripping over what you might mean here.

I'm not above weakening my original statement--could I say instead that if your logical argument pertains to something real, then you are not excused from falsifiability just because you formalized your arguments into logic?



Put it this way. In the context of my original argument (in blue above) I would say that it applies to all possible Universes. So materialism couldn't possibly be true in any logically possible Universe. Does that answer your question?

Do you think that a defect of my argument is that it is not "falsifiable" as Larsen claims? If so, what on earth do you mean??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Larsen is an idiot, and so are all the people on here for agreeing with him.

Coming from you, that's a highly cherished recommendation.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Get out of my sight.

Sorry, nobody is leaving. You could, of course, put everyone who disagree with you on ignore. My, how quiet it would be for you.

[Interesting Ian]

Just to clarify. It might well be possible to refute my argument. People are welcome to try. But I don't understand what is meant by the statement that it is not falsifiable. Could anyone explain to me what Larsen means. Personally I submit that Larsen simply hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. But since everyone on here is so intent on defending him, I demand people explain what he means.

[Interesting Ian]

And LW, are you saying that 1 + 1 = 2 is "falsifiable", but my argument isn't??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just to clarify. It might well be possible to refute my argument. People are welcome to try. But I don't understand what is meant by the statement that it is not falsifiable. Could anyone explain to me what Larsen means. Personally I submit that Larsen simply hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. But since everyone on here is so intent on defending him, I demand people explain what he means.

(cough)....before you go into Martyr-Mode, let me clarify: Nobody is trying to defend me. There are some people who are addressing your arguments, though.

You can "demand" all you like, you still don't get your lollipop.

"Petulant". "Snotty". "Rude". I think that describes you better than "Interesting". But then, I was never partial to people who feel the need for self-aggrandizing proclamations anyway....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

(cough)....before you go into Martyr-Mode, let me clarify: Nobody is trying to defend me. There are some people who are addressing your arguments, though.



If they think that an argument needs to be "falsifiable" then they are defending you since my argument indeed isn't falsifiable. Only that which appeals to the world can be falsifiable. But I believe my argument to be valid no matter how the world might have turned out. So I agree that it's definitely not falsifiable. But my point is that it is not required to be since my argument is a logical one.

However everybody is arguing that Popper meant it to apply to logical arguments also. I disagree. I mean how can the fact that my argument is not falsifiable somehow magically refute my argument for Christs sake???

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If they think that an argument needs to be "falsifiable" then they are defending you since my argument indeed isn't falsifiable.

No, they are not defending me, Ian! Stop trying to make this into a school yard fight.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Only that which appeals to the world can be falsifiable.

What on earth are you talking about??

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I believe my argument to be valid no matter how the world might have turned out.

You believe, yes. You still need to show it.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So I agree that it's definitely not falsifiable. But my point is that it is not required to be since my argument is a logical one.

If it is not falsifiable, how can you ever be wrong? Can you be wrong at all, Ian?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
However everybody is arguing that Popper meant it to apply to logical arguments also. I disagree. I mean how can the fact that my argument is not falsifiable somehow magically refute my argument for Christs sake???

O.........K. Let's see here: Everybody disagrees with you. You disagree with everybody. Now, I have seen a lot of very - dare I say it? - sound arguments from others, but none from you. Your explanations sure don't seem to seep through their thick skulls.

Now, could it be that the world is too dumb to grasp your brilliant ideas, or could it be that you are simply wrong?

People are actually trying to understand what you are saying, Ian. That's why they spend so many thoughts on you. In return, they get foul-mouthed scorn from you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, they are not defending me, Ian! Stop trying to make this into a school yard fight.



What on earth are you talking about??



You believe, yes. You still need to show it.



If it is not falsifiable, how can you ever be wrong? Can you be wrong at all, Ian?



You really are impressively stupid aren't you? I have shown it in my argument in blue above. Although my argument is quite definitely not falsifiable, this doesn't mean to say that materialists won't believe it is not refutable. Otherwise it would be illogical for them to remain materialists! These 2 terms are not synonymous.

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Go ahead and falsify it then :rolleyes:

Didn't you just say that a proposition doesn't actually have to be false for it to be falsifiable? Why then you are now turning your coat and demanding that it should be false?

Such prove is not in principle possible since 1 + 1 = 2 by definition.

Umm... Didn't you notice that I provided above the standard definitions for both '+' and '='? If you don't understand them, feel free to ask for clarification.

I'll now bring the definition back to common syntax. The addition of two natural numbers is defined recursively as:

(1) for all x + 0 = x
(2) for all x, y, and z. If x + y = z, then x + (y +1) = z+1.

I'll give you that you could stretch the terminology
and say that since the symbol '2' is defined to denote the natural number that is the successor of the number that we usually denote by '1', and since we often use the shorthand '+ 1' in place of the successor function, so 1+ 1 = 2 by definition. But that is a quite stretch. But before going that direction I'd like to ask whether in your opinion, for example, 2 + 3 = 5 is unfalsifiable in the same sense as 1 + 1 = 2 is (in your opinion)?

But anyway, I'm not really going to debate with you about mathematics since you have already shown that when you have decided something, absolutely no proof will make you change your mind. I'm not interested in going through another set of iterations of giving a proof just to receive "but I still think I'm right" as your answer.

Do yourself a favor and study some formal logic and mathematics.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You really are impressively stupid aren't you? I have shown it in my argument in blue above. Although my argument is quite definitely not falsifiable, this doesn't mean to say that materialists won't believe it is not refutable. Otherwise it would be illogical for them to remain materialists! These 2 terms are not synonymous.

Ian, why do you have to be so incredibly rude and condescending? It is not possible for you simply to point out where I am wrong (which I see you do not)?

Do you really see yourself as far more intelligent than everybody else? Your posts make this very clear that you do.

Your posts also make it very clear that you are not.

Pah. You're a waste of my time.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by gnome
A wee test.



Could you define, in your own words, the meaning of "falsifiable" and its purpose in debate?

Somehow I think there's been a big misunderstanding.

Could be

A good exercise, even for me, as my understanding of the term falsifiable is sticky


I may be demonstrating my ignorance here

but here goes


I will start with unfalsifiable claims or arguments


As I understand a claim is unfalsifiable if the claim, or its subject can not be observed directly or with current technology, nor can the claim be tested by a robust scientific process. Sometimes all attempts to create a test to prove the claim are countered by excuses or reasons why the test won't work, and when all the tests that can be thought of are exhausted, the claim can then be deamed unfalsifiable.

Also, the inverse of the claim is also unobservable or untestable which could be an indication that a claim is unfalsifiable.

for example (inverse follows)

Demonic dogs consume souls for breakfast. (Demonic dogs do not consume souls.)

There is intelligent life beyound our solar system. (There is not intelligent life beyond our solar system.)

God is on vacation and is travelling around in a Winnebago in Galaxy M31. (God does not go on vacation and would certainly not travel in a Winnebago.)

People that make an unfalsifiable claim can (although not necessarily always) present their claim in a false dilemma.

e.g. Either you prove that demonic dogs do not have souls for breaky, or, you concede that demonic dogs consume souls.

If it can not be proven that demonic dogs consume souls then that means there claim is given more credence.

People that make unfalsifiable claims can think or can state (again, not always) that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(edited to continue with.....)
Now, here is where I demonstrate my ignorance...

Falsifiable claims are claims that can be observed, tested, and challenged by other predictions that can be observed, tested and challenged.

An example of a falsifiable claim:

All children prefer to play with large red medicine balls during recess, so we should buy large red medicine balls for every student in the school.

This claim is testable, observable, and can be countered with several other predictions or claims that are observable and testable.

other falsifiable claims that could be presented are:

All children don't prefer to play with red balls at recess.

Some children prefer to play with red balls at recess.

All children prefer to play with yellow balls during recess.

Some childen don't prefer to play with balls at recess.

All children don't have a choice in the colour of ball they play with so the aren't given a chance to make a choice.

and the list could go on. Counter predictions can abound and the falsifiable claims can be re-examined, retested, and put under scrutiny. (and hopefully save the school district some money and make practical purchasing decisions :).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because you're a complete f*ckhead who seems to be incapable of understand anything. Like a lot of people on here it seems

Temper, temper....

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm a waste of f*cking time??? So where the f*ck is your explanation of why, simply because my argument is unfalsifiable, it is therefore incorrect?

Temper, temper....

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Look, I am sick of discussing this. Nobody on here arguing with me apart from, very surprisingly, BillHoyt understands what the term falsifiable means. It only applies to scientific theories!!. All of you try to get this simple fact through to your retarded brains.

Temper, temper....

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've had enough of this thread.

I won't be responding any further .

Goodbye.

Too bad. You have not been able to explain your point. Again.

Instead, we got: "a complete f*ckhead who seems to be incapable of understand anything".

How eloquent. Rude, but eloquent. You have style, Ian. Gutter-style, but style, nonetheless.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by gnome


Oh, indeed I do. But I'm not so hung up on demonstrating that objective material reality is the only game in town, in a cosmic truth sense. I have just yet to encounter a reason to speculate about it much--it all seems rather irrelevant if it doesn't affect reality.
Hmm, mankind seems to have found "reasons" for thousands of years at least.

I agree that the discussion is misplaced in this forum, except that many people have 1st person experience with data that is either numinous & spiritual, or hallucinatory. If you have had such a 1st person experience and wish to categorize it as hallucinatory, sobeit. You will have a difficult time convincing some other experiencer that at 100% certainty he hallucinated.


Another reason that skeptics (or at least myself) may tend to be impatient with metaphysical arguments--it is rather common for someone to make paranormal claims that reality is definitely being affected, but then retreat to metaphysical arguments when asked for evidence.
My logical-I-hope analysis of what I know & understand convinces me that retreat to the metaphysical is not logical. A coherent worldview should provide a logical mechanism that "could--not necessarily does" explain such an experience; materialism/atheism of course provides a 100% certain answer -- it can only be hallucinatory, or at least a misinterpretation of the facts of the matter.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Temper, temper....



Temper, temper....



Temper, temper....



Too bad. You have not been able to explain your point. Again.

Instead, we got: "a complete f*ckhead who seems to be incapable of understand anything".

How eloquent. Rude, but eloquent. You have style, Ian. Gutter-style, but style, nonetheless.

Yup, I'm in a bad mood. My argument is not falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) as you correctly observed. That is to say that no empirical facts could disprove my argument. This is because my argument doesn't rest on empirical facts about the world. It is an argument attempting to show that materialism is internally incoherent (if you accept the existence of phenomenal consciousness).

Another way of saying this is that materialism couldn't correctly depict reality no matter what physical laws describe the Universe.

Basically you need to show how my argument is fallacious.

Instead of addressing my argument people seem content instead to claim that I do not understand what the word unfalsifiable means, where as in fact they don't.

Maybe you were using the term falsifiable in a non-Popperian sense. Maybe people are using it to mean the exact same as refutable.

Firstly I think this generates confusion.
Secondly it is clear that you were employing falsification in the Popperian sense, otherwise you would be saying "My argument is not refutable" ie it is sound!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My original argument has nothing whatsoever to do with epistemology. The term falsifiable is simply inappropriate. If my argument is sound what does it mean to complain it is not falsifiable?? Larsen is an idiot, and so are all the people on here for agreeing with him. I've had enough of this puerile debate.
Perhaps you didn't fully understand my comments, Ian. Something must feed logic. It is an insatiable beast, and this is one of the key findings of the philosophy of science. At some point, one needs new grist for the mill. The grains must be brought in from the field so that flour can be produced. In logic, this grist is the premise.

Deduction guarantees truth when the syllogism is valid and the premises true. But it suffers the inability to produce any new truth because deduction simply teases out of the premises the conclusions that were already there. Induction doesn't suffer this problem. It can produce new truth, and does so by getting out of the easy chair, walking into the field, and observing reality. But as Popper (and others) have pointed out, the truths borne of induction are quite fragile. "All swans are white" immediately fails when we observe the first black swan.

This last point is precisely the point Popper was addressing. We must actively search out ways of demonstrating our hypothesis false. This is exactly why modern science has introduced the construct of the null hypothesis. It addresses Popper's falsifiabilty because we look for ways to prove ourselves wrong. What Claus has rightly pointed out is that you have defined yourself into a corner. You have constructed insular defintions that are not falsifiable and therefore useless in trying to further our understanding of how things are. To now claim that your argument is sound and therefore in no need of being falsifiable is pretzel logic of the first order. To demonstrate soundness, Ian, you need to be able to demonstrate the veracity of the premisses. Which gets you right back to Popper, and epistemology.

[CFLarsen]

Ian!! Back again so soon?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yup, I'm in a bad mood. My argument is not falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) as you correctly observed.

Thank you. Ergo, it is wrong of you to claim that nobody has refuted you, because they can't refute you. Ergo, you cannot claim victory.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That is to say that no empirical facts could disprove my argument. This is because my argument doesn't rest on empirical facts about the world. It is an argument attempting to show that materialism is internally incoherent (if you accept the existence of phenomenal consciousness).

And I assume that you do. What do you base this acceptance on, Ian? Are you pointing to empirical facts, or merely argument?

If you are pointing to empirical facts, then you are using materialistic evidence to prove (or "show", if you like) that materialism is not true. Duh, one might say.

If, on the other hand, you are pointing to mere argument, then you are merely creating a thought-experiment that proves nothing. Duh, one might say.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Another way of saying this is that materialism couldn't correctly depict reality no matter what physical laws describe the Universe.

Can you point to something "real" that is not described by physical laws? Not anecdotes, not arguments. Something real, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Basically you need to show how my argument is fallacious.

No, you need to prove your own claims. I know you balk at this, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Instead of addressing my argument people seem content instead to claim that I do not understand what the word unfalsifiable means, where as in fact they don't.

Then explain it to them, Ian, instead of losing your temper and calling them names. Maybe that would make them listen a bit more closely.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Maybe you were using the term falsifiable in a non-Popperian sense. Maybe people are using it to mean the exact same as refutable.

Firstly I think this generates confusion.
Secondly it is clear that you were employing falsification in the Popperian sense, otherwise you would be saying "My argument is not refutable" ie it is sound!

(groan)...we've been through this, and you have yet to show you are right.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


This last point is precisely the point Popper was addressing. We must actively search out ways of demonstrating our hypothesis false. This is exactly why modern science has introduced the construct of the null hypothesis. It addresses Popper's falsifiabilty because we look for ways to prove ourselves wrong. What Claus has rightly pointed out is that you have defined yourself into a corner. You have constructed insular defintions that are not falsifiable and therefore useless in trying to further our understanding of how things are.



For crying out loud! Logical arguments should not be falsifiable! (Popperian sense). Otherwise they wouldn't be logical. If my argument could be falsified because of some particular physical states of affairs, then by definition my argument would be fallacious!

Look, it's quite clear that nobody on here understands my point about falsifiability. Whether it's because people are incredibly stupid, or whether people are simply trying to piss me off, I don't know. What I do know is that there is no further point to me posting anymore to this thread. The discussion is over.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yup, I'm in a bad mood. My argument is not falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) as you correctly observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thank you. Ergo, it is wrong of you to claim that nobody has refuted you, because they can't refute you. Ergo, you cannot claim victory.



No NO No!! Simply because my argument is unfalsifiable (Popperian sense) doesn't entail that it's not refutable! How many times must I explain this???? :eek:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That is to say that no empirical facts could disprove my argument. This is because my argument doesn't rest on empirical facts about the world. It is an argument attempting to show that materialism is internally incoherent (if you accept the existence of phenomenal consciousness).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I assume that you do. What do you base this acceptance on, Ian? Are you pointing to empirical facts, or merely argument?

If you are pointing to empirical facts, then you are using materialistic evidence to prove (or "show", if you like) that materialism is not true. Duh, one might say.

If, on the other hand, you are pointing to mere argument, then you are merely creating a thought-experiment that proves nothing. Duh, one might say.



It's not a thought experiment. It is reasoning. It is showing that you cannot reconcile phenomenal consciousness with materialism. Nothing to do with physical laws and physical facts. Materialism couldn't be true in any possible Universe.

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It has to be in principle falsifiable. In other words there has to be a logically possible Universe where it is false. There are no logically possible Universes where 1 + 1 = 2 is false. Therefore you are talking out of your arsehole. Clear enough?

Ah, now I feel like I've finally arrived here, after spending almost two years on this board. Finally, someone starts attacking me instead of trying to address my points. Snif, I'm moved.

No I didn't notice. I understand what "+" and "=" means. No need for you to provide a definition if indeed this was what your gobbledegook was supposed to convey.

If you knew anything about predicate logic or number theory, you would know that what I wrote was the standard definition for addition.

Kindly tell me how x + 0 could not equal x. Do you understand the concept of zero??

Oh, I understand it very well. I also understand that you don't know anything about the predicate calculus or number theory.

Wow! You've got it!/quote]

But apparently you didn't.

[quote]You complete cretin. The concept of falsifiability only applies to scientific theories! For Christs sake! Go get a f*cking clue, dickhead.

Has anybody ever told you that you look cute when angry?


I have no interest in debating mathematics you complete and total moron. I want to know what it means to say that my argument in blue in the post above, is not falsifiable. Are you going to address this f*cking question or not??

And I have no interest in reading your rants, to tell the truth, so I guess we are even.


Hey spastic! What about the argument we had before about repeating Numbers where you said an infinite sequence would be required rather than an unlimited sequence. I never noticed you refute my argument.

Actually, you remember the events little incorrectly. Your argument was refuted again and again, but you didn't understand it.

I'll give you a free hint: There are many subjects where good self-confidence can be substituted for real skill, but mathematics is not one of those.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No NO No!! Simply because my argument is unfalsifiable (Popperian sense) doesn't entail that it's not refutable! How many times must I explain this???? :eek:

Until people understand it. Could it be that you are not very good at explaining yourself?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not a thought experiment. It is reasoning. It is showing that you cannot reconcile phenomenal consciousness with materialism. Nothing to do with physical laws and physical facts. Materialism couldn't be true in any possible Universe.

Yes, that's nice. Whatever.

You are trying to reason your way to a solution that tells you that the material world does not exist?

Does this brick I am about to hit you with on the head exist, Ian? If you don't know that I am hitting you with it, why do you feel it, then?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


Ah, now I feel like I've finally arrived here, after spending almost two years on this board. Finally, someone starts attacking me instead of trying to address my points. Snif, I'm moved.



If you knew anything about predicate logic or number theory, you would know that what I wrote was the standard definition for addition.



Oh, I understand it very well. I also understand that you don't know anything about the predicate calculus or number theory.



Has anybody ever told you that you look cute when angry?



And I have no interest in reading your rants, to tell the truth, so I guess we are even.



Actually, you remember the events little incorrectly. Your argument was refuted again and again, but you didn't understand it.

I'll give you a free hint: There are many subjects where good self-confidence can be substituted for real skill, but mathematics is not one of those.

My argument was only refuted by assuming a particular interpretation of what I said. An interpretation which I did not intend, and which I always denied. But this point about an infinite seres as compared to an unlimited series of numbers doesn't relate to that anyway.

And why do you imagine that I have any interest in discussing mathematics? I have no interest. I was simply stating that 1 + 1 = 2 is unfalsifiable (Popperian sense).

If you disagree you don't know what falsificationism means. This has got nothing to do with mathematics. It's simply acknowledging that 1 + 1 = 2 must obtain in all logically possible Universes.

You keep ignoring this point. But it is the only important one.

Learn what falsifcationism means

And if you still think that an infinite sequence is required rather than an unlimited sequence then let's hear your argument.

Otherwise I suggest you shut the f*ck up.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It has to be in principle falsifiable. In other words there has to be a logically possible Universe where it is false. There are no logically possible Universes where 1 + 1 = 2 is false. Therefore you are talking out of your arsehole. Clear enough?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah, now I feel like I've finally arrived here, after spending almost two years on this board. Finally, someone starts attacking me instead of trying to address my points. Snif, I'm moved.



It seems that your lack of reading comprehension rivals that of your mind numbing stupidity . Take note of what I said:


It has to be in principle falsifiable. In other words there has to be a logically possible Universe where it is false. There are no logically possible Universes where 1 + 1 = 2 is false. Therefore you are talking out of your arsehole. Clear enough?


My whole point rests on this which you completely ignored :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Until people understand it. Could it be that you are not very good at explaining yourself?



Yes, that's nice. Whatever.

You are trying to reason your way to a solution that tells you that the material world does not exist?

Does this brick I am about to hit you with on the head exist, Ian? If you don't know that I am hitting you with it, why do you feel it, then?

:mad:

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with arguing against a material world!!

So much for your reading comprehension skills and intelligence.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For crying out loud! Logical arguments should not be falsifiable! (Popperian sense). Otherwise they wouldn't be logical. If my argument could be falsified because of some particular physical states of affairs, then by definition my argument would be fallacious!

Look, it's quite clear that nobody on here understands my point about falsifiability. Whether it's because people are incredibly stupid, or whether people are simply trying to piss me off, I don't know. What I do know is that there is no further point to me posting anymore to this thread. The discussion is over.
There is no Popperian sense in which a logical argument is falsifiable. Falsifiability applies to the veracity of a premise. This gets to the very crux of my earlier points about deduction and induction. I can construct a valid syllogism as follows:

All A have B
C is an A
Therefore, C has a B.

In this abstract form, it is valid. We have no reason to believe it unsound. But to put it to work, we need to have the rubber meet the road:

All objects fall up
A brick is an object
Therefore, this brick falls up

This follows the same valid form, and is therefore valid logically. But it is not sound, because objects don't fall up. But how do we know objects don't fall up? Corroborating or refuting the veracity of a premise is where Popper's falsifiability comes into play. It is falsifiable, and can be tested. We do it over and over again, with many different objects, and see that they don't fall up. We therefore declare the major premise false and the argument unsound.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

There is no Popperian sense in which a logical argument is falsifiable. Falsifiability applies to the veracity of a premise.



Yes yes yes. *I* know this. Tell all your materialist friends on this thread.



This gets to the very crux of my earlier points about deduction and induction. I can construct a valid syllogism as follows:

All A have B
C is an A
Therefore, C has a B.

In this abstract form, it is valid. We have no reason to believe it unsound. But to put it to work, we need to have the rubber meet the road:

All objects fall up
A brick is an object
Therefore, this brick falls up

This follows the same valid form, and is therefore valid logically. But it is not sound, because objects don't fall up. But how do we know objects don't fall up? Corroborating or refuting the veracity of a premise is where Popper's falsifiability comes into play. It is falsifiable, and can be tested. We do it over and over again, with many different objects, and see that they don't fall up. We therefore declare the major premise false and the argument unsound.


My argument, as I keep stating, does not involve claims about particular states of affairs. My premises are simply that phenomenological consciousness exists, and that the definition of materialism is that the physical exhausts reality. Therefore there is nothing to falsify. Refute yes, not falsify.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
:mad:

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with arguing against a material world!!

So much for your reading comprehension skills and intelligence.

No? You are not arguing against materialism??

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My argument, as I keep stating, does not involve claims about particular states of affairs. My premises are simply that phenomenological consciousness exists, and that the definition of materialism is that the physical exhausts reality. Therefore there is nothing to falsify. Refute yes, not falsify. I think I understand your position (slightly) Ian, though I don't agree with it.

Your argument seems to assume the conclusions as premises. My summary below of your argument below is unfair, but I make it for emphasis - to show why I am dissatisfied with it.

1. Premise: Phenomenological consciousness cannot be explained by materialism.
2. Premise: Phenomenological consciousness exists in the universe.
3. Conclusion: materialism cannot explain the universe.

Now I agree with you that if we accept your premises, then your conclusion is logical and irrefutable. The problem is that most of us here don't exist either or both of your premises, and you don't seem to have any convincing arguments why we should accept them - other than, "It's obvious!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
I think I understand your position (slightly) Ian, though I don't agree with it.

Your argument seems to assume the conclusions as premises. My summary below of your argument below is unfair, but I make it for emphasis - to show why I am dissatisfied with it.

1. Premise: Phenomenological consciousness cannot be explained by materialism.
2. Premise: Phenomenological consciousness exists in the universe.
3. Conclusion: materialism cannot explain the universe.

Now I agree with you that if we accept your premises, then your conclusion is logical and irrefutable. The problem is that most of us here don't exist either or both of your premises, and you don't seem to have any convincing arguments why we should accept them - other than, "It's obvious!"

At last! Someone who has sent a sensible post :)

Premise 1 is not a premise, but rather something I argue for ie it's a conclusion.

Maybe expand on this later.

[Jeff Corey]

"1. Phenomenological consciousness cannot be explained by materialism. "
I don't understand this. Consciousness has a number of scientific definitions:
Being awake and resposive to stimuli, rather than being in a coma, deep sleep or dead. (material world)
Being able to describe what's going around you and being able to comment about your observations. (material world)
Private events, such as cognition, comtemplation, planning, philosophizing and so forth that you don't share with others, but just mull over in your inner sensorium. These are extremely dicey to treat scientifically, because there is no reliable way to measure them. They are the ultimate in subjectivity, except for schizophrenic hallucinations, certain mushrooms and opiated hash with a speedball chaser.
Phenomenologically, phenomenological consciousness is a black hole containing an enigma wrapped in a flour tortilla with special suace.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


...snip...
Private events, such as cognition, comtemplation, planning, philosophizing and so forth that you don't share with others, but just mull over in your inner sensorium. These are extremely dicey to treat scientifically, because there is no reliable way to measure them. They are the ultimate in subjectivity, except for schizophrenic hallucinations, certain mushrooms and opiated hash with a speedball chaser.
...snip...


But even these private, "subjective" events seem to be tied very tightly to "real things happening". Electrodes or even a scalpel in a brain can make someone say "I saw twinkles".

Just been reading up on work to make prosthesis for blind people, similar to the cochlea implants - some fascinating stuff and it seems more and more that we can say what particular "brain states" makes "me" say "I can see twinkles".



http://neural.iit.edu/visualprosthesis2.htm (Please note the site talks about an animal experiment.)

...snip...

Attempts to stimulate vision by electrically stimulating the cerebral cortex go back at least to 1918, when Lowenstein and Borchardt accidentally stimulated the striate (visual) cortex of a man undergoing surgery for a bullet wound to the head. The patient reported a twinkling sensation. Subsequent experiments throughout the century confirmed this finding and showed that the stimulated perceptual flashes, now called phosphenes, always reoccur in the same part of the visual field as long as the same part of the cortex is stimulated.

...snip...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes yes yes. *I* know this. Tell all your materialist friends on this thread.
I beg to differ. I said the argument is not subject to Popper's falsification. I also said each premise is.
My argument, as I keep stating, does not involve claims about particular states of affairs. My premises are simply that phenomenological consciousness exists, and that the definition of materialism is that the physical exhausts reality. Therefore there is nothing to falsify. Refute yes, not falsify.
Since when is an existence assertion not an assertion about a particular state of affairs?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat
But even these private, "subjective" events seem to be tied very tightly to "real things happening". Electrodes or even a scalpel in a brain can make someone say "I saw twinkles".

Just been reading up on work to make prosthesis for blind people, similar to the cochlea implants - some fascinating stuff and it seems more and more that we can say what particular "brain states" makes "me" say "I can see twinkles".

True. But if someone says, "I'm thinking about a white unicorn", there's no way to verify that. Not at the present.
But that's a horse of a different color.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I beg to differ. I said the argument is not subject to Popper's falsification. I also said each premise is.

Since when is an existence assertion not an assertion about a particular state of affairs?

State of affairs as in the external world. Obviously the assertion of the existence of phenomenal consciousness.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
State of affairs as in the external world. Obviously the assertion of the existence of phenomenal consciousness.

So this is, essentially, the same logic:

1. Premise: An invisible purple dragon cannot be detected by any scientific means.
2. Premise: Invisible purple dragons exist
3. Conclusion: Science cannot detect invisible purple dragons

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


So this is, essentially, the same logic:

1. Premise: An invisible purple dragon cannot be detected by any scientific means.
2. Premise: Invisible purple dragons exist
3. Conclusion: Science cannot detect invisible purple dragons

"1" is not a premise in my argument but rather a conclusion. As for premise "2" I have always said that I am taking for granted the existence of phenomenal consciousness. If you deny the existence of pc then my argument doesn't work.