Matt Springer has a nice (and very confused) take on the problem of scientific proof. Following him I have devised this amazing scientific proof to the existence of an afterlife:
There are two possibilities:
- Proposition 1: There is no after-life. I do not exist after my death.
- Proposition 2: There is an after-life. I would still exist after I die.
As Matt rightly spots, Proposition 1 is unverifiable. If you don’t exist after you die, then you cannot know it.
Hence, it is disqualified under the pretense of being unscientific.
Proposition 2, however, is verifiable, because if it were true, then I would clearly know that when I discover I have died and retain my existence. But if proposition 2 was false, then proposition 1, which is unscientific, would be true. But if truth is only scientific truth, then proposition 1 cannot be true.
Q.E.D.
Can you spot the errors?
Filed under: philosophy | Tagged: afterlife, philosophy of science
1 the verifiability of second proposition is depends on its truth so it s not verifiable independently (the first unicorn which will be found can tell us about its corn)
2 however unverifiable proposition is not scientific but can be true (we can argue that weather truth is only scientific truth).
indeed:
“the verifiability of second proposition is depends on its truth so…”
The first commandment of logic: thou shalt always remember Tarksi’s Theorem. If the truth value of a proposition depended on it’s verifiability, then… We got a liar paradox and we can prove anything!
I think this is the logical equivalent of division by zero: you can get numerous paradoxes and bogus proofs this way.
it seems that i was right
i left islam about 7 years ago.
by the way Thanks for late saying welcome
i haven’t written any thing in that blog for 2 years. i just left the address to left a track.
Muslims and Jews despite their struggle have many bad similarities…!
BURGER!