Ill-Posed Questions

Exploring Nonsensical Inquiries and Their Philosophical Implications - ChatGPT 3.5 response to my input on several terms.

Note: Leaving aside aggregation for a few minutes and returning to the original conception of the site, a study of knowledge and belief, or as I whimsically describe it “guerrilla epistemology”. So, as a philosopher, I lack the chops, but on the other hand, the writings of most philosophers are so unnecessarily unclear, so arcane¹, that there is little percolation into the general consciousness, or into my consciousness (limited though it may be). As always, caveat lector².

Ill-Posed Questions:

"Ill-posed" is a term often used in mathematics, science, and philosophy to describe a problem or question that lacks clarity, structure, or well-defined parameters, making it difficult or impossible to provide a meaningful or precise answer. It signifies that the question or problem is not formulated in a way that allows for a definitive solution or meaningful analysis.

Errant Nonsense:

"Errant nonsense" is a phrase used to emphasize that something is not only nonsensical but also wandering or deviating from a coherent or logical line of thought. It implies that the nonsense is not just a result of a lack of clarity but may involve errors, misconceptions, or irrationality.

Falsifiability and Verifiability:

In the philosophy of science, the concepts of falsifiability and verifiability are crucial in assessing the scientific status of a hypothesis or theory:

Falsifiability: This concept, introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, suggests that for a hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to specify conditions under which it could be proven false or "falsified." In other words, it should make predictions that can be tested and potentially contradicted through empirical evidence. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it falls outside the realm of empirical science.

Verifiability: Verifiability, on the other hand, relates to the idea that scientific statements should not only be open to potential falsification but also capable of being empirically tested and confirmed through observation and evidence. Verifiability complements falsifiability by highlighting the need for empirical support for scientific claims.

Relating the Concepts:

When a philosopher refers to a question as "ill-posed," they are typically indicating that the question lacks the clarity and structure necessary for meaningful inquiry. Such questions may be difficult to evaluate because they don't have well-defined parameters or criteria for an answer.

"Errant nonsense" goes a step further by suggesting that the nonsensical nature of the question or statement is not merely due to a lack of clarity but may involve logical errors or a departure from rational discourse.

In the context of falsifiability and verifiability, these concepts are related to the idea of distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific claims. Scientific hypotheses and theories should be well-posed in the sense that they are both falsifiable (open to empirical testing that could potentially refute them) and verifiable (capable of being empirically supported). Questions or statements that are ill-posed or errant nonsense may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry because they lack the necessary structure or coherence to be evaluated empirically.

In essence, "ill-posed" and "errant nonsense" both imply problems with the formulation of a question or statement, while "falsifiability" and "verifiability" are criteria used to assess the scientific rigor and empirical testability of hypotheses and theories in the philosophy of science. Questions or statements labeled as "errant nonsense" or "ill-posed" may not meet the criteria of falsifiability or verifiability, further highlighting their limitations in the realm of empirical science.

Here are examples for each of the categories discussed above:

1 - Ill-Posed Questions:

• Questions:

  1. "What is the meaning of life?"

  2. "How can we quantify happiness?"

  3. "Can you explain the purpose of the universe?"

• Problems:

  1. The questions lack specific parameters or clear criteria for meaningful answers.

  2. They are open to multiple interpretations without a clear consensus on what constitutes an answer.

  3. They may involve subjective and philosophical aspects that make definitive answers elusive.

2 - Well-Posed Questions:

• Questions:

  1. "What is the chemical composition of water?"

  2. "How does gravity affect the motion of planets?"

  3. "What is the population of New York City in 2021?"

• Problems:

  1. These questions have clear parameters and well-defined answers.

  2. They are specific and can be addressed through empirical observation or scientific methods.

  3. There is an agreed-upon methodology to obtain accurate answers.

3 - Errant Nonsense:

• Statements:

  1. "The moon is made of green cheese."

  2. "2 + 2 equals fish."

  3. "Unicorns bake cookies in my backyard every night."

• Problems:

  1. These statements are not only nonsensical but also contain factual errors or irrational claims.

  2. They lack any basis in reality or logical coherence.

  3. They do not conform to any known principles or facts.

4 - Sensible Questions:

• Questions:

  1. "What causes seasons on Earth?"

  2. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?"

  3. "Why do people experience jet lag when traveling across time zones?"

• Problems:

  1. These questions are logical, based on established knowledge, and relevant to specific fields of study.

  2. They seek explanations that align with scientific principles and observations.

  3. They are framed in a way that invites rational discussion and investigation.

5 - Unfalsifiable Statements/Hypotheses:

• Statements/Hypotheses:

  1. "There is an invisible dragon in my garage, but it cannot be detected."

  2. "A deity created the universe, but its existence cannot be tested or proven."

  3. "All swans are pink, but the pinkness cannot be observed."

• Problems:

  1. These statements or hypotheses make claims that cannot be tested, observed, or proven false.

  2. They lack empirical or observable criteria for evaluation.

  3. They fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry due to their inability to be falsified.

7 - Falsifiable Statements/Hypotheses:

• Statements/Hypotheses:

  1. "If we heat water to 100 degrees Celsius, it will boil."

  2. "Gravity causes objects to fall toward the Earth."

  3. "Exposure to sunlight increases vitamin D production in the skin."

• Problems:

  1. These statements or hypotheses make specific claims that can be tested through experimentation or observation.

  2. They have clear criteria for being proven false or validated.

  3. They are amenable to scientific investigation.

8 - Unverifiable Statements/Hypotheses:

• Statements/Hypotheses:

  1. "There are parallel universes, but we can never access or observe them."

  2. "Aliens visit Earth, but their presence is undetectable by our instruments."

  3. "Past lives influence our current personalities, but past-life memories cannot be confirmed."

• Problems:

  1. These statements or hypotheses propose ideas that, while intriguing, cannot be empirically verified or disproven.

  2. They involve phenomena that are beyond the reach of current scientific methods.

  3. They may belong to realms of belief or speculation but lack empirical support.

9 - Verifiable Statements/Hypotheses:

• Statements/Hypotheses:

  1. "Water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius under standard atmospheric pressure."

  2. "The presence of a catalyst speeds up chemical reactions."

  3. "The theory of evolution is supported by a wealth of fossil and genetic evidence."

• Problems:

  1. These statements or hypotheses make claims that can be empirically tested, observed, and confirmed through experimentation or evidence.

  2. They are grounded in scientific methodology and can be subjected to verification.

  3. They are aligned with well-established scientific principles and have supporting empirical data.

1. Arcane refers to something that is understood or known by only a select few who have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular field or subject. It often implies that the information or knowledge is obscure, hidden, or not easily accessible to the general public. Arcane knowledge or practices are typically associated with secret or esoteric traditions and are not widely known or understood by the broader population.

2. Caveat lector is a Latin phrase that translates to "let the reader beware" in English. It is often used as a cautionary statement in written or spoken communication to alert readers or listeners that they should be cautious and exercise critical thinking when interpreting or evaluating the content that follows. In essence, it serves as a reminder to approach the information with a degree of skepticism and to be aware of potential pitfalls, inaccuracies, or hidden agendas. It encourages individuals to be discerning and not accept information blindly.