Question

Let’s take the event of a leaf falling down from a branch. Currently, we have a fully naturalistic explanation for how this happens.

Theoretically though, one can come up with an infinite number of hypotheses that may also explain this fact. For example, one may entertain the hypothesis that an invisible demon dropped the leaf. Or, one may postulate that this demon or some supernatural force didn’t directly cause it but indirectly through some unknown mechanism determined it to happen in advance.

Now, how does one analyze or measure the plausibility of these theories? Assigning a probability seems to be a common way of assessing this, but how does one arrive at a figure? What would it mean to say that there’s a 3% chance of a demon causing the lead to fall? That demon either did or didn’t.

Let’s say the probability measure is meaningless. How else should one analyze how reasonable it is to believe that theory? How much credence should one put in a theory like that?

Furthermore, is it possible or can it be argued that some of these theories may be incoherent or in other words have zero probability? It seems difficult to disprove a theory of an invisible demon pushing down a leaf. But can one argue that this is impossible in virtue of the fact that any physical effect seems to have a physical cause and thus a "being" must atleast itself be physical and arguably detectable?

Answer 1

The plausibility of theories involving supernatural explanations can be analyzed by evaluating the evidence and probability associated with the theory. Assigning a probability involves considering alternative explanations and weighing the credibility of the theory. It can be argued that theories involving invisible demons or supernatural causes are highly implausible due to the lack of physical evidence and the expectation that physical effects have physical causes.

Step-by-step explanation:

The plausibility of theories that involve supernatural explanations can be analyzed by assessing the evidence and probability associated with the theory. Assigning a probability to a theory involves evaluating the available evidence, considering the likelihood of alternative explanations, and weighing the overall credibility of the theory. For example, if a theory posits that there is a 3% chance of a demon causing a leaf to fall, it means that based on the evidence and alternative explanations, there is a 3% probability that the demon hypothesis is true.

While it may be difficult to disprove a theory of an invisible demon causing a leaf to fall, one can argue that it is highly implausible due to the lack of physical evidence and the expectation that any physical effect has a physical cause. This argument is based on the principle that supernatural beings or forces should have some detectable physical properties, and without such evidence, the theory becomes much less reasonable to believe in.

In assessing the plausibility of theories, it is important to consider alternative explanations, evaluate the evidence, and use critical thinking to determine the credibility of the theory. The ability to assign a probability is one way of quantifying the plausibility, but it should be done carefully and with consideration of all relevant factors.