Consider this thesis:
- Only natural facts explain contingent truths.
For:
- Only facts knowable by the scientific method are natural facts.
- The non-existence of immaterial beings that do not interact with the physical world is not knowable by the scientific method.
- It is a contingent fact that the Daughters of the Great Ones don't exist.
- That the Daughters of the Great Ones don't exist is explained by the fact that the Great Ones don't exist.
- That the Great Ones don't exist is not knowable by the scientific method.
- That the Great Ones don't exist is a non-natural fact that explains the contingent fact that the Daughters of the Great Ones don't exist.
- Therefore, at least one non-natural fact explains a contingent truth.
3 comments:
A rather obvious response to this is that there are no non-existence facts or any negative facts in general. So, since there are no negative non-natural facts, the counter-example does not go through. The intuition that there are no negative facts seem plausible to me. Is there some need for negative facts that I am unaware of?
A fact is a true proposition. There are true negative propositions. (Try to deny that without self-contradiction!)
Of course, one might deny that there are negative states of affairs. But states of affairs are not the relata of explanation--it is propositions that are the relata of explanation.
Also, there is the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, which does call out for an explanation.
Perhaps something like:
1. Only facts knowable by the scientific method are natural facts.
2. The scientific method is not knowable by the scientific method.
3. The scientific method is a non-natural fact. from 1 and 2
4. The scientific method can explain some contingent truth.
5. A non-natural fact can explain some contingent truth. from 3 and 4
I wonder whether or not 4 can be defended? It is used in explaining, but does that mean it explains?
Post a Comment