|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3841 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Kof writes: Seeing is believing Straggler:That would be nave empiricism. You need review the meaning of Empiricism, first. And then, yes, as you expand upon the simple meaning of relying upon observation, not naive at all,... we can/could add many of the sophisticated reassurances that confirm that we are, indeed, seeing what we thought we saw, like asking peers to review the experiement. Nevertheless, Empiricism is exactly what I said it is: empiricism /emˈpirəˌsizəm/Noun 1.The theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.2.Practice based on experiment and observation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: The very heart of modern physics is this threat to the initial science axiom, of Cause/Effect. As I have already partially explained quantum mechanics has already done away with the notion that the sort of cause and effect that one arrives at from everyday experience applies universally. And it doesn't make sense to say that science has invalidated the axioms science itself is dervied from does it? All of which suggests that such assumptions aren't really axioms at all. The things you are calling axioms sound more like hypotheses - Assumptions to be tested against observed reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You actually said "seeing is believing".....
Which would be naive empiricism. And you still haven't explained how the more reliable (and still developing) approach to empiricism I outlined could all be incorporated into an axiom (or few) have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3841 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined:
|
Straggler: "that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true". - Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays 1) Is this an accurate reflection of scepticism?2) Is it the approach taken by science? 3) Is it paradoxical and subversive? Now after having brought you up to this point, in regard to what constitutes "grounds,"... ... I answer your OP again. Russell ignored the necessity incumbent upon himself, to agree to some axiomatic discipline wherein his scepticism could be put to the test of a Proof. Hence,1) No, it is not. 2) No, it is not. 3) Yes, it is paradoxical that Russell would suggest he is sceptical while ignoring the reason we have developed disciplines exactly for the purpose of showing people like him how reasoning can establish truth.An yes, it is subversive to humanity to support the contention that everything can be doubted at a personal and subjective level simply because one refuses to ground his thinking in one or another of the disciplines of Knowledge. That is to subvert the very premise that we can think our way through life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: Russell ignored the necessity incumbent upon himself, to agree to some axiomatic discipline wherein his scepticism could be put to the test of a Proof. Why are you so obsessed with axiomatic disciplines? As you yourself have pointed out calling one’s assumptions axioms has absolutely no bearing on whether they, or the conclusions derived from them, remotely conform or even particularly relate to reality. In fact most of the axioms you have put forward would be better described as failed hypotheses (Ptolemy’s model, everyday notions of cause and effect etc. etc.) So why bother obsessing over these axioms at all? Furthermore your attempts to show that science is axiomatic have fallen flat. Thus providing grounds for significant scepticism towards your assertion.
Kof writes: Yes, it is paradoxical that Russell would suggest he is sceptical while ignoring the reason we have developed disciplines exactly for the purpose of showing people like him how reasoning can establish truth. I don't think you have understood what he is saying. Here is another Bertie quote:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
You make my point. Neanderthal man failed to model the truth. The existence of "Truth" did him no good. ringo writes:
It mattered to Neanderthal man who went extinct because of his inability to see the Truth. Only what we can model matters.That prevented him from adapting to the changing environment. Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3841 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Why would/should one care what his adversary in this discussion thinks about the arguments that corrected you in every case?
I consider the matter closed from this side, and you may wallow in your attempts to resurrect any face serving come backs, imho.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: Why would/should one care what his adversary in this discussion thinks about the arguments that corrected you in every case? Dude - You're funny. How do you know you are correct? What axioms are you deriving this conclusion from..........?
Kof writes: I consider the matter closed from this side, and you may wallow in your attempts to resurrect any face serving come backs, imho. Then I guess congratulations are in order.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
On your own scale this is where brain damage caused by ethereal elephants would come. Yes? Yes, ... and your opinions depend on your world view. Different people will have different opinions.
Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?
RAZ writes: And I remain unconvinced that there is a determinable risk at this time. I am not interested in how personally convinced you are that there is any determinable risk Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information.
Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other? Strictly speaking the answer is no. But again, you are free to have a personal opinion and act on that. Enjoy (I been sick, but I don't believe it is an ethereal elephants epidemic )by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Where, on this scale, can we place ourselves with regard to the confidence we have in the validity of the scale itself? Interesting question -- what gives us confidence in anything? Does this rely on objective application of discrete criteria, or is it subjective -- ie, would different people reach the same conclusion? How do we know what is "true" in any concept? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".
What causes us to tweak the model? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZ writes: Different people will have different opinions. But with regard to safegaurding my children's brains I am not interested in mere opinion. I want to take the safest rational course of action as per my stated criteria: [1] I want to safeguard my children from suffering brain damage.[2] I want to act in a manner that is rational. So - What is the safest rational course of action according to your approach? This is what I want to know.
RAZ writes: Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information. Just waiting to see if my children become brain damaged is not a sensible approach to the predicament at hand. If this is the only rational course of action according to your approach then your approach is practically useless for any situation where the potential consequences of inaction are dire.
Straggler writes: Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other? RAZ writes: Strictly speaking the answer is no. Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.
Similarly by the terms of your wider argument we must take an 'unconvinced' position towards your wider argument.
RAZD writes: And yet I really do not have sufficient information to enable me to decide (your definition), and I remain unconvinced (my definition) as a result.
RAZ writes: Now if you really feel that a decision is necessary, then you end up at (B) and make a guess based on your worldview opinions\biases\etc rather than on verifiable objective evidence. Is the position you are advocating in this thread derived from verifiable objective evidence? Is the position you are advocating in his thread a guess? Are you convinced or unconvinced by your arguments in this thread? For the record - I am unconvinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
The desire to have a better model.
ringo writes:
What causes us to tweak the model? Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Socrates, of course, doubted that postulate and said, "Belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see." Reference, please?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024