Karl "Falsifiability" Popper believed the soul was nonmaterial.

[anonymous]

Many skeptics say theories that contradict materialism are unscientific because those theories are not falsifiable.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable. For a theory to be testable, it must be falsifiable: there must be a situation, where if the theory is wrong you can demonstrate it is wrong.

You can test the theory of gravity by measuring how objects fall. If they don't accelerate the way the theory of gravity predicts they should, then the theory is wrong, it is falsified. If objects do fall the way the theory predicts, then the theory is right.

Skeptics often say belief in spirits or psi is unscientific because any unexplained phenomena can be said to be caused by a spirit or by psi and there is no way to disprove it.

What may be surprising to many skeptics is that Karl Popper, who first proposed that falsifibility is necessary for a theory to be scientific, did not believe in materialism. He believed in dualism which holds that the mind is nonmaterial.

The wikipedia article on Karl Popper explains falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#Falsifiability

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.

The article on Philosophy of Mind describes Popper as a defender of interactionist dualism espoused by Descartes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Interactionist dualism, or simply interactionism, is the particular form of dualism first espoused by Descartes in the Meditations.[8] In the 20th century, its major defenders have been Karl Popper and John Carew Eccles.[30] It is the view that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, causally interact with physical states.[9]

The article on Rene Descartes explains that dualism as espoused by Descartes holds that the soul is nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes#Dualism

Descartes in his Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties. The mind (or soul), on the other hand, was described as a nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature.

Is belief in psi or spirits unscientific? It depends. It depends on what those beliefs are theorized as an explanation of. For example, if you theorize that spirits are an explanation of mediumship, that can be tested. If a medium is communicating with a spirit, the medium should be able to obtain information about the spirit that medium could not otherwise know. If the medium could not obtain any information about the spirit such as their appearance, their personality traits, the things they did in life etc., then the theory that the medium is communicating with a spirit would not pass the test.

There is, in fact, a lot of evidence that mediums do communicate with spirits. The medium Mrs Piper passed many such tests.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by anonymous

What may be surprising to many skeptics is that Karl Popper, who first proposed that falsifibility is necessary for a theory to be scientific, did not believe in materialism. He believed in dualism which holds that the mind is nonmaterial.

Here is my understanding of Popper and Falsifiability.

Materialism, Dualism and Falsifiability are philosophical ideas/theories/systems. They are not considered scientific hypotheses. So Popper's falsifiability criteria does not apply to them and Popper or now day critical rationalists to not use falsifiability to examine philosophical systems. It is strictly for empirical hypothesis. Philosophical systems are challenged against each other by arguments and the process is more complicated than just using some simple criteria like falsifiability.

Also, several other issues exist with falsifiability and critical rationalism.

First, one has to believe there is a serious problem of induction of which Hume talked about or that this is a problem created only with modernism.

Second, falsifiability and critical rationalism has a learning theory that is different from those found with Verificationism, Confirmationism, Baysianism or any inductive inference scheme. In critical rationalism, hypothesis are considered candidates for truth until they are falsified. This means that no amount of supportive or positive evidence increases their "degrees of truthfulness," they simply remain at the same status until expelled by a "real falsification."

Third, falsification is a logical issue. It just changes the form of hypothesis testing into a valid one if you accept there is a problem of induction. From an application or practical POV there still is the issue of whether an experiment or group of experiments constitute a "real falsification."

Forth, Popper's demarcation criteria never panned out quite as expected but in critical rationalism it is still an topic of investigation.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Materialism, Dualism and Falsifiability are philosophical ideas/theories/systems. They are not considered scientific hypotheses. So Popper's falsifiability criteria does not apply to them and Popper or now day critical rationalists to not use falsifiability to examine philosophical systems. It is strictly for empirical hypothesis. Philosophical systems are challenged against each other by arguments and the process is more complicated than just using some simple criteria like falsifiability.

Can philosophical ideas and empirical observations reinforce or contract each other? What is the role for philosophy as compared to the role for science science in furthering understanding of the universe?

I'm not asking this with respect to dualism and falsifiability - but in general, how to philosophy and science work together?


Thanks

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Can philosophical ideas and empirical observations reinforce or contract each other? What is the role for philosophy as compared to the role for science science in furthering understanding of the universe?

I'm not asking this with respect to dualism and falsifiability - but in general, how to philosophy and science work together?


Thanks

Philosophical systems do not or should not really contradict experience and can't really be challenged by experience because they are meta-positions about experience itself. I guess if they were really contradicted or challenged by experience then they wouldn't be philosophies anymore. I don't consider materialism a philosophy but a falsified belief system.

So philosophies provide systems or languages within which politics, art, science and culture are interpreted.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Can philosophical ideas and empirical observations reinforce or contract each other? What is the role for philosophy as compared to the role for science science in furthering understanding of the universe?

I'm not asking this with respect to dualism and falsifiability - but in general, how to philosophy and science work together?


Thanks

That's a good question. My opinion is this: Without any understanding of philosophy, science is adrift and very likely to spin its wheels. It's the compass by which science steers.

No matter where you turn, you have to deal with philosophy because whether you like it or not, you already have one which you use to guide your decisions. Even rejecting philosophy is a philosophy.

To dismiss philosophy is foolish because it examines the underlying assumptions in our reasoning and points out the flaws. If our reasoning has flaws, this surely has real world consequences, as much in science as elsewhere. If, for example, we are dead set on proving something materially because of our beliefs, then we will be blind to other interpretations of evidence that we encounter. Knowing that we have this belief is the first step in questioning it.

And you must first question a belief before you can address any evidence affected by it. That's what philosophy does.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

To dismiss philosophy is foolish because it examines the underlying assumptions in our reasoning and points out the flaws. If our reasoning has flaws, this surely has real world consequences, as much in science as elsewhere. If, for example, we are dead set on proving something materially because of our beliefs, then we will be blind to other interpretations of evidence that we encounter. Knowing that we have this belief is the first step in questioning it.

I agree with you in spirit. However, philosophy only examines underlying assumptions if the ways that philosophers talk about things are actually related to the things themselves. It is not clearly obvious that this is the case.


~~ Paul

[really]

Originally Posted by anonymous

I'm not asking this with respect to dualism and falsifiability - but in general, how to philosophy and science work together?

Originally Posted by anonymous

Can philosophical ideas and empirical observations reinforce or contradict each other?

Yes. Take for example the ever present immaterialist debate.
That's an argument arising from an intuitive priori philosophical position that humans are special in someway. The empirical evidence for that view is sorely lacking.
On the other hand the physicalist empiricist view has overwhelming evidence that all there is is the laws of nature.

What is the role for philosophy as compared to the role for science science in furthering understanding of the universe?

Philosophy is adequate for asking certain types questions. It argues logically but it is inadequate for providing empirical answers for how nature works.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Can philosophical ideas and empirical observations reinforce or contract each other? What is the role for philosophy as compared to the role for science science in furthering understanding of the universe?

I'm not asking this with respect to dualism and falsifiability - but in general, how to philosophy and science work together?


Thanks

Here is the more interesting issue.

Basically, whatever "validity" science, religion, politics and culture have, stems from some philosophical system.

However with the deconstructive phase of post-modernism in philosophy, the idea of starting with true foundations or access to them was considered to be a failure. Foundationism disappeared in philosophy and relativism came in it's place. We are now talking about the last 50 to 100 years in philosophical history. Modernism is dead.

After this deconstructive phase of post-modernism a new phase has begun called constructive post-modernism or the integral view.

Here the idea is to look for a fallible universalism in philosophy and not absolute foundations. Don't bother looking to ideas like positivism, scientism or any of the views from modernism or before because things are moving in a different direction.

My suggestion for a possible view for the integral age is Process Philosophy.

[Johann]

Originally Posted by really

Yes. Take for example the ever present immaterialist debate.
That's an argument arising from an intuitive priori philosophical position that humans are special in someway. The empirical evidence for that view is sorely lacking.

Why do you keep repeating "humans are special in some way"? Obviously, consciousness applies to more than just humans. Several "immaterial" resolutions of the hard problem involve giving absolutely everything some form of consciousness - which would make us quite ordinary. Even strictly dualist arguments must make exceptions for non-human entities, unless they are really anthropocentric.

On the other hand the physicalist empiricist view has overwhelming evidence that all there is is the laws of nature.

There can't be "just the laws of nature" because this implies a source, and it is obviously not a physical law.

Philosophy is adequate for asking certain types questions. It argues logically but it is inadequate for providing empirical answers for how nature works.

Philosophy cannot provide "empirical" answers for how nature works; that's not what philosophy is designed to do.

- Johann

[really]

Originally Posted by Johann

Why do you keep repeating "humans are special in some way"?

You've worded the underlined incorrectly. It should read like this. The majority of people generally believe they are special in some way. Religions reflects this belief and so do the ideas and beliefs expressed here and elsewhere.

Now specifically topics discussed here and elsewhere are all anthropocentric. Such ideas as NDE's supporting the afterlife. What's the role my consciousness plays in creating reality. Does my consciousness transcend my mortal existence, Pk, astral projection, etc. In all the things discussed and thought about there's an I. Sometimes it's a capitol 'I' sometimes it's a small 'i'.

Originally Posted by Johann

There can't be "just the laws of nature" because this implies a source, and it is obviously not a physical law.

Perhaps. But from where did the source come from ? Why is it so much easier to envision a source giving rise to this universe then it is to grapple with the idea the universe came into existence all on its own ?

Originally Posted by Johann

Philosophy cannot provide "empirical" answers for how nature works; that's not what philosophy is designed to do.

- Johann

Here we agree and because of that it should never be used solely to prove a point empirically.