Who Says Only Scientific Statements Make Sense?

[Louis-Antoine]

Hello, though new to AnswerBank, I have been reading current and many earlier posts on the 'Religion and Spirituality' threads, and it astonishes me to see so many (though not all) self-proclaimed scientific authorities eschewing all religious and spiritual beliefs merely on the feeble and illogical grounds that they are lacking in scientific validation.
In his early work 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "The right method of philosophy would be to say nothing except what can be said, that is to say the propositions of natural science."
Regrettably for him, the sentences that constituted the Tractatus itself were not propositions of natural science. In consistency, Wittgenstein had to concede that they were nothing more than nonsense. This line of thought is now known as "Ludwig's Self-Trap'
Wittgenstein spent the latter part of his life repenting the claim that only scientific statements made sense. Others it seems are still willing to follow on into similar traps. I see on here the logical-positivist principle being by upheld; ie. meaningful propositions with relationship to religious beliefs must be either analytic of verification or falsification by experience. However, as the verification principle itself is neither analytic nor empirical, it follows that this assertion has to be meaningless. Does anyone disagree?

[sandyRoe]

And I thought for a moment that a young David had appeared to beard the Goodly unGodly Goliaths in their den.

[Henrietta]

"Oh bloody hell Rojash! You mean to say I've just been lured into a "philosophical" non discussion by someone who is in actual fact, a cretin?"

Lol, you made me laugh answerprancer, if you haven't got a blog or twitter account you should!

[wildwood]

Words are just words. Facts are Facts. You have too much time on your hands Louis-Antoine.

[chelle7272]

You do all make me laugh, not much I can add but my agreement.
AP vulcan and birdie's answer made me actually laugh out loud :-)

[society]

Jim360
"If something is lacking in Scientific validation it may not necessarily be wrong, "

Absolutely; for example, praying.

[jim360]

Depends too on what you mean by "praying is [or is not] wrong". I mean it's pretty much a given that praying has little or no physical effects - even if it does help people individually to cope with their problems as I said in the other thread.

[Louis-Antoine]

This blind alley is still being explored; in / 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality' Alex Rosenberg asserts repeatedly that physics is the whole truth about reality: the physical facts fix all the facts. But that there are no facts other than physical facts is not in itself a physical fact. If it is a fact at all, then there is at least one fact that is not a physical fact. If it is not a fact but a falsehood, then there are facts other than physical facts.
The self-trap snaps shut.':-)

[whiskeryron]

I'll get my coat.

WR.

[chrisgel]

Please do explain Oh wise one! How a fact can be a falsehood.

[jim360]

That's just meaningless drivel.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah but

this view is rooted in A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic

and surely things have moved on since 1936 ?

[Peter Pedant]

Chris gel

"for all x, x doesnt equal x "

fits the bill - it is the opposite of x =x for all x
which I think is true in all logical systems

I thought the point was in a sufficiently rich logical system you had to be able to express untruths ( or false ststements ) as well as true.

[RATTER15]

Louis-Antoine, you talk almost as much sense as "Goodlife" which is virtually none at all!!

I dont think you will be sticking around here much will you? lol

[chrisgel]

Peter Pedant ---- This is interesting! Please bear in mind that my formal education ended some 45 years ago apart from a few things that I have become interested in and studied for myself.
I would have argued, until now, that a fact was the purest form of truth available but our friend here seems to be saying differently.
I know it's a big ask, but I would be genuinely interested if you could point me towards any reading material that explains this seemingly contradictory statement.

[chakka35]

Anyone who starts quoting philosophers in that pretentious way is to be politely humoured. But only until he shuts up. It reminds me of the following:

1st philosopher: "The glass is half-full."

2nd philosopher: "No, no, the glass is half-empty."

Engineer: "The glass is the wrong size in the first place."

[Davethedog]

Ah dear one day in one post? Shall I answer in any rational way, no I think not but back to the Goodlife.

HaHa

[Davethedog]

Ah Ratter never saw your post DOH!!

[jake-the-peg]

Oh you are being naughty aren't you?

"The right method of philosophy would be to say nothing except what can be said, that is to say the propositions of natural science."

Now forgive me if I'm wrong but I think he said
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.“

Somehow the bit about the propositions of natural science in your quote seem to have magically appeared inside the quotation marks - your words not his!



Anyway I think the flaw in this logic is to believe that scientific 'fact' equates to absolute truth.

Clearly it doesn't - even the most certain science, mathematics relies on certain axioms, if you undermine any of these you bring down the house of cards as shown in non-euclidian geometry and Godel's incompleteness theorum etc.

However just because it does not represent 'absolute truth' does not make it meaningless

You can't say a motor car is just as useless as a horse and cart just because a car may get punctures occasionally.

Within the scientific method we use terms like 'proof' to have specific meanings rooted in statistics - the Higgs boson for example was proved at a 5.9 sigma level of certainty.

That is a long way from being meaningless - it is based in probability not words

Such probabilistic 'proof' is a feature of modern science that has become prevalent since Wittgenstein's time - he is essentially a critic of 19th century science.

Using him as a weapon to beat Science up with is not really anymore valid than using the Church's treatment of Gallileo as a weapon to beat them up with

[ludwig]

It sounds a bit like Khandro.