PhilosophyStackExchangeisaquestionandanswersiteforthoseinterestedinlogicalreasoning.

It's100%free,no
registrationrequired.

login

Idon'tunderstandphilosophyverywell,andsoIamwonderingwhetheryoucan"prove"anythinginphilosophy.Italwaysseemsyoucan
goalayerdown,andfindanotherquestion,almostendlesslyuntilyougettothequestionof"why/how/arewehere?"

logic

proof metaphilosophy

editedSep9'14at15:15

askedJun7'11at22:21
JohnM.
346

6 Whythedownvotes?Ithoughtthiswasagoodquestion,myself.JYeltonJun8'11at14:16
@JYelton:Idon'tknowforsure,butIwonderifthequestionisseenasantagonistagainstphilosophyitself.
Acrudetranslationmightbe"Whyareyouidiotstalkingaboutthisstuff?You'llnevergetanysolid
answers."Ididn'treaditthatwaymyself,however.JonEricson Jun10'11at19:16
2 @JonIsupposephilosophyisalwaysinrevision,butthen,soaremanyothersciences.Wehavelawsfor
howgravitybehaves,butoursearchforsubatomicphysicsexplanationscontinuetoreviseour
understanding.Onemightsaysomephilosophicalaxiomsare"true"butwiththeassumptiontheyare
alwayssubjecttochangewithnewinformationanddiscovery.JYeltonJun10'11at19:19
@JYelton:Icompletelyagree.JonEricson Jun10'11at19:31
4 Furthermore,ifwe'rethrowingoutdeductiveproof,thentheregoesallproofinonefellswoop.Because
surelyyoucan'tacceptinductivelogicasawayofobtainingproof,yetdiscarddeductivelogic.boehjJun
15'11at0:59

9Answers

Therearetwocategoriesofthingsthatcanbeprovedinphilosophy:
Thatathinkingthingexists
Thetrivialtruthsoflogic.
I'llcovertheseinorder.Infact,therearephilosophicalargumentsyou'llfindagainstthemboth.
Thebasicideathat'athinkingthingexists'comestousviatheAncientGreeksbutbecame
widelyknownandwasmadepopularbyDescartesinhisMeditations .
Inthisworkhedoubtedeverythinghepossiblycoulduntilhereachedabase,thetruthofwhich
hecouldbeabsolutelycertain.Hethoughtitimportanttohaveasolidfoundationtobuildhis
philosophicalsystemon.
Archimedesusedtodemandjustonefirmandimmovablepointinordertoshifttheentire
earthsoItoocanhopeforgreatthingsifImanagetofindjustonething,howeverslight,that
iscertainandunshakable.
(Unfortunatelyheveryquicklylosthiswayandwentfromthissolidfoundationtoavery
questionableargumentfortheexistenceofGod.)
Cogitoergosum("IthinkthereforeIam")isthefamousphrasefromDescartes'Meditations ."I
thinkthereforeIam"isastrongerstatementthan"Athinkingthingexists"soIhaveputthe
secondforwardforthisanswer.
Itisintheclassoftruthsthatareselfevident.Thinkingaboutitprovesitstruth.Inphilosophywe
can'tdophysicalexperimentstodisproveourtheoriessoweneedtorelyonthoughtexperiments
instead.Thisisanexampleofathoughtexperiment.Ican'tconceiveofanylogicallypossible
wayofthisbeingselfcontradictory,i.e.false.BysimplydoingthatthinkingIhaveprovedthe
proposition'struth.

Thesecondclassofprovablethingsarethetrivialtruthsofdeductivelogic.I'lldividethisintotwo

tour

help

Takethe2minutetour

Canyouproveanythinginphilosophy?

Canyouprove,absolutely,and100%thatsomethingistrue,inthefieldofphilosophy?

signup

parts:
TheLawsofThoughtaxiomaticlawsthatweshouldagreeonbeforewecanstart
discussingphilosophy.
Thetruthsofpropositionallogicthesefollowafterwesetupanaxiomaticsystem.
I'llcovertheseinturn,verybriefly.I'llleaveotherstotearthemdown.
TheLawsofThoughtasacollectionareattributed,likesomuchinphilosophy,toAristotle.They
are:
TheLawofIdentityanobjectisthesameasitself(AA).
TheLawof(Non)Contradiction"thesameattributecannotatthesametimebelongandnot
belongtothesamesubjectandinthesamerespect"1(PP).
TheLawoftheExcludedMiddle"itwillnotbepossibletobeandnottobethesamething...
therecannotbeanintermediatebetweencontradictories,butofonesubjectwemusteither
affirmordenyanyonepredicate."2(PP).
Thereareargumentsagainsteachofthese.
Propositionallogicisasimpleformalsystem.Wedefinewhatisandisn'ttrueviatruthtables
beforeweenterintodiscourseaboutit.
Asimpletruth,bydefinition,inpropositionallogicisfoundinlogicalconjunction.Here'sthetruth
table(fromwikipedia):

Ifbothofitsoperands(p,q)aretruetheconjunctionofthem(pq)isalsotrue.
1Aristotle,Metaphysics .Aristotleclaimedthisasthemostsecureandunshakableofall

principles.
2Ibid.

editedJun8'11at0:30

answeredJun8'11at0:15
boehj
617

12

1 Youdescribedclassicallogic,butphilosophyishardlydefinedbyclassicallogic,giventhatmanynon
classicallogics existandtheirexistenceisinherentlytheresultofphilosophicalpursuit.JosephSpiros
Jun8'11at0:31
I'mnotdefiningphilosophybyclassicallogic.I'mansweringthequestion,"Cananythingbeprovedin
philosophy?"Inyouransweryousay:"Note:Thisanswerassumesyou'reaskingwhetheritispossibleto
proveanySINGLEthinginphilosophy.Ifyouareinsteadaskingifit'spossibletoproveANYTHING,well,
that'sadifferentquestion.I'msureSOMEpeoplewouldsayyoucan."That'sexactlywhatI'vedone.
boehjJun8'11at0:34
3 @boehjPersonally,no,butIalsodon'tdoubtthatsomeonecoulddenyitandcomeupwithadecent
argumentforit.:)JosephSpiros Jun8'11at0:39
1 You'requitecorrectthatit'snot.ButagainI'llsay:Ifweacceptclassicallogicasapartofphilosophy,and
ifweaccepttheaxiomsofthepredicatecalculus,thenyes,wecanprovethingsinphilosophy.boehj
Jun8'11at1:11
3 Justanote(Irealizethisthreadismoreorlessstale):whyareweevendiscussingconsensus?
Consensushasnobearingontruthortheaimofphilosophy.It'scompletelyirrelevantandanarbiterof
nothing.danielmJan20'13at10:32

Philosophyisgenerallypredicatedon,andperhapsmoreabout,askingquestionsratherthan
findinganswers.It'sasearchforwisdom,nottruth.Theonlythingthatallphilosopherswouldall
agreeexists,besidesthemselvesperhaps,wouldbequestions.Andsometimes,philosophers
willpretendthateventhosedon'texist.So,philosophydoesn't,asawhole,assumethatany
fundamentalrulesexistuponwhichtobuild"proven"answers.

Proofisaconceptinmathematics,andmathematicsisinsomewaysaformalizedversionof
philosophythatHASacknowledgedtheexistenceoffundamentalrules(axioms).Itisalsoa
conceptinlegalsystems,whereagain,youhaveformalsystemsthathavefundamentalrules
(laws).
Forfun,readaboutGdel'sincompletenesstheorems .Evenformalsystemswithfundamental
ruleshaveproblems.
Note:Thisanswerassumesyou'reaskingwhetheritispossibletoproveanySINGLEthingin
philosophy.Ifyouareinsteadaskingifit'spossibletoproveANYTHING,well,that'sadifferent
question.I'msureSOMEpeoplewouldsayyoucan.
editedJun7'11at22:52

answeredJun7'11at22:26
JosephSpiros
311

12

+1forbringingGodeltothetable.ArjangJun7'11at22:42
2 actuallyGoedelisaheckofanightmareforthosephilosopherwhothoughttheycouldreachthetruth:)
BobJun7'11at22:48
@Bob:LOL,sowhatifthereisnooneultimatetruth,maybeeventruthitselfisnotmeanttobewhattobe
aimingforbutastepinreachingmetatruth.ArjangJun8'11at1:24
MyfavoritecriticofGdelis:'"Deconstruction"isbasedonaspecializationoftheprinciple,inwhichawork
isinterpretedasastatementaboutitself,usingaliteraryversionofthesamecheaptrickthatKurtGdel
usedtotrytofrightenmathematiciansbackinthethirties.'From:< fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html> .Ithink
I'llaskaquestionaboutthat.JonEricson Jun8'11at19:09
1 Rubbish.Truthandwisdomareinseparable,questionsandtruthareinseparable.Howcouldyouevenaska
meaningfulquestionwithoutbeginningfromsometruth?Whatmeaningdoes"wisdom"havewithout
referencetosometruth?Pseudophilosophicalclaimslikethis(whichultimatelydegenerateintonihilism,
whichisthenegationofphilosophy)remindmeofthepostmodernistperformativecontradiction"thereisno
truth".You'refreetobelieveit,butthenyou'renolongerdoingphilosophy.AndIrepeat:consensusis
meaningless.danielmJan20'13at10:39

Formallogicisabranchofphilosophy,andyes,youcancertainlyprovethatagivenargumentis
valid.Otherbranchesofphilosophy,ofcourse,havebiggerissueswithprovability.Aesthetics,
forexample,doesn'tlenditselftoobjectiveproofverywell.Ontologyandepistemologycanat
timesshadeintoscience,althoughofcoursemanyviewsofthephilosophyofsciencerejectthat
anythingcanbeprovenabsolutely.
Thatsaid,yourquestionitselfisopentophilosophicalinquirycertainlymanyphilosophershave
believedthattheywereprovingthingsconclusivelyyou'dneverconvinceDescartesthathedid
notinfactprovetohimselfthatheexisted,andmanyofAristotle'sideaswereheldtobetruthsfor
manycenturies.
answeredJun7'11at22:38
Wooble
818

2 "Formallogicisabranchofphilosophy,andyes,youcancertainlyprovethatagivenargumentisvalid."
onlyvalidwithintherulesofformallogic,butisthereisnogauranteethatformallogicisconsistentitself.
ArjangJun7'11at22:41

Itdepends.
Considerthephilosophersofscience,theirstruggleistodefinethenatureofafactorthe"proven
true"statement.
AstherehasbeennofinalconclusioninthegenerationaldebatebetweenCarnap,Popper,Kuhn,
Lakatos,Feyerabend,andothers,itwouldbedifficulttoapplytheirunderstandingstothedomain
ofphilosophyasawhole.
However,WecanstatethatCarnap's refutationofvalidation:
Thefirstthesisofphysicalismmaythenberegardedasanewformulationoftheprinciplesof
empiricism:(1)Statementsaretoberegardedasscientificallymeaningfulonlyiftheyarein
principleintersubjectivelyconfirmableordisconfirmable.Ifastatement,bythevery
interpretationimposeduponit,isinprincipleincapableevenofthemostindirectsortof
intersubjectivetest,thenthoughitmayhavemeaningofapurelylogicalsort,ormaybe

significantinthatitcarriespictorial,emotionalormotivativeappeals,ormayevenbetestable
inanexclusivelysubjectivemanner,itcannotbeacceptedasananswertoascientific
question.Thephrase"inprincipleintersubjectivelyconfirmableordisconfirmable"shouldbe
understoodinthemostliberalmanner.Thesortofindirecttestingofassertionshereallowed
forincludesofcoursethetestingofonlypartiallyinterpretedpostulatesystems.It
countenancesasscientificallymeaningful,statementsaboutthemostremote,themost
intricatelyconcealedordifficulttodisentanglestatesofaffairs.Itincludesstatementsabout
uniqueandunrepeatableoccurrences,ifonlytheyareofatypethatplacesthemwithinthe
spatiotemporalnomologicalnetwhichitselfhasanintersubjectiveconfirmationbase.(2)
Statementsaretobeacceptedasscientificallyvalidonlyiftheyaresufficientlyhighly
confirmedbyinprincipleintersubjectivelyavailableevidence.Theprecisemeaningof
"sufficientlyhighlyconfirmed,"aswellastheexactexplicationof"degreeofconfirmation,"
"inductiveprobability,"or"evidentialsupport"neednotbediscussedinthepresentcontext.
Hisuseof"spatiotemporalnomologicalnet"restrictsourknowingtoconfirmationasour
perceptionsofworldareanchoredtemporallytothehereandnow.Aswecannotperceiveor
predicttheentiretotalityoftheuniverse,wecannotdeclarethatanystatementisabsolutelytrue
orfalse,eveninscience,muchlessinthefarhardertotestreachesofphilosophy.
answeredJun8'11at1:59
BrianBallsunStanton
507

14

Provinganystatementistrueorprobablytrueisimpossible,unnecessaryandundesirable.This
istruewhetherthestatementisdeemedtobephilosophicalornot.Ifyouassessideasusing
argumentthentheargumentshavepremisesandrulesofinferenceandtheresultofthe
argumentmaynotbetrue(orprobablytrue)ifthepremisesandrulesofinferencearefalse.You
mighttrytosolvethisbycomingupwithanewargumentthatprovesthepremisesandrulesof
inferencebutthenyouhavethesameproblemwiththosepremisesandrulesofinference.You
mightsaythatsomestuffisindubitablytrue(orprobablytrue),andyoucanusethatasa
foundation.Butthatjustmeansyouhavecutoffapossibleavenueofintellectualprogresssince
thefoundationcan'tbeexplainedintermsofanythingdeeper.Andinanycasethereisnothing
thatcanfillthatrole.Senseexperiencewon'tworksinceyoucanmisinterpretinformationfrom
yoursenseorgans,e.g.opticalillusions.Senseorgansalsofailtorecordlotsofstuffthatdoes
exist,e.g.neutrinos.Scientificinstrumentsaren'tinfallibleeithersinceyoucanmakemistakes
insettingthemup,ininterpretinginformationfromthemandsoon.
Wedon'tcreateknowledge(usefulorexplanatoryinformation)byshowingstuffistrueor
probablytrueforreasonssohowdowecreateknowledge?Wecanonlycreateknowledgeby
findingmistakesinourcurrentideasandcorrectingthempiecemeal.Younoticeaproblemwith
yourcurrentideas,proposesolutions,criticisethesolutionsuntilonlyoneisleftandthenfinda
newproblem.Weshouldn'tsaythatatheoryisfalsebecauseithasn'tbeenprovenbecausethis
appliestoalltheories.Rather,weshouldlookatwhatproblemsitaimstosolveandaskwhether
itsolvesthem.Weshouldlookatwhetheritiscompatiblewithothercurrentknowledgeandifnot
trytofigureoutthebestsolution.Shouldthenewideabediscardedortheoldideaorcansome
variantofbothsolvetheproblem?
SeeSee"RealismandtheAimofScience"byKarlPopper,especiallychapterIand"TheRetreat
toCommitment"byW.W.BartleyIII.
answeredJul21'14at10:22
alanf
2,789

Ifyouincludethelogicalsciencesaspartofphilosophy,thenyesyoucan,butonlywith
deductivelogic.Butlikemathematics,foranyproofyoumustbeginwithassumedtruths
(premises),andbuildfromthem.
Ifyoumeanwhethercanyouprovesomethingfromnothing?WellIhavenoidea.
answeredJun3at1:34
AndyDrew
1

Believeinnothing,considereverything.Ithinkphilosophy'smostvaluableinsightisthe
realizationthatnothingcanbeknownwithabsolutecertainty.Obviouslywewanttobaseour
decisionsonwhatseemsmostlogicalandpracticalbutithinkit'sveryimportanttoalways

approachthingswithsomelevelofcautionanduncertaintyinthebackofyourmind.Youhaveto
acceptthefactthathumanbeingsarenotcapableofcompleteunderstanding.It'snotalways
aboutwhatyousee,butwhatyoudon'tsee.Theonlytruthinourworldisthatthosewhoclaimto
havefoundaninfallibletrutharenottobetakenseriously.
answeredJun3at7:45
YogiDMT
46

Canyounameafieldwhereanythingisprovedi.efinalisedineverypossibleaspect?Bytheir
naturepeopleseeksimplethings,likereligiontopromisethemiftheysatisfyacriteriathenthey
aregonnabeok.Inphilosophyanendresultforanythingisjustanstartingpointforsomething
else,itappealstothosewhodon'twantjustayesornoanswerbuta'why'asanswer.
PS:asJosephSpirospointedoutbyrefrencingGodel,theverynatureofproofsarequestioned
inphilosophy.
editedJun8'11at0:14

answeredJun7'11at22:27
Arjang
376

11

1 Gdeldoesn'tactuallycreateanyproblemsforthenatureofproofs.Whathedemonstratedwasthatfor
somestatementsthereis noproofthatthestatementistrue,butneitheristhereaproofthatthestatement
isfalse.Onceyoufindaproof,you'refine,butyoumightneverfindonenotbecauseyouarenotclever
enoughbutbecausethereis noproof.gnasher729Apr6at16:39

Ultimately,no.Whatphilosophycandoisdisprove.Thisisthebasisofscientificmethod(asin
PhD).Withmuchpracticethephilosopherendsupforgedtodensitywherehereflectsmuchand
absorbslittle.
answeredApr6at16:00
RonRoyston
288

2 IfyoudisproveP,doyounotproveP?CamilStaps Apr6at16:02
Sayingthatonethingisnotfalsedoesnotnecessitateanotherthingistrue.Itappearsyouareusing
symbolstocommunicate.Idonotunderstandyourcomment.Canyouexplain?AreyousayingthatifP
thennotP?Whatdoesthatmean?RonRoystonApr6at16:19
2 Thequestionis:"canweproveanythinginphilosophy?"yousay,thatyoucannot(whichseemscorrectto
me),becauseyoucanonlydisprove.Mycommentintendstoshowyouthatdisprovingsometheoryis
equivalenttoprovingthenegationofthattheory(whichisthemeaningofthatsymbol).Forexample,ifyou
disprove"Allswansarewhite",youessentiallyprove"Thereexistsatleastoneswanwhichisnotwhite".
Theconclusionofyouranswerseemscorrecttometosomeextent,theargumentationnot.CamilStaps
Apr6at16:21
Youareassumingthatrealityisfact,areyounot?RonRoystonApr6at16:30
2 No,I'mexplainingyouaverybasicdefinitionfromhighschoollogic.CamilStaps Apr6at16:31

protectedbyvirmaior Jun3at7:48
Thankyouforyourinterestinthisquestion.Becauseithasattractedlowqualityanswers,postingananswernowrequires10reputationonthissite.
Wouldyouliketoansweroneoftheseunansweredquestions instead?