Thursday, February 24, 2011

Non-natural facts explain

Consider this thesis:

  1. Only natural facts explain contingent truths.
(So if there are non-natural facts, they are explanatorily epiphenomenal.) I will argue that (1) is false.

For:

  1. Only facts knowable by the scientific method are natural facts.
  2. The non-existence of immaterial beings that do not interact with the physical world is not knowable by the scientific method.
Now, consider the coherent but false theory that there are two generations of highly intelligent supernatural mathematicians, the first of which are called the "Great Ones" and the second of which are called the "Daughters of the Great Ones", and that they do not interact with the physical world. Then:
  1. It is a contingent fact that the Daughters of the Great Ones don't exist.
  2. That the Daughters of the Great Ones don't exist is explained by the fact that the Great Ones don't exist.
  3. That the Great Ones don't exist is not knowable by the scientific method.
And so:
  1. 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.
  2. Therefore, at least one non-natural fact explains a contingent truth.
And this contradicts (1). So, (1) is false. (And if negative states of affairs can be causes, then maybe we can even say that the non-existence of the Great Ones causes the non-existence of their Daughters.)

at

3 comments:

  1. DerrickFebruary 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alexander R PrussFebruary 24, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brandon ReamsFebruary 25, 2011 at 10:50 AM

    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?

    ReplyDelete