Why Denying the Principle of Sufficient Reason is Incoherent

In this episode I give argument for the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): denying PSR results in an internally incoherent worldview.

---------------------------------------------------------

References:

The argument presented is not my own. Rather, it is philosopher Michael Della Rocca's (cf. "PSR"). For the most part I quote directly, but I also paraphrase and occasionally make a point of my own. The static picture graphics are mine (as should be obvious), whereas the motion picture graphics are borrowed. Similarly, the music is not my own but borrowed as well. The credits for these are as follows:

--Opening motion pictures are from the TV series Downton Abbey, Season 4, Episode 5.
--Mind-body graphics (i.e., the purple and green figure) from Qualia Soup.
--Footage of earth from the ISS, by NASA.
--Footage of traveling through space by NASA.
--Music (in sequential order): Adiago for Tron, by Daft Punk; Office Complex, Office Complex (Black Mesa Remix), Inbound Parts 1-3, Apprehension (Black Mesa Remix), and Apprehension, by Joel Neilsen; Inception (Junkie XL Remix), by Hans Zimmer.

[Amaterasu_]

Thank you. Very good explanation of Della Rossa's argument

[zhengyangwu]

i have tried to follow several of your videos, but I found that your way of explaining is particularly difficult for me to follow, though I understand every sentence of yours. I don´t know why. I have no difficulty understanding videos on other philosophical channels.

[tehnik]

I honestly don't understand how example 7 entails PSR.


Why couldn't the PSR denier consider existence as just a brute fact?

[cubefox]

I must admit that I don't understand the argument, especially not how you arrived at premise 2.

I also don't understand why there could be a problem with distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate explicability arguments. Any such argument should be accepted if one beliefs that it is sound, i.e. if one believes that the premises are true. Whether those are plausible depends on the details of the particular argument.

[Ansatz]

Premise 4 is false: "If denial of PSR results in an internally incoherent worldview while affirmation of PSR results in an internally coherent worldview, then one ought (rationally) to affirm PSR."

Being coherent is a good start, but it's is nowhere near enough to rationally justify affirming something. Russell's teapot is coherent, but that doesn't mean you ought to affirm it. Before you affirm something, you should at least have some evidence.

This video doesn't really do as advertised. All we really get is one simple argument for PSR denial and a demonstration that the argument fails. If the PSR denier argues that there is a line between acceptable explicability arguments and unacceptable explicability and says that the line has no explanation, then the PSR denier is begging the question. Now what about the PSR deniers that use some other argument? What if the PSR denier gave an explanation for the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Just showing a fallacy in one argument does not demonstrate that no sound argument is possible.

Even worse, being unable to present a sound argument in favor of an idea does not make the idea incoherent. Even if we assume that the PSR denier cannot possibly justify his belief in any way, that only puts his belief in the same category as Russell's teapot, coherent but unsupported. In order to show that something is incoherent, you really ought to show that it is somehow meaningless, not merely unjustified or implausible. For example, if an idea is expressed in words that make no grammatical sense, or if the idea implies a contradiction, then it is incoherent.