Also, while my comments here are specifically targeted towards the use of
brute facts as an objection towards the Argument from Composition, the same
could be said for the use of brute facts as an objection to anything at all.
In the context of the Argument from Composition, one might object that it's
merely a brute fact that composite beings exist and that their parts are
composed in this specific manner, needing no explanation.
1 Brute Facts
Brute facts are facts that don't have any explanations, but just are. For
example, some atheists may claim that the existence of the universe is a brute
fact, requiring no further explanation. Or some theistic personalists may
claim that the existence of God and His attributes, on their model, are just
brute facts.
2 Non-explanations
One issue with using such an approach to argue for or against a position is
that to say that something is a brute fact to explain a fact is, by
definition, no explanation at all. In the end, the one positing something as a
brute fact in order to account for it has just admitted that they have not
given any explanation or account of the fact in question.
So, they should accept the original account of the fact in question, in this
case, the absolutely simple being, until they provide an alternative
explanation or refute the arguments that the advocate of the Argument from
Composition has put forward.
If not, it seems to me to be simply question begging to not engage with the
arguments while asserting that your position is simply true.
3 Good Hypothesis?
Further, as alluded to above, the existence of brute facts in one's hypothesis
affects its viability, as compared to opposing hypotheses.
A hypothesis is just a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. In more
colloquial, albeit inaccurate, terms, it could be said to be a theory, of
sorts, to account for a certain set of facts.
While the philosophy of science is not something that I've read much into, I
am aware that when assessing the validity and plausibility of a hypothesis,
simplicity and ad hocness are important factors.
3.1 Simplicity
A hypothesis is simpler when it proposes fewer entities and explanatory
mechanisms to account for more facts.
For example, the hypothesis that there were nine unobserved planets orbiting
somewhere out in space to explain the slightly skewed orbit of an observed
planet would be less simple than the hypothesis that there were just one
planet orbiting somewhere. Of course, this is given that both the former and
latter hypotheses adequately account for the data.
3.2 Ad Hocness
A hypothesis is less ad hoc when it proposes less random or unnecessary
entities and explanatory mechanisms, staying within the given data as far as
it can.
For example, when trying to explain a murder. It would be ad hoc to say that
there was a fairy in the room when the murder was committed, as this goes
beyond the evidence and observations, and is random, as well as unnecessary.
3.3 Bruteness
According to the above criteria, positing unjustified brute facts as part of
one's hypothesis would be ad hoc and make the hypothesis less simple.
Consider that I bake a cake and leave it out to cool, and when I return the
cake is gone, while only an empty tray remains. Let us now consider two
hypotheses. First, that the cake was eaten by my brother, who has done this
many times in the past. Second, that it is a brute fact that the cake would
disappear on that day, at that time, and that the cake that would disappear
would be the one that I specifically baked.
The second hypothesis is far less simple than the first. At first, one may
think that it is simpler because the first hypothesis posits my brother while
the second does not.
However, upon further reflection, we realise that the first hypothesis posits
my brother, who we already know is likely to do such a thing, and that cakes
usually don't disappear randomly. The first hypothesis very nicely accounts
for all of our background information while only positing one entity and
explanatory mechanism, my brother, and maybe his hunger.
But the second hypothesis is far less simple and more ad hoc since it assumes
that out of all possible times, and completely contrary to all past
experience, my specific cake would disappear at that specific time on that
specific day. The explanatory mechanism here is extremely ad hoc and violates
all of our background knowledge about cakes and causation and what not. And
its simplicity also takes a huge hit from this as we're positing a lot more
that goes beyond the data[that at this specific time, on this specific day, my
specific cake would disappear]: many more things would have to align perfectly
for this hypothesis.
So, we should favour the first hypothesis as it is more simple and less ad
hoc, until extra evidence and argument is given for the second hypothesis or
arguments for the first are refuted.
3.4 Science
It would also be profitable to note that the explanatory principles that I
bring up above are commonly used in not only the philosophy of science but
science itself, and without them scientists would have a lot of trouble coming
to any substantive conclusions based on their experiments.
For example, take our discovery that the local universe started to exist
approximately 26.7 billion years ago. In order to come to such a conclusion,
we not only had to gather data, such as detecting the cosmic microwave
background radiation, or to ascertain that the universe really was expanding,
but also had to come up with hypotheses that could explain this data.
Now, using explanatory principles like how close a hypothesis stays to the
data and having it be less ad hoc, we managed to find that the best
explanation of this data is that the universe began to exist 26.7 billion
years ago.
Using these explanatory principles, we could also rule out more ad hoc and
less simple hypotheses like that the speed of light changed and the universe
was really 6000 years old, or that all these observations were just brute
facts that had no explanation. If scientists gave countenance to the latter,
then science as we know it would end.
4 Conclusion
In conclusion, positing brute facts as an explanation for a given phenomena,
especially without sufficient justification, serves as a non-explanation and
can be shown to have, in light of certain inductive and explanatory principles
used in science, to be rejected in favour of other hypotheses that do serve as
a better explanation. While this does not necessarily ascertain the truth or
falsity of a hypothesis, it is the best way that we can go about handling data
that we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment