3 ms·

Isn't that the default stance in philosophy? Assume something is false until evidence proven true. You cannot begin with the assumption that something is true,

by warent 5y ago

Isn't that the default stance in philosophy? Assume something is false until evidence proven true. You cannot begin with the assumption that something is true, otherwise we're back to the mystical dark ages of magic monsters and alchemy

vkou 5y ago
> Assume something is false until evidence proven true. This cuts both ways, depending how your phrase the assumption. Which of these statements should we assume false, until proven true: "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." Philosophy isn't going to rescue us from this. Climate science will.
anotherman554 5y ago
I don't think this is correct. Philosophies vary but philosophy of knowledge deals with how you can know something. The opposite of knowing something isn't assuming it is false.
monktastic1 5y ago
Assuming that something is false isn't the same as denying it.
genericuser314 5y ago
Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims. Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed. The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions. I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

by warent 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

> Assume something is false until evidence proven true. This cuts both ways, depending how your phrase the assumption. Which of these statements should we assume false, until proven true: "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." "Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause meaningful negative impacts on human civilization." Philosophy isn't going to rescue us from this. Climate science will.

anotherman554 5y ago

I don't think this is correct. Philosophies vary but philosophy of knowledge deals with how you can know something. The opposite of knowing something isn't assuming it is false.

monktastic1 5y ago

Assuming that something is false isn't the same as denying it.

genericuser314 5y ago

Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims. Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed. The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions. I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/