> It seems to me much of what we are all doing is quibbling over
definitions,
> claiming a philosophical position can't be proved but it can be VALIDATED.
> Validated in whose eyes? In the eyes of whoever is advocating it, I
imagine.
> We can both think of beliefs so widely accepted, that it would be easy to
> argue that they have been VALIDATED. Is that what you mean? Would you
> consider a philosophical position VALIDATED when it is held by a numerical
> majority? I say philosophical positions can not be proved, and I can't
> prove that. I have no desire to try. It is merely my philosophical
position.
In science a concept is considered to be valid when the evidence demonstrates
that validity. It goes back to my "What would the universe look like if this
concept were true" question. If a concept under investigation were to
predict that the sky is blue, the fact that the sky is blue is good evidence
validating that concept. However, if the concept were to predict that the
sky is pink and teal green poka dots, the fact that it is not is good
evidence that that concept is invalid.
So if a philosophical concept predicts that the universe should look one way,
and we discover that the universe really does look that way, we can consider
the concept validated, and even those who oppose the concept should agree.
Is the concept proven? No, because new evidence may appear later that shows
that the appearance that we thought validated the concept was simply an
illusion, or we discover that the concept makes a further prediction that is
not validated by the universe. Until that happens, however, dislike of a
concept is not sufficient evidence to doubt its validity.
Kevin L. O'Brien