0:40 '...a fact which cannot be further explained ( or that explains itself ).' Or a fact that does not require an explanation, such that any attempt to explain it is either irrational or the first line of a joke.
Anything that has the explanation in itself is not a brute fact. Because, a brute fact doesn't have any explanation, and anything that has an explanation in itself has an explanation which is in itself. Also, the circumstances is a factor in explaining somethings. So, if a fact is explained partially by a circumstance, then it is not a brute fact, because again a brute fact is that which has no explanation. Now, it is impossible that there are brute facts, because principle of sufficient reason is true. To deny principle of sufficient reason is to be incoherent. For, if sufficient reason is not true, then some facts are explained and some are not. But, that will just lead to making everything having no explanation, because if the bottom of the chain of explanation has no explanation, then everything has really no explanation at all. But, some things have explanation. It is ridiculous in a class to answer the reason for raining outside is just that it has just no explanation: it's just a brute fact!
The argument that you make for the non-existence of brute facts seems to follow, but what is the reason that we should accept that "some things have explanation"? The argument you give for this claim "It is ridiculous in a class to answer the reason for raining outside is just that it has just no explanation" isn't very compelling.
@@Aaron-xv7jd the classroom scenario is an example of everything being a brute fact. An example of some having explanation is the existence of water which is partially explained by the existence of its molecules, which in turn are explained by the existence of its atoms.
Russell adopted brute facts to explain why relations can be free floating otherwise relations could be argued as nonexistent. If relations are nonexistent, then distinctions are unintelligible. If brute facts cannot exist i.e. facts not apt for explanation, then how else can one make sense of existence. An explanation, preferably impersonal metaphysical ones, presuppose existence. An explanation is an existent thing. So maybe Dasgupta, Russell and Moore were right. Some autnomous or essentialist facts are metaphysically brute. I do agree if brute facts are at the bottom then every fact can be brute but then this just asserts the nonexistence of contingent facts or the truth of metaphysical foundationalism. Even Spinoza who was probably the most prominent advocate for an unrestricted psr had brute facts in his ontology.
I agree, however infinite regress, which seems to be the only other viable option to a brute fact, suffers with the same issue, such that the bottom of the chain will never have an explanation. What can even constitute as truth is so intellectually exhausting, because all avenues seem to lead to absurdities.
I think Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have some interesting relevance to this topic. He essentially was able to prove that there are certain statements that can never be proven true yet nonetheless remain true. This is of course drastically summarizing a complex proof and you should read up on it for yourself to understand the whole picture but it might be fascinating to discuss in this context
It's a bit unclear to me why we might need that uncommon definition of "brute fact" Isn't it is simply a fact that is logically entailed in the context?
'There are only so many words in the English language.' Lee's Elucidation states, A finite number of words must represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. Hence polysemy.
There is an analogy with the concept of order relation in mathematics. For instance, take the set of natural numbers and the relation 'x is less than or equal to y'. The relation is a map that assigns true or false to every pair of numbers x and y. You seem to imply there is a well-defined 'set of all facts', and an equally well-defined relation 'x explains y', that unambiguosly assigns true or false to every pair of facts. The problem is there is no such a thing. Everyday language used to describe facts and our intuitive notions of causality are not 'air-tight' definitions that can be tackled with such a formal and accurate approach you present in this video.
This is a series that never ends,/it goes on and on my friends, one day some guy started making it not knowing what it was/and he kept making it on and on just because...
One day I will run out of entries in philosophy encyclopedias.... But since I have both the 10 volume Routledge and the 10 volume MacMillian I doubt it will be anytime soon.... :)
Law figured out the concepts of but for and proximate causation about 3,000 years ago. Law must reach a verdict so the "can't be explained further" as you claim is simply wrong as both a matter of fact and law. Brute fact is philosophy talk for "I quit".
As a theist, I believe there is One brute fact upon which all other facts emerge. I can’t help thinking that any other “brute facts” are just “Brute Facts of the gaps”. Like your example of gravity. I think that taking gravity as a brute fact is intellectually sloppy. I have to believe that there exists an explanation for gravity which ultimately is itself explained by the One brute fact. This is based, I suppose on the scientific intuition that the least amount of adequate explanations possible is the best explanation. I see no reason why there would be more than one brute fact. Indeed, if there WAS a reason why, they would no longer be brute facts, but would be explained by that reason. Meanwhile, the reason there would be one brute fact, is itself.
Quite frankly, if you're down to attacking the legitimacy of gravity, you've lost the argument. This is what I hate about people declaring that "nothing can be an axiom". Yea, sure, there may be some nuance. But the number of situations where the intricate details of the workings of gravity are an issue are exceedingly small, and likely relating to a fictional situation, or exceedingly rare scientific subjects.
there is technically a deeper explanation about why gravity attracts but it's difficult to understand without knowing general relativity. the deeper explanation is that the curvature of space forces massive particles to move along geodesic paths which result in the phenomenon we perceive as attraction.
Seth Apex - spacetime curvature is not a fact, is a theory. Your explanation is actually a model of reality. Take a slightly different model, say, Einstein-Cartan theory, and you have a slightly different explanation for the same observed fact. In the future we may have a completely different explanation, in terms of quantum gravity or string theory. The point is that causality (x explains y) is not observable. It always involves an inductive process in our minds, to create a model that gives some sense to what we see.
gravitational lensing confirms that spacetime curvature is a fact, which is in fact observable. I am not claiming that it is a brute fact, it may indeed be explained by deeper fact, such as string theory or quantum gravity. Only that gravity itself is not a brute fact becasue it can be explained by deeper facts.
Seth Apex - the verb "confirms" is often used, especially when targeting a broad audience, when some experimental evidence does not contradicts a given scientific theory. There are still competing models that can explain the same data, although GR is certainly the best so far.
Actually causality can be observed, or at least mathematically quantified. Look for Takens theorem and Convergent Cross Mapping by Sugihara et. al. 2012. But yes, causality is ultimately a mental construct. Which I find fascinating.
This postmodern idea of denying factuality has dangerous consequences: there would thus be no truth, no lies, no right or wrong, an innocent person could be convicted w/o evidence since facts aren't real & and a criminal could go free in spite of overwhelming evidence since facts dont matter. Taken to its logical conclusion, denying facts leads to nominalism and then solipsism.
A slippery slope argument, in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.
