🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BILL.92Sep11162437@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>                                                         If "The
>physical world is causally closed" is a scientifically meaningful
>hypothesis, then it must be falsifiable, and presumably the kind of
>thing that would falsify it would be an uncaused event -- an event
>that happens for no physical reason.

Agreed.

>                                      But life is full of apparently
>uncaused events; they may even be the majority.

Sorry, but "apparently uncaused" is not good enough.  They must be
demonstrably uncaused to falsify.

>                                                  We simply ignore
>this evidence, either because of a faith that the universe is lawful
>in spite of appearances, or because we are forced to assume lawfulness
>in order to do science.

This does not appear to make sense.  If lawfulness were merely an
assumption to allow us to do science, we would quickly discover that
science didn't work.  It is the demonstrated effectiveness of science
which encourages us to believe in causality.