On the Philosophy of Science

https://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/kuhn-vs-popper-the-philosophy-of-lakatos/ is a good background to basic Lakatos' theory.

The first problem of the philosophy of science is "How do we know anything exists at all?"  The traditional answer here is Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".  However, there are two significant problems with that statement:

1. The Zen koan "What was your original face before your mother and father were born?"  Specifically, if your current existence is the proof that the universe exists, did the universe then not exist before you were born, before your parents were born?  Did your birth somehow change the universe?  This falls into the grue/bleen paradox, and also does not answer the question of "if the universe didn't exist before you were born, how were you born"?
2. The contrapositive of the statement is "I do not exist, therefore I do not think".  Why should we believe that to be true?  Do we know what the nature of existence is?  Do the angels in heaven exist?  If they do not, does that make them inherently un-thinking?  For that matter, what does it mean to exist, or to think?

Wittgenstein attempts a different approach to the same question, stating "The world is that which is the case."  That statement is phrased as an equality rather than as an assertion.  It defines the world as that which is true, and truth as that which exists in the world.  And then Wittgenstein attempts to build a philosophy on top of this statement, similar to Descartes'.  But while Descartes appears to accept the fallacious ontological argument (and I claim that The Simpsons "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it." fully captures the credibility and logical correctness of the argument), Wittgenstein arrives at some form of incompleteness of language and logic, that the ladder of pure logic becomes useless once you have reached the end, and that "What one cannot speak of, one must pass over in silence."

Fortunately, science offers us a third approach (logic and religion being, approximately, the first two).  We can accept some fundamental principles about ourselves and the universe on pure faith(*), but yet construct those principles with their rejection in mind.  We can accept that "gravity makes things fall towards Earth", and then reject it in the case of the sun.  (the pedantic argument that "gravity makes the earth and the sun fall towards each other" is irrelevant, because that statement already assumes that we accept that "gravity is a fundamental force that follows inverse square laws").

And science itself is indeed "falsifiable".  The claim that "your senses are an accurate representation of what is happening in the world" can be proved or disproved in any number of ways.  As far as science in the world is concerned, if the sun failed to rise tomorrow morning or if Bunsen burners started making things colder, it would clearly disprove science.  You may claim that both of these are preposterous and impossible.  But if not for science, why would you think they are preposterous or impossible?

-------

Pascal's Mugging ( http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf ) is a more modern, slightly more believable version of the traditional Pascal's wager.  Both of these ask "what is the value of some incredibly unlikely outcome"?  And the answer, by necessity, is "zero".  Nothing.  Nada.  Nilch.

The more formal statement is "If I do something impossible, then something possible will happen".  Which, I claim, is a false statement.  If it has never been done before, then it is impossible, and nothing about the later outcome matters.  If it has been done before, then it is, in fact, possible.  And once it is possible, only then do we have to consider what it means.

I suppose that promises of the afterlife, of immortality, of re-incarnation, have been historically very successful in promoting the social order.  But if you promise me a thousand million trillion eternities, an infinite multiverse of eternities, all I will hear is a pile of words until you have some undeniable evidence of any of your claims.

-------

(*) faith is the necessary word here.  once you have summarized everything you know, the summary must be something you do not know.  sets that contain themselves are inherently subject to paradoxes and contradictions.  so, for now, i take it on faith that the basic most fundamental principles of knowledge must be taken on faith.  ... the theologicians (sic) of old would tell you to be bold and large in your faith.  this is misguided.  one should never take two things on faith when one can take one thing instead.