Title: How can philosophy deal with the nonphysical in light of scientific limitations?
Tags: metaphysics
Question: Logically, if the only proof of existence we have is what we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and feel the movement of, why do many philosophies deal with issues outside the physical? Due to these scientific limitations of not being able to prove anything nonphysical (not limited to entities/ concepts surrounding spirituality and religion[s]) exists in any concrete way that affects our daily lives in ways that WE OURSELVES don't choose it to, why doesn't philosophy eliminate these concepts?
Comment: Question. A Martian physicist is able to identify red and green light by their wavelengths. Yet she has no way to know which means stop and which means go. That convention is a *social agreement* and not a matter of physical law. Yet violating such a convention can be fatal. Is that something you consider "nonphysical?" Aren't law, property, social conventions, religion, which fork to eat with, etc., all nonphysical yet meaningful conventions? Science can not determine any of these things. Most of our reality is far outside the bounds of science. Agree? Disagree?

Comment: @user4894 soft sciences are still science, but studied differently. Religion (and some philosophy) makes big claims.. backed by no studies, no agreement other than the word of the claimants, etc.

Comment: My point is that those unscientific things such as traffic laws, property ownership, and manners, have a HUGE impact on our everyday reality. Those things are just as real as the law of gravity. You can't be claiming property ownership isn't real, can you? Or that the only difference between red and green light is their wavelength? There's a book by Searle called The Construction of Social Reality that talks about this.

Comment: This question has already been asked [see here](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/33217/13808). The short answer is: Some philosophers, known as [Logical Positivist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism) tried to do exactly what you said, but their approach failed, because it turns out we can't eliminate unobservable quantities from our theories or language. See [my reply](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/(714)313-2435) for more details.

Comment: @Alexander I don't think the Logical Positivist approach failed, I think it went out of fashion. Combined with ordinary language philosophy, and using utility as a measure, it is quite capable of handling those unobservable quantities that it is useful to theorise about.

Comment: @user4894 "Ownership" is not a thing which exists outside of our use of the word ownership, it is not a concept that pre-exists our actual, physically verifiable use of the term. Same goes for manners and laws, these things are verifiable by their effect and linguistic use. They are different from spiritual or other metaphysical theories, which (currently) have no means of verification.

Comment: I think the idea is that we can choose not to follow these things and suffer the consequences (even if only morally) of hurting others or ourselves in the process (up to and including our own death, if we don't care about such a thing). It's only by agreement of the mass that we have such ideas.

Comment: I would also contend that nothing non-physical exists only because we keep redefining 'physical' so that it covers everything we decide really exists.

Comment: @jobermark so you will also contend that we can presently prove via current scientific means that life after death exists?

Comment: @JesseCohoon  That is a complete non sequitur.  I would contend that if we discover life after death exists, and has any effect on anyone that is not entirely psychological, it will immediately spawn a new branch of physics, and will be considered physical.  Basically, the distinction is evasive.  You do or do not believe in things, you don't believe in non-physical things, except as a cop-out.

Comment: @jobermark fair enough. But it would open a TON of moral/ ethical/ legal questions surrounding its study!


Here is another answer: Well, your question seems quite interesting. My personal point of view on it is that philosophy is the art of dealing with thinking, especially questions that has great impacts on how we perceive life, or how we act day-to-day.
So the answer would be: because although sciences has not clearly shown the existence of a superior intelligence (like a god), religion still continues to exist and to have adepts. Then I believe you can't discard a subject if it is in an actual context and concern, and moreover as, furthermore, some people do believe in it at the very precise moment we're talking.
Truly, there is reflexion that can be done on things you can't prove by calculus or common sustainable logic. A common example would be the Descartes' statement: Cogito, ergo sum (I think so I am). Descartes points out his only certitude is that he exists as a human-being doted of the faculty of reflexion. That points outs a certitude that cannot be affordably demonstrated by sciences' patterns.

Here is another answer: I believe that in ordinary language philosophy there is a means whereby some of the "non-physical" terms can be analysed from a logical positivist perspective (which is essentially the philosophical school who take the view you have outlined in your question). The argument against logical positivism is a weak one and was only really allowed past without proper scrutiny because fashions in philosophy changed and logical positivism presented a threat to popular philosophers. The philosopher Michael Friedman describes the natural movement of ideas in philosophy as "quite inadequate" to explain the violence with which Logical Positivism was rejected, and so I think it is still relevant to questions like this with some modification.
To answer the question you only need to use an ordinary language philosophy approach to do work on metaphysical concepts. If instead of asking "what is God" or "what is happiness" you ask "what do we mean when we use the word God/Happiness?" Then you have a question which is verifiable by reference to real world use of language. With regards to Atoms and bacteria as mentioned above, metaphysical ideas relating to these concepts would, indeed, have been useless until methods arose for verifying them. Popper's scientific methodology is based on falsifying the simplest theory first (i.e. some empirically verifiable concept, not a wild metaphysical speculation). Even though Popper was opposed to Logical Positivism, his main objection was against the methods used to test theories, not the proposition that metaphysical theories were meaningless unless testable.
As an aside, the statement that was used to undermine logical positivism was that "The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability." is in itself a non-verifiable statement. This is an invalid argument partly the same grounds (the meaning of all the words in ordinary language is verifiable) and partly because of the context in which the statement is made. What it means is that there is no utility in in using criteria other than verifiability to test genuineness. Under a Utilitarian approach, therefore, this statement can be falsified by demonstrating any utility of metaphysical discourse other than that which has been proven empirically.
So, to relate back to your question, in some schools of thought, philosophers have no cause to examine the sorts of non-physical concepts that you describe unless they are interested in the ways we use the words that describe them, or there is sufficient empirical evidence to merit developing a theory about their existence which scientists can then attempt to falsify.
Comment for this answer: Some support for someone 'out of fashion' would help us believe that you know better than the discipline as a whole.  But it remains unlikely.  With no support in your corner, this is just an opinion, and one that is explicitly disapproved by a lot of people who do not think they are just 'following fashion'.
Comment for this answer: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/1175/9166
Comment for this answer: I edited the question. It's not simply about spirituality as it was edited, but anything and everything nonphysical. We can ignore the ramifications of some of these things, if we're willing to suffer the consequences of our actions
Comment for this answer: @jobermark If you're interested (your tone suggests you're not but 600 characters is not easy so I will give you the benefit of the doubt) you might want to have a look at "Reconsidering Logical Positivism" by Michael Friedman. It talks specifically about the threat Logical Positivism was seen as. If you'd prefer to just presume I'm ignorant because I don't agree with you then please continue.
Comment for this answer: Then put that in the post, so that it is not in violation of the standards of the site.  We want to represent existing philosophy, and not make up misleading nonsense.  People call me on this all the time, because I really like minority opinions.  If it is not a generally accepted opinion, it should be backed up by someone published, if not by a direct reference.
Comment for this answer: @Isaacson L.P didn't simply fall out of fashion. It was the Logical Positivists themselves (Reichenbach, Hempel, Quine,   ...) who found intractable problems in their own project. Quine's critique was particularly devastating (He was called both the 'Last logical positivist' and the 'destroyer of logical positivism'). But don't take my word for it, [here's A.J. Ayer, leading British L.P, admitting it all turned out to be false - starting just before 34:00](https://youtu.be/nG0EWNezFl4)
Comment for this answer: And I really think that last paragraph is misleading.  LP died naturally by failing to meet its own internal standards, and was not put down with some lame excuse.
Comment for this answer: @Alexander I don't think that the involvement some of the logical positivists themselves has any bearing on my use of the term "fashion". Individuals change their views as much as society does. I'm aware of Ayer's criticisms, and Friedman does respond to them in effect, but thanks for the link
Comment for this answer: It remains the case that the simulation of logical positivism under various terms is not logical positivism.  Logical positivism itself simply was not a utilitarian approximation of its stated agenda with weak vocabulary requirements.  I can defend a certain approximation to Platonism on the grounds that it has salubrious byproducts too, but that does not dismiss any of the arguments against actual Platonism.
Comment for this answer: @Isaacson your thoughts on combining L.P structure with O.L.P's 'meaning as use' are interesting, but I fail to see how they differ from  Quine's later epistemology, or how they solve the purely metaphysical issues that face spirittuality? Can you add references and tie your response to Michael Friedman's work?
Comment for this answer: Also (a) that L.P failed as I described and (b) that it is not compatible with Ordinary Language Philosophy are the accepted consensus in academic texts and sources regarding the outcome of the L.P research program. From that point of view, your answer is confusing to a beginner. Can you include both assessments of L.P in your answer, that would make it more useful to the S.E community?
Comment for this answer: @Alexander I can do so, but the question has been closed now, do you think it would still be worthwhile?
Comment for this answer: The post and your answer still show up in searches, so yes it's worthwhile.
Comment for this answer: @Alexander Edits made, thanks for your input. As an aside, the main difference between the position I outlined above and Quine's is the argument about non-referring names. Where Quine might see this a problem, OLP would not, I think that highlights a remaining sense of rationalism in Quine's work.
Comment for this answer: @Jesse I've made some edits to my answer which hopefully address the concerns you've mentioned in your comments, my use of the word "spiritual" was just a placeholder for any non-physical concept.
Comment for this answer: @Jobermark Semantic discussions about what can and cannot be called Logical Positivism are pointless, it is the ideas that matter. As Michael Friedman points out (and many others do to) the violence of the reaction against L.P. meant that ideas were disregarded which deserve more attention. Whether we call those remaining ideas Logical Positivism or not is irrelevant, it's not as if L.P itself was one singular and consistent theory in the first place.
Comment for this answer: @Isaacson  Right, but your amalgamation makes up something more like James' Pragmatism than anything that motivated, for instance, Carnap.  Bring back good ideas, just bring them back from someone who would support your decision.
Comment for this answer: @Jobermark Pierce might be a more accurate analogy as his version of pragmatism was less relative and more in line with L.P, but I still think the wider objectives of L.P were saying something about how what is meaningful relates to a pre-existing real world that the pragmatists were not.
Comment for this answer: I agree with @jobermark once we start talking about the utility and language game use of the words like 'God' and 'Spirit' etc....then we are moving out of L.P territory and into pragmatism. Or maybe behaviorism *á la* Ryle, as in "people who use the word 'God' this way tend to behave this way, etc...."
Comment for this answer: @Alexander L.P. was about more than just verification, to suggest that when we apply it's verification principle to other things it simply _becomes_ some other school which also adopted some form of verifiability is a gross oversimplification, or misunderstanding. Your example of Behaviourism, however, would make a better application than my example of O.L.P in terms of gaining some verifiable utility from the investigation of the non-physical, but it is still an application of an L.P. approach to issues within Behaviourism, it doesn't just become it.

Here is another answer: How can philosophy deal with the nonphysical in light of scientific
limitations?
Primarily, respect for obtaining knowledge (read: philosophy) contends with the non-physical by recognizing the distinction between the physical and the non-physical (see "the excluded middle"). Epistemic limits do not preclude speculation and supposition, nor do they render axiom and self-knowledge invalid, nor language meaningless.
Logically, if the only proof of existence we have is what we can see,
hear, smell, touch, taste, and feel the movement of, [then] why do many
philosophies deal with issues outside the physical?
Proof is merely a means of evaluating conjecture as truth. If by "philosophies" you mean "ways of looking at things" then I can only offer that if philosophy were a way of looking at things, then an oasis and a mirage would have epistemic and ontological equivalence. They do not.
Due to these scientific limitations of not being able to prove the
spiritual exists, why doesn't philosophy eliminate these concepts?
What is meant by 'spiritual'? If, as etymology suggests, you mean "breath" and both the conscious as well as autonomous functions by which we breathe without suffocating while we sleep, then the purview for inquiries is biology. If you mean self, then there is psychology, neurobiology and the philosophy of mind to address your concerns regarding spirit. If you mean a transcendental or immortal soul, you have religion and whatnot. It is not the task of philosophy to eliminate concepts, instead the virtue of wisdom can help focus your investigations by understanding what you are investigating. Hope that helps!

{'source': 'StackExchangeDataset', 'subset': 'philosophy.stackexchange.com', 'metadata': {'AnswerCount': 3, 'CommentCount': 11, 'ContentLicense': 'CC BY-SA 3.0', 'CreationDate': '2016:00:10/02/16', 'FavoriteCount': None, 'PostTypeId': 1, 'Tags': '<metaphysics>', 'Title': 'How can philosophy deal with the nonphysical in light of scientific limitations?', 'ViewCount': 200, 'id': 38194, 'user_AboutMe': None, 'user_AccountId': 6376153.0, 'user_DisplayName': 'Jesse Cohoon', 'user_Reputation': 419.0, 'user_Views': 52.0, 'user_id': 22401.0}}