Principle of Sufficient Reasons Never Gives a Reason

[SecularCauses]

The Principle of Sufficient Reasons states that everything that exists either must have a reason or a cause for its existence. But, if that is true, then this principle must either have a cause or a reason for its existence. Yet, none has ever been forthcoming. Why can't something exist without having to have a reason or a cause? There is no proof that the principle is true.

Furthermore, the principle seems self-refuting and anti-scientific by its own terms. Reasons are not causal explanations, and causal explanations do not require reasons. If something has a causal explanation, no reason for its existence is needed. Giving a reason for something's existence is meaningless. Either we have a causal explanation, or we don't, and we cannot fill in the gap by making up a "reason" for the thing's existence.

In fact, at the heart of every pseudoscience is the reliance on a "reason" instead of a true causal explanation. For example, why is there no cure for cancer yet? Because people who have a financial interest in preventing a cure are preventing one from appearing. While this may be a "reason," it is not a true causal explanation. Take any pseudoscientific claim for racism, sexism, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, anti-semitism, etc., and what you will find is someone making up a reason and confusing that made-up reason with an actual causal explanation. So, not only is this principle unproven, it appears to lend a great deal of support for pseudo-intellectual activity. It gives a seemingly solid intellectual foundation for making up garbage. It would be best if the idea were done away with, and we just stick with causal explanations.

By the way, this will also debunk 99.99% of all religious claims.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The Principle of Sufficient Reasons states that everything that exists either must have a reason or a cause for its existence. But, if that is true, then this principle must either have a cause or a reason for its existence. Yet, none has ever been forthcoming. Why can't something exist without having to have a reason or a cause? There is no proof that the principle is true.

Furthermore, the principle seems self-refuting and anti-scientific by its own terms. Reasons are not causal explanations, and causal explanations do not require reasons. If something has a causal explanation, no reason for its existence is needed. Giving a reason for something's existence is meaningless. Either we have a causal explanation, or we don't, and we cannot fill in the gap by making up a "reason" for the thing's existence.

In fact, at the heart of every pseudoscience is the reliance on a "reason" instead of a true causal explanation. For example, why is there no cure for cancer yet? Because people who have a financial interest in preventing a cure are preventing one from appearing. While this may be a "reason," it is not a true causal explanation. Take any pseudoscientific claim for racism, sexism, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, anti-semitism, etc., and what you will find is someone making up a reason and confusing that made-up reason with an actual causal explanation. So, not only is this principle unproven, it appears to lend a great deal of support for pseudo-intellectual activity. It gives a seemingly solid intellectual foundation for making up garbage. It would be best if the idea were done away with, and we just stick with causal explanations.

By the way, this will also debunk 99.99% of all religious claims.

The Principle doesn't sound very scientific. Seems like an attempt at an argument for a God.

[SecularCauses]

The Principle of Sufficient Reasons states that everything that exists either must have a reason or a cause for its existence. But, if that is true, then this principle must either have a cause or a reason for its existence. Yet, none has ever been forthcoming. Why can't something exist without having to have a reason or a cause? There is no proof that the principle is true.

Furthermore, the principle seems self-refuting and anti-scientific by its own terms. Reasons are not causal explanations, and causal explanations do not require reasons. If something has a causal explanation, no reason for its existence is needed. Giving a reason for something's existence is meaningless. Either we have a causal explanation, or we don't, and we cannot fill in the gap by making up a "reason" for the thing's existence.

In fact, at the heart of every pseudoscience is the reliance on a "reason" instead of a true causal explanation. For example, why is there no cure for cancer yet? Because people who have a financial interest in preventing a cure are preventing one from appearing. While this may be a "reason," it is not a true causal explanation. Take any pseudoscientific claim for racism, sexism, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, anti-semitism, etc., and what you will find is someone making up a reason and confusing that made-up reason with an actual causal explanation. So, not only is this principle unproven, it appears to lend a great deal of support for pseudo-intellectual activity. It gives a seemingly solid intellectual foundation for making up garbage. It would be best if the idea were done away with, and we just stick with causal explanations.

By the way, this will also debunk 99.99% of all religious claims.

The Principle doesn't sound very scientific. Seems like an attempt at an argument for a God.

It's a major philosophical principle; perhaps the major philosophical principle. It's definitely not scientific because it puts "reasons" on the same level as causal explanations. The principle gives pseudoscience an open door, which is probably why so much that is taught in universities these days is pseudoscience. I'm sticking with science, and confronting all anti-scientific positions, which includes philosophy.

[tillingborn]

It's a major philosophical principle; perhaps the major philosophical principle. It's definitely not scientific because it puts "reasons" on the same level as causal explanations. The principle gives pseudoscience an open door, which is probably why so much that is taught in universities these days is pseudoscience. I'm sticking with science, and confronting all anti-scientific positions, which includes philosophy.

This is misleading. The principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical position adopted by some philosophers; in my experience a greater number of philosophers agree with you that it is cobblers.

[Kuznetzova]

Furthermore, the principle seems self-refuting and anti-scientific by its own terms. Reasons are not causal explanations, and causal explanations do not require reasons. If something has a causal explanation, no reason for its existence is needed. Giving a reason for something's existence is meaningless. Either we have a causal explanation, or we don't, and we cannot fill in the gap by making up a "reason" for the thing's existence.

PSR is not a demand for the existence of objects and nouns. PSR is concerned with states-of-affairs. PSR does not demand you tell me why this rock on the path "exists", but rather asks you why the rock is located at that particular spot on the ground. Again, this is not about existences and essences, but is rather a principle that says any particular attribute of something will have an explanation.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle due to the claim that its logical inverse (or opposite) is completely absurd. I happen to agree with this claim, personally. Let's take an example. "The earth's crust is 61% silicon dioxide". Now I'm not asking you about the existence of silicon dioxide, I'm asking if there is reason for the 61%. Do you think there is a sufficient reason that 61% of the earth's crust is SiO2?

Sure you do, because taking the contrary position sounds completely barking insane: "There is no reason that 61% of the earth's crust is silicon dioxide". I don't know what that sentence means. The more I read it, the more crazy it sounds. If you think you know what that sentence means, I'd love to hear it.

By the way, this will also debunk 99.99% of all religious claims.

If you want to do that, you might have better luck attacking Platonism.

[Impenitent]

the reason that 61% of the Earth's crust is silicon dioxide is simple...

homo mensura

-Imp

[Advocate]

Causality is simply universal change. Everything is marbles in a fishbowl, except there's no bowl and everything is marbles.

"Things" are sets of attributes and boundary conditions that we form according to our purposes. They do not have an external existence, they have an external correlate. Out there is only undifferentiated stuff.

Every thing has a reason (for existing) because of there was no reason, we wouldn't set it up as a thing, we wouldn't even notice it. There is no other sense in which there is a reason, cause, it "why" to the mere existence of anything.

Every being has an avoid/approach mechanisms. At our level of understanding, emotion plus cognition, we call it meaning. At the animal level it's called feeling. Meaning/caring/desire/priority/value are all variations on the same thing.

We want certain things so we invent things like science and language to help get them. All our mental tools are pragmatic. Things are defined according to the boundary conditions that are necessary and sufficient for the work they do for us.

"Sufficient reasons" is equivalent to justified belief, aka knowledge. If it gets the job done, it's sufficient. Reality is our consensus experience, that which is sufficiently justified to everyone "for all intents and purposes".

There are many ways to address "Why?" questions but most of them can be deconstructed to the empirical - how do we use the words? what do people want? how does psychology work? and the rest can be deconstructed to meaning in the sense above.

Meaning is a combination of salience, perspective, and priority. It is mind-bound.