On the last question I posed, and purely as a logician (I have little interest in the vast cloud of frankly-overblown sectoral /vague pizza-cut early concept philosophies with no operational definitions) - the matter swings back to
1. the mind-body interaction definition problem (ie. Is the mind simply a product of the physical brain?), and;
2. the method-limitation of our various scientific methods - eg. restrict yourself to subject matter which can be proven by
a. falsification (deductive, abductive) or
b. inductive strength qualification (including . . . . . non-monotonic quantity categorical logics - eg.defeasible logic)
. .c. transductive (combinations of any of a, b)
The short-form commonsense clue to the meaning of falsification is simply that 'if you can't tell/prove when something is not there or didn't happen, then you have no way of knowing /proving when it is there or did happen'.
1. the mind-body interaction definition problem (ie. Is the mind simply a product of the physical brain?), and;
2. the method-limitation of our various scientific methods - eg. restrict yourself to subject matter which can be proven by
a. falsification (deductive, abductive) or
b. inductive strength qualification (including . . . . . non-monotonic quantity categorical logics - eg.defeasible logic)
. .c. transductive (combinations of any of a, b)
The short-form commonsense clue to the meaning of falsification is simply that 'if you can't tell/prove when something is not there or didn't happen, then you have no way of knowing /proving when it is there or did happen'.
Last edited: