Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 343 of 577 (563542)
06-05-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by sac51495
06-04-2010 11:14 AM


quote:
So you admit that some metaphysical assumptions must be made before producing an epistemology? Why do you then condemn my metaphysical beliefs?
I admitted no such thing. And even if I did it would in no way exempt your incoherent mess of a worldview from criticism.
quote:
I am placing reality (metaphysics) before epistemology, which is exactly what you said I should do. Right?
No, it is not what I said that you should do. In fact I said that it is something that cannot be done. What you wish to do is not to place reality before epistemology, it is to place your beliefs before truth.
quote:
You admitted that one must have basic metaphysical beliefs (beliefs about reality) before an epistemological method can be formed.
No, I did not.
quote:
For example, suppose you said "the best way to find out what a tree feels like is to go outside and touch it". This is, of course, a true statement. But it does have an underlying metaphysical belief, one that must be assumed (whether it be consciously or sub-consciously) before you can confidently go outside and touch the tree - that you can go outside and touch the tree.
Is that necessarily an assumption, though ? It seems to me that that would be a conclusion based on past experience.
quote:
Another metaphysical question is "is God real? If so, what is his nature?". The reason the answer to this question is so important is because of this: if God is real, and if He is then omnipotent and omniscient, and if he created this earth, and if the Bible then be true, all of our beliefs will be radically influenced by our belief or non-belief in God. This is why one must presume God or no god as a metaphysical belief.
Of course this is just one more example of the false dogma of presuppositionalism. All it shows is that presuppositionalists recognise the fact that belief in God is irrational. That is why they claim that it must be assumed in advance.
quote:
Some people will say though, that they take a "neutral" stance by weighing the evidence for both sides. However, this makes God out to be a minor ethical belief, because note that the person was making his epistemological assumptions before taking God into account. If one takes this outlook (of placing knowing before God), they can come to very wrong conclusions.
I find it amazing that you think that beleiving in the existence of God has an ethical component at all. However if the existence of God truly is an important question we do it no justice by making up silly excuses to avoid rational examination.
quote:
However, the point I have been trying to make is that everyone, whether they admit it or not, is suppressing the fact that they believe in God, because no worldview can account for everything we do and the way that we act other than the Christian worldview.
You forget that I identified you as a presuppositionalist early on in the discussion, so of course I know that you were going to parrot the usual falsehoods of that movement. And, of course, I have already demonstrated it's falsity with regard to logic.
And I will remind you that simply attacking other peoples views is inadequate. First you must demonstrate that your worldview - which is not THE Christian worldview and seems to me to not even be A Christian worldview - can adequately address the problems you claim other worldviews have. Then you have to demonstrate that no other worldview could do so. Which, of course, you can't do. You've got no argument, just assertions that you can't back up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by sac51495, posted 06-04-2010 11:14 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by sac51495, posted 06-26-2010 12:20 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 352 of 577 (564594)
06-11-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by sac51495
06-10-2010 10:46 PM


Re: Epistemology without reality
quote:
First, have you ever observed the laws of logic, or an effect of the laws of logic?
You do not observe abstractions, nor do abstractions have effects.
quote:
So of course the obvious question is this: how do I account for the laws of logic?
I assume God exists, and that the Bible is true. I read Genesis and see that God created Adam in his own image, and that God spoke with Adam and reasoned with Him. From this I then know that God must have given man the ability to think logically. I also know that the laws of logic originated when God created man in His own image. (more later).
In other words you have a very bad epistemology, which relies a huge number of unnecessary assumptions. Even worse, your "account" not only fails to deal with the formalised laws of logic (so I guess we have to credit the pagan Greeks with those) it also doesn't explain the important thing - which is why logic
works. So your "account" would be worthless even if it was true - and there are good reasons to think that it is not.
You aren't exactly making a good case for your worldview here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by sac51495, posted 06-10-2010 10:46 PM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 363 of 577 (565030)
06-14-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by sac51495
06-14-2010 11:13 AM


Editing a post AFTER the replies have been made is somewhat impolite.
quote:
I said you cannot account for the origin of the laws of logic, to which you replied that the laws of logic are merely human constructs. Does this mean that before the Greeks formalized the laws of logic (e.g., a=a), "a" wasn't always equal to "a"? Or do you admit that "a" has always been equal to "a", even before humans evolved and then formalized this truth (that a=a) into a law? Obviously, a=a has always been true, which means it was a sort of "law" before humans even existed. Obviously then, a=a is not a human construct. Although the symbols and the idea of a symbol representing a particular object etc. are human constructs, there was never a point in time where one object was not equivalent to itself.
As I have said the laws of logic are semantic rules and formalisations of features of natural language. Of course natural language existed before the Greek philosophers ! This is a particularly obvious rule, but do take into account the existence of ambiguities of language. Outlawing the use of such ambiguities is one of the spects of the formalisation.
quote:
Here is a law of logic that was formalized by the Greeks: if p then q, p is true, so q must be true.
Now don't you think that the Greeks may have actually invoked the use of this law in order to formalize it? Perhaps they looked at examples of this law around them, and saw that whenever this law was followed, correct conclusions were made. They then concluded that the law was valid.
I guess that you don't really understand the concept of "formalisation". Of course the basic concept was here in the language all along, in the meaning of "if..then". To formalise it simply means to add the rules of use that give logic it's precision and reliability and to avoid the oddities of natural language. There's no need to invoke observation or to apply the rules in the way you are suggesting !
But I'm glad that you chose this example because it allows me to illustrate a way that standard logic is different from natural language.
In standard logic "If p then [/q]" is true whenever p is false, no matter what q might be. "If I am the King of England than 2 + 2 = 5" is a true statement, so long as you realise that I am not a monarch ! However, if by some bizarre chain of events I did become the King it would not make 2 + 2 = 5 ! (If you understand logic it is easy to see why.).
quote:
So if the Greeks didn't make up that law of logic, who did? The big bang?...
Since your argument rests on misunderstanding the whole concept of formalisation there is no need to go back beyond the Greeks. True, the Greeks were developing pre-existing concepts, but you don't really have logic in the full sense without the formalisation. Natural language is too imprecise and human thought too prone to fallacies (some of which are valid ways of thinking, but not strictly logical, while others are just plain wrong).
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by sac51495, posted 06-14-2010 11:13 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by sac51495, posted 06-18-2010 11:07 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 364 of 577 (565031)
06-14-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by nwr
06-14-2010 12:04 PM


quote:
This is an excellent example of why people criticize religion. It provides easy answers (as in "God did it") that turn out to be of no practical use.
God as the ultimate ad hoc explanation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by nwr, posted 06-14-2010 12:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 417 of 577 (565608)
06-18-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by sac51495
06-18-2010 10:55 AM


Re: Logic and Language
quote:
I don't think your argument explains logic in its entirety.
I think that you will find that it does. What you need to understand is that logic applies only to language. Truth and falsity are properties of statements, not of reality. What would it mean to say that a rock was "false" in the strict logical sense of falsity ?
quote:
When I talk about logic, I'm not just talking about the laws of logic that apply to language, but very, very simple laws of logic, such as "a=a", which can be applied to nature. "a=a" is not a law of logic that came out of language, because "a=a" was true before humans were around. In fact, historical science must assume this when it theorizes about our origins, for a historical scientist never said "perhaps during the big bang, matter was not necessarily equivalent to itself". This would bring up an extreme difficulty, because obviously we can't imagine, nor understand, what it would mean for an object to be nonequivalent to itself.
Again it is all about language - you can't escape it. Science attempts to DESCRIBE reality - and thus it must use language. And logic applies to statements made about the past in the same way as it does to statements made about the present. It is the situation at the time the statement is spoken or written that matters.
quote:
Another example is the law "if p then q, p is true, so q is true". Though this law does apply to language, it was still true before humans - and thus language - were around.
More accurately it still applies to statements made ABOUT such a time. Let me note that "if". "then" and "else" are [i]words
quote:
Certainly the formalized laws of logic are human constructs, but are the intrinsic truths of such laws human constructs? If not, where did they come from?
The underlying concepts come from natural language as I have stated before. That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by sac51495, posted 06-18-2010 10:55 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by sac51495, posted 06-30-2010 3:17 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 419 of 577 (565613)
06-18-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by sac51495
06-18-2010 11:07 AM


quote:
Explain how "a=a" was derived from natural language?
To put it simply if you say something and I say the same thing you would naturally assume that we agree. That is the basis.
Unfortunately natural language can be ambiguous so your assumption might be wrong - what I meant might be different from what you meant.
To be more precise this law means "A proposition has the same truth-value as itself". And to use it properly we have to avoid ambiguity - formalise our use of language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by sac51495, posted 06-18-2010 11:07 AM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 448 of 577 (566708)
06-26-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by sac51495
06-26-2010 12:20 AM


quote:
You did admit that some assumptions must be made before producing an epistemology, and although you didn't actually use the word "metaphysical" to describe those assumptions, those assumptions couldn't be anything but metaphysical, as long as they aren't epistemological.
You have managed to miss the fact that the statement you quote starts with the word "if". Therefore it does NOT "admit" that assumptions are necessary.
quote:
Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality. When placing metaphysics before epistemology, guess what?...I'm placing reality before epistemology (because metaphysics deals with the very nature of reality. The reason my beliefs differ from yours is because I have a different view of reality than you do (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion)
But you are NOT placing reality before epistemology. You are placing imagination before truth. You need epistemology - and a reliable epistemology - to find the truth. And if your metaphysics is not true then it is NOT reality.
So no, the rational and honest person must put epistemology before everything else. Anything decided prior to epistemology presents a risk of falling prey to falsehood and error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by sac51495, posted 06-26-2010 12:20 AM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 463 of 577 (567319)
06-30-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by sac51495
06-30-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Logic and Language
quote:
Ugh....Okay; Law of Identity: an object is the same as itself: a=a. This is true, correct? Was it true before humans were around? Yes....
As I explained in formal logic the Law of Identity means that a proposition has the same truth value as itself. Until you understand that you have no comprehension of logic whatsoever.
quote:
Can you account for the intrinsic truth in the law of identity?
What precisely needs to be accounted for ? Are you asking for a reason why an object is not different from itself ? Why would there need to be a reason for that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by sac51495, posted 06-30-2010 3:17 PM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 487 of 577 (569405)
07-21-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Backtracking
quote:
It seems that most (if not all) of the atheists on this forum have taken the typical, naturalistic approach to epistemology: you elevate it above metaphysics, and refer to metaphysics as "mumbo jumbo", and think that the scientific method is the best - if not the only - way to go.
I don't believe that that is a fair statement. Certainly there are good reasons for placing epistemology before metaphysics and you need to address those (something you have sadly failed to do). And if you believe that you have any better method of learning about external reality than the scientific method - with it's obviosu successes - it is up to you to present it.
quote:
First, epistemological method (such as the scientific method) is not, nor can it be, neutral.
Yet, science IS largely neutral. The vast majority of people who have problems with science are those who follow religious dogmas which the findings of science contradict. You have no method that is either as neutral or as reliable.
quote:
Either one's thinking is centered around himself and his reasoning, or it is centered around God.
Of course, this is over-simplified. You must start with your own thinking to find out about God - or choose to trust the thinking of other humans (as you choose to do). But even then, some matters will come down to your own thinking.
[quote] iSecond[/i], metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know". [/quote]
And thus he admits to having chosen a poor way to build an epistemology. Assumptions are a poor foundation for knowledge.
[quote] iThird[/i] Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning. Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind. [/quote]
Presuppositions are simply assumptions, they are not a sound foundation.
quote:
What is the foundation of atheism? It could be materialism, naturalism, or other such inherently anti-God philosophies. But you won't admit that such things are the foundation, or "presupposition" of your thought. Well what is the foundation of your thought then? You must have a foundation.
The foundation would surely be in epistemology. Both empiricism and rationalism have roles to play. Experience and reason are the foundation, making only those assumptions which have sufficient pragmatic value to offset the risk of error - and those always open to refutation, if it should be possible.
quote:
You must have a foundation. Why? Well suppose you give me a standard for determining truth, such as the scientific method. I then ask "how do you know that that is the right standard". You have several options here. (1) - You can admit that your standard has no justification. (2) - You can argue that your standard is established by some other standard, thus destroying the argument that said standard is the ultimate standard. (3) - You can seek a more ultimate standard, capturing yourself in an infinite regress, which Huntard has quite explicitly done with the issue of the wrongness of murder. (4) - You can point to an ultimate, self-verifying standard that explains everything, a standard beyond which no appeal can be made.
Or we can deny that there is an ultimate standard. We may have a number of standards, none of which is ultimate. Deductive logic is perfectly reliable but limited in applicability. Science has wider applicability but less reliability. Other standards are less reliable but can go into areas where science cannot go.
A more reliable standard should always take precedence over a less reliable standard. Thus the less reliable method cannot be considered "ultimate". It follows then that if your argument is correct, there cannot be a truly ultimate standard.
Your 4th option as written is not truly an option. You cannot point to an absolute standard - only what you have chosen to set up as an absolute standard. And it is not God, but the teachings of men.
[quote] iMoral absolutes[/i]....
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes. I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world. [/quote]
Your assumption is wrong. I reject the idea of moral absolutes because there is no adequate foundation for them, no viable idea of what makes a moral absolute - and also because we have no way of reliably identifying a moral absolute.
Thus, either there are no moral absolutes or there might as well be none.
quote:
There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes?
If I said that, then I would not mean it in a moral sense, thus your argument does not touch my position.
quote:
So we see the problem that arises. If indeed there are no moral absolutes, and really, no moral statement is absolute, how should we live our lives? How can we know that evildoers should be punished? How can we know the best way to live? How can we live at all, if we really don't know whether any given action is truly right or wrong? What of all this ambiguity brought on by moral relativism? I
If there are moral absolutes and we do not know them - as is the case - then the same problem arises. It is not moral relativism that is the real issue, it is a lack of knowledge. In my view the only way to deal with these issues is to acknowledge what morality really is, an intersubjective code for living together, founded on the evolution of a social species and developed over many millennia as cultures developed and changed.
quote:
So good is defined by God's unchanging nature. God does not have to measure up to an outside standard of good, for good is embodied within Him.
Of course this simply runs into the problem that you have DEFINED "good" as God's nature (whatever that should be - even Christians disagree amongst themselves). Personally I would rate it as highly ambiguous and with plenty of potential for rationalising "wicked desires".
quote:
The uniformity of nature is another one of those things that must be assumed. It cannot be proven, for in attempting to prove it, one would have to first assume that nature is uniform.
Of course it cannot be absolutely proven, however the mere fact that science works is strong evidence that it is true. This is not a dogma held without evidence, let alone in spite of the evidence.
quote:
So when does the problem arise for an atheist? As with other things, he cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Why does it so happen that the universe is uniform?
In fact there is a bigger problem for a Christian. A Christian believes that there is an unpredictable entity with the capability to change how this universe operates. They may even believe that such changes have already occurred (e.g. the creation of the rainbow).
The atheist does not have that problem and can simply appeal to the nature of the universe itself.
quote:
Another problem is that you cannot say that you know that all of nature is uniform. Have you investigated the entire universe, or even come close to doing so?
In fact astronomers have done so. Indeed, astronomy is probably one of the disciplines best suited for finding basic changes to the laws of physics, since so much of it deals with basic physics. Astronomical observations span a huge stretch of space and time. Some years ago there was an argument that the speed of light was different in the very early universe - my understanding is that the evidence came down against it, in the end - but nevertheless it serves to illustrate my point.
quote:
Another problem is that the Big Bang relies on the temporary transcendence of physical laws by nature, in that "something" came from "nothing".
You are simply in error here, and thus this is another non-problem.
quote:
How does God help with this problem?
God doesn't. God just makes it worse, as I have pointed out.
Pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could but simply making more assumptions is not the way. You are just proposing to "solve" the problem by making more assumptions - which contributes nothing (other than an increased chance of being wrong).
Worse, the Christian doctrine of the ineffability of God tells us that we cannot predict God's actions. So unless you reject that doctrine God cannot provide a certain guarantee of uniformity of nature - which relies on predicting that God will not miraculously change the laws of nature.
Thus, if we needed to assume a firm foundation (and we do not), then atheism plus the assumption that the genuine regularities are part of the nature of the universe is far superior. It is more parsimonious and offers a genuine guarantee. Thus this is a clear win for the atheist.
I have already dealt with the issues around logic earlier in this thread. and I do not propose to add to a long post by repeating points already made. Again, this is an issue where presuppositionalism fails badly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 494 of 577 (569522)
07-22-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by sac51495
07-21-2010 9:51 PM


Re: Backtracking
quote:
I'm not arguing for the validity or invalidity of the scientific method. I'm arguing that any epistemological method (such as the scientific method) must be derived from some sort of metaphysical framework.
So in fact you agree that the scientific method is the best way that we have for learning about external reality ?
quote:
The metaphysical presuppositions contained within the scientific method are obvious and numerous. So if someone claims that any epistemological method can stand alone as a means of determining truth apart from any other beliefs, they are seriously deluded, because any subject relating to epistemology necessarily entails a number of metaphysical assumptions.
I would disagree with the idea that they are numerous. The existence of some sort of external reality is one. That our senses give us access to external reality (mediated by our sensory apparatus) is another. I doubt that there are many more.
quote:
I'm willing to wager that you can not make any epistemological method whatsoever that does not first assume certain things about what we know. It is impossible. This is why I wagered.
Which only shows that you fail to understand the point. Every assumption made is a weakness, a possible flaw that can contaminate and ruin the whole enterprise. Without an epistemology of some sort, all you can do is make assumptions. That is why epistemology must take precedence over metaphysics.
quote:
And yet, no epistemological method can be made that does not have assumptions of its own...
And those assumptions are part of the epistemology, that is the only point of making them.
quote:
..so you admit that your epistemological method is not neutral? Relying solely on personal experience and personal reason is deeply anti-God: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1:20). It's no wonder you're an atheist, seeing as how your very foundation (which I don't really believe is a foundation) is anti-God. So much for neutrality.
Simply saying that your religion demands that we subject ourselves to the dogma propounded by your human leaders hardly indicates a lack of neutrality in MY methods.
quote:
But if I ask you about the truth of such standards, you must, in turn, refer back to a "more ultimate" or merely "a different" standard, to prove the truthfulness of the aforementioned standard. You have now caught yourself in an infinite regress. Or, if you chose to end the infinite regress, by referring back to an already mentioned standard, you would be committing the error of circular reasoning.
This simply ignores my point that no method is truly "ultimate". If we are forced to resort to less reliable methods in some cases that does not make those methods superior, just applicable to areas where more reliable methods cannot venture. And all methods terminate with assumptions so there is no infinite regress either.
quote:
Do you think that I am wrong in making the assertion that there are moral absolutes, or right?
If you had actually read on a little further you would have found the answer - with reasons why I believe that.
[quote] qsIn fact astronomers have done so [investigated the entire universe].[/qs]
It is difficult to have an argument when the limits of the universe can not even be agreed upon. I don't think any astronomer would say we have reached the end of the universe. We certainly have not found the end of the universe. [/quote]
I did not say that astronomers have investigated the WHOLE universe, but they have observed a very large fraction of it.
quote:
You have a seriously deluded view of God's nature. Your argument can be responded to with five words said by God himself: "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). If you don't understand this argument, try reading my entire message #485.
I am sorry that you regard standard Christian doctrine and the Bible as "deluded". So does your God lack the capacity to perform miracles or is He simply unable to think of doing so ? Your (silly) argument) which tries to transform evasiveness into some sort of proof of the law of identity doesn't deal with that issue.
quote:
Pragmatically, all we need is that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could account for the big guy down under (and prove his existence). But making more assumptions is not the way....you get my point?
All I see is that you are completely unable to answer my point. Reciting nonsense while falsely implying that it is a parallel to my position is not a valid response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 3:18 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 496 of 577 (569529)
07-22-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2010 3:18 AM


Re: Backtracking
I suppose I should have remembered Instrumentalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 3:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 8:13 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 498 of 577 (569558)
07-22-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2010 8:13 AM


Re: The Irrelevance Of Ontology
It seems to me that is precisely where Instrumentalism DOES come in. It does away with the tacit assumptions that there actually is a physical substance that we call zinc and another that we call sulphuric acid, for instance.
Now I will grant that these assumptions are obvious and intuitive and only philosophers are at all likely to argue against them. I will grant that it is normal and natural to ignore them and just get on with the job. But they are still there. And that is why Instrumentalism is an important point - because it allows us to do science with even fewer assumptions than presuppositionalists think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 8:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 9:51 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 502 of 577 (569613)
07-22-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2010 9:51 AM


Re: The Irrelevance Of Ontology
To say that you can show me assumes that our senses give us information about external reality. The value of Instrumentalism in this debate is that it doesn't have to make assumptions like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 9:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by nwr, posted 07-22-2010 1:29 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 507 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 1:49 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 505 of 577 (569620)
07-22-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by nwr
07-22-2010 1:29 PM


Re: The Irrelevance Of Ontology
quote:
It only assumes that the verb "to show" has to do with the use of our senses.
How else would you "show" me zinc and sulphuric acid ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by nwr, posted 07-22-2010 1:29 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2010 1:35 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 508 of 577 (569625)
07-22-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2010 1:49 PM


Re: The Irrelevance Of Ontology
quote:
But, you see, when I say that sulfuric acid and zinc and aardvarks and tulips and beachballs are real, that they are actual physical things, that they are part of external reality (and that unicorns and Atlantis and the philosopher's stone are not) I am not making an ontological stand. I am in effect making a set of predictions: that we can observe evidence of things in the former but not the latter category. Which is the meaning of the word "real" (as determined by its usage) unless one is discussing ontology.
Which, essentially, is Instrumentalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 2:56 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024