Examples Of The Inductive Argument For Physicalism

812 Words2 Pages

Physicalism is true. Physicalism claims that everything is physical, and that everything can be exhaustively described and explained by physics. Physicalism implied that it is possible to describe and explain every feature of, for example, a human being and every type of behavior a human engages in using only the conceptual resources of physics. An argument for physicalism derives from the success of scientific endeavor. The inductive argument for physicalism is as follows:
(1) If nonphysical explanations have always failed and been replaced by physical explanations that succeeded, then we have good reason to think that nonphysical explanations will always fail, and physical explanations will always succeed.
(2) We have good reason to think …show more content…

There are many examples in the history of science that support this premise. For instance, nonphysical explanations of magnetism, where at one time, people tried to explain then phenomenon of magnetism by appeal to the presence of nonphysical spirits which they claimed inhabited magnetized rocks or pieces of metal. This explanation turned out to be false, and was replaced by a physical explanation in terms of electromagnetic force. Likewise, nonphysical explanations of planetary motion tried to clarify the movements of the planets by appeal t nonphysical intelligences that were responsible for producing the orbital movements of the planets. This explanation also turned out to be false, and was replaced by a physical explanation in terms of the curvature of spacetime: the planets move in orbit because spacetime is warped by massive objects such as the Sun. In both of these cases, people tried to explain something by appeal to nonphysical entities, but in each of these cases the nonphysical explanations were falsified and replaced by physical ones. Since these cases have always been the norm in the past, physicalists say that we have every reason to expect they will remain the norm in the future, or that we have every reason to expect that every attempt to explain phenomena by appeal to nonphysical entities will fail, and every attempt to …show more content…

Premise (2) states we have good reason to think that nothing is nonphysical and that on the contrary everything is physical – that everything can be physically described and explained. All the cases in the history of science in which nonphysical explanations failed and physical explanations succeeded provide some reason – perhaps very strong reason – to think all future cases will follow the same pattern, but these reasons are not decisive. Therefore, we have good reason to think that physicalism is

Open Document