This line of reasoning came up in another thread recently, and it otherwise comes up often as well: So there is the idea that in order to examine the attributes of something, we first need to prove that said something exists. But how can we prove the existence of a phenomenon if we do not know about its attributes? Without knowing its attributes, how could we even look for it?
It depends on the discussion being had. If everything is being discussed on a hypothetical level only then nothing need be proven, but then the conclusions drawn are hypothetical, and conditional upon assumptions of existence etc being valid. So sure, I would say with, say, God, it might be worth understanding what the attributes are so that you can identify it when you see it. But until you see something with these attributes it is merely an idea, nothing more. And this then leads to appeals to authority: if the attributes can not be tested, how is one to know that the authority providing the description of the attributes is valid? Science often infers existence of something through its testable attributes. And that's the key here. Many years ago science could not prove the existence of, say, the electron directly. Science established electrons as a "black box" which had certain attributes. And they could test these attributes again and again. If you could not test the attributes of something then you are left with an unscientific idea... untestable and ultimately irrelevant... as untestable attributes find no place in reality. Reality is testable.
I am probably echoing Sarkus's comments froma slightly different angle. The idea is wrong. Science, as practiced today, is methodologically naturalistic. It 'pretends' that things are as they seem, that they obey certain laws in a consistent fashion and that we can determine these laws through diligent observation. So we can properly say that we do not need to prove something exists before choosing to study it. Certainly we need reasonable grounds for suspecting it's existence, but no more than that.
Ditto. Quite right. What we do in cases like these, is to grant the existence of the purported object conditionally, so as to investigate the phenomenon.
Scientific methods often equates with reality (therefor the usefulness of the methods). But reality does not need to equate with scientific methods. There is a distinction there that shouldn't go unnoticed. Reality is not always testable. There could be a lot of things that are *real* but which science can't reach. We can't know about them using scientific methods, but that is not to say that they aren't a reality, or that they doesn't exist. Relevancy is a different issue. But what is relevant to you might differ from what is relevant to me, thus of personal like/dislike nature, like which movies you'd rather see or what colors you like most, etc.
Can you name something that is real that is not testable? Just for an example? I'm not meaning testable in a currently-I-am-able-to-test-it way but in an absolute way. Also, anything that is not testable is something that does not interact. If it does not interact, even though it might exist, is logically consistent with something that does NOT exist... and thus, in my view, can be considered not real. Sure - but such things can be tested, and are real.
There could be another universe besides our own, and we have no way of testing it. Just because we can't test it doesn't mean that it doesn't in fact exist, and may host intelligent being self-aware just as us (so that they can see and understand that it exists). Or there is a planet too dark to see some billion light-years away, let's say that it orbits a galaxy (don't know if that is possible but...) and we have no way of measuring it since the interaction between the planet and the galaxy cancel out, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Real or not is not up to us to decide. If something exists then it might exist totally independent of interactions in this world. Logic tells us that we can't know, that it is irrelevant to us, but it doesn't tell us that it doesn't exist, that is the main point.
I have no issue with your examples, but I would contend that if something does not interact... or cannot interact with us... then it is not real to us... not part of our reality... that it is logically consistent with something that does not exist. Which is why I would make a distinction between reality and existence... everything within our reality exists, but not everything that exists is necessarily part of our reality.
I think we might differ in what we call reality. When I use the word reality then that means everything that in one way or another is real. So it doesn't have to belong to our reality in order for me to call it a reality - with the only requirement that it exists in any reality (or part of existence). That is the kind of reality that is not shown to be non-existent just because it can't be measured by us. Still I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about what can't exist, but we could of course categorise some subjects to belong in other categories and say that it doesn't exist in our category.
You're correct to note that this is of great relevance here... However... Two points: This definition is circular, and therefore fallacious. This definition is tautologous, and therefore devoid of meaning. ...time for a new definition....
Opinion only: Philosophically it is asserted indeed. It is a valid perspective. That my opinion. Suggetsion of x is unproven. Therein suggestion of x takes skeptical position. This is a semantical problem that has a logically cogent answer.
I do not necessarily mean test-by-humans either. I am meaning the word "test" as in "capable of being tested". But I am also meaning it as an absolute - either something (or some property of the thing) is capable of being tested or it is not, irrespective of whether we are currently in a position to be able to test it.
I think there is a lot more to this, though. Consider our day to day lives: We grant conditional existence to all kinds of phenomena - from matters of food preparation to successfully completing a course of education to the success of a marriage we are about to enter. We could say that by cooking, studying, driving, etc. etc. we are "investigating the phenomenon". But when we begin a course of education, for example, we do not do so in order to "investigate the phenomenon". We do not go to college in order to test whether we can complete it, for example. We go there in the hope that obtaining a college education will have significant benefits for us. Similar for cooking, going to work, marrying, etc. There is much more to our activities that merely "investigating the phenomena". I contend that all our efforts are structured similarly, even those we call "metaphysical". And that reducing an inquiry to merely "investigating the phenomenon" is misleading and insufficient. To the point, when we "investigate the phenomenon" of that which we call "reality", "self", "God", "life", we put much more at stake than just merely trying to find out what these things are. I contend that what drives is in these inquiries is more than just mere curiosity or a mere desire for knowledge acquisition - and that instead, we are trying to satisfy an important desire or a purpose.
If we agree that the only capacities for testing that we have are the human capacities (and this as-they-currently-are, at that) then how can we meaningfully refer to any other kind of testing? Do you hereby mean to point at logical impossibilites - such as trying to test whether a particular circle is square?
signal. I believe I have clarified your problem in this post. Your assersion is "of the abilitys able to allow valid testing." In this post I have clarified what valid testing would be. View above as I clarify and assert the post once more. Philosophically it is asserted. It is seen to be a valid perspective. No one claims to not be in posession of X knowledge. This claim cannot be simply rebuted. My opinion. This is an assertable as well as provable claim perhaps a reality- this is a point in debate and easy to view when philosophizing in language in the least. It is a position- the position is semantical for better wording presently lacked, the answer has a logically cogent answer. The cogent reply would be only one thing though. A description of this state, from the perspective of which it is in an unmovable and testable position or stance. One cannot prove something without first having the ability to prove or disprove. Yet scientifically at least if asked philosohpically and without a prior position- and this is as stating the arguement in lesser terms and conditions- which isn't feasable. Existentially, with regard to freedom, and any other philosphical position one may validaly take, this type of position is seen as asserting that the position of x is proven already or not. If position x is already proven, then it is seen as valid already and this is a logical position to put forward. Yet that is not half the problem it appears to be. And so I would state, ... If we desire to state, position X true without or prior to knowledge on the issue then position x can only achieve a different result, if you assume that the logical arguement is not as valid here as this one. So you arrive with it is possible to prove position x if position x is proven already as existing. Yet as position x is seen to not exist with validiting position (let's say y) then you have position a (lets say position x) which is asserting position x and in this position position x asserts itself. Yet in asserting position x position x is shown to exist how it exists. If position x exists how it exists for position x then position x is valid as position x and it can't really be shown to exist otherwise unless you wanted to show how position x may be un true- yet position x as true would validitate position x from being a different position say position y or z or whatever... If you assert position x as true then you have no disagreement. This seems to be a general and valid arguement. You could finish the arguement- if you like, or if you would prefer justify position x for me and assert the debatable as I have here. Interestingly enough position x asserts itself unless position x does not achieve the desired synthesis. It can only achieve the desired synthesis x in one of several ways is my opinion. jessc *phew*
Perhaps time for assumptions instead? Philosophy is after all mostly based on assumptions and what implications those assumptions would have (at least that's the way my philosophy works). So one assumption that we should be ready to make is that we all share existence (common reality), there is a certain translation of reality which seems to be more real than other translations, this is what I would call objective reality - even if it can't be proven to actually exist, the translation gives a benefit over other translations, in that others can relate to it, and in that it is easier to survive and in that it is a foundation that can be used to derive more of the same translation (one thing logically follows from another thing). But the translations itself (and the downs and ups of them) isn't what is at discussion here, but rather if we can assume the non-existence of something that is not measured (and the natural assumption for that is that there is a common reality, or a common existence in which everything exists). We can't assume that a common existence doesn't exist, just because we can't measure it objectively. Therefor all implications that a common existence would imply would also be valid for all things that may happen in that common existence. As such it is invalid to say that because something cannot be measured it cannot exist. It is invalid to say that we know that it doesn't exist, and that it is somehow logically inferred from not being able to measure it.
