Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 307 (431882)
11-02-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Modulous
11-02-2007 3:28 AM


Re: The criteria of truth (telling it from fiction)
Philosophy cannot say, for definite, what is true or false.
It can't even say what is maybe true or false. At best philosophy can tell you which arguments are valid, that is, flow logically from their premises; but even if you have reason to believe that the premises are true (which philosophy has no power to discern), that still doesn't guarantee your conclusions are true.
I'm fairly sure it actually confirms the areas we already agreed about, and where we disagree with one another, it confirms things in my favour.
Perhaps that's because you're not reading it, or something? I mean, look:
quote:
The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.
That's philosophy literally hand-waving away the concern I'm talking about. I'm not the one dismissing anything, Mod - your quotation is.
I continue to be astounded by the number of people who, in an attempted refutation, post excerpts that completely prove my point. NJ did it last week and now you're doing it. It's the kind of thing that makes me feel like the only person around here who can read statements in the English language.
Oh my god. Another criterion of truth that you have been arguing for in this very thread
Um, what? No, you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand. Conclusions flowing logically from their premises is something that I have never put forward as a "criterion of truth", in fact quite the opposite, which again makes me wonder about your ability to understand plain statements in English.
Do you need quotations from me, or is the argument I laid out at the beginning of this post sufficient? However did you get the incredibly wrong idea that logical validity is a criterion for truth to me?
Out of interest though, do you have any argument of substance
Many. I'm still waiting around for any of you to address them. Why is that? Between your complete miststatement of my position, AO's smug arrogance, and Subbie nipping at my knees, I continue to be astounded that the supposedly legitimate, rigorous field of philosophy can be defended only by disingenuous and dishonest conduct. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2007 3:28 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2007 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 154 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2007 7:29 PM crashfrog has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 152 of 307 (431896)
11-02-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
11-01-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Let's Take a Test
OK, so would you be willing to say 'rigor' is empirical verifiability?
A working definition I've been going with is the ability to recognize false models.
OK, fair enough, you have strongly implied that this was your definition, just wanted to be sure.
You do realize that the professions such as medicine, law, engineering, business, education, etc. often have competing foundational models from multiple fields. That the decisions made by practitioners of the professions are often influenced by governmental and economic pressures. In other words, that essentially false models have been and can still be indistinguishable from true models given the more complex nature of decision making in the professions relative to the sciences. The professions often use best practices, the study of successes and mistakes, regardless of the prevailing theories in any given field.
Therefore according to your dogma concerning your definition of rigor and value, the professions of medicine, law, engineering, business, education, etc. "contribute nothing to human knowledge."
Basket weaving would be a form of engineering, obviously, and therefore a kind of natural science.
I meant hand-made, not mass produced. Well lets try sculpture or painting (not house painting, but rather painting on a canvas as in art), how about music?
You have already stated that history is a subset of anthropology and handicrafts, such as I meant in the basket weaving example, are a subset of engineering. Why are the classes in history not under the anthropology department nor classes in crafts not under an engineering department in universities? Why do both the LC and Dewey system in libraries consider anthropology and history separate subjects or handicrafts and engineering separate subjects?
Is it safe to presume that you will now argue that all universities and all libraries are wrong in how they classify and distribute knowledge?
crashfrog writes:
The thing is, Ang, nobody's here putting forward theatre as the underlying basis for all human knowledge. The claim made by philosophy's defenders - when they aren't acting like jackasses - is that you can't do anything without philosophy. No science, no learning, nothig.
Philosophy is responsible for everything? All knowledge? That's an extraordinary claim - as well as an extraordinarily arrogant claim.
Theatre isn't even on the radar, here. When theatre students go to their classes, they're learning stagecraft, they're studying plays and great performances, they're learning how to emote, maybe they're even discovering something about themselves. All that stuff is very well and good and I wish them the best of luck in all that; I'm a big supporter of the theatre, coming as I do from a theatre family.
But the students of philosophy are going to class, learning essentially the rules to a game, and then they're being taught that all human civilization has been made possible by the self-indulgent wankery they're engaging in.
It is clear to me that those defending philosophy as a worthwhile pursuit are doing so because they feel it is important to examine the assumptions one makes in learning any branch of knowledge. I don't really see anyone arguing that it is everything or that it is impossible to learn how to weave baskets without a firm grounding in neo-Platonism.
Besides logic and ethics are a part of philosophy, in dictionary definitions, in wikipedia, in university departments, and in the LC and Dewey system. What is your objection to people learning about ethics or logic? If anything, I think everyone should learn more about ethics and logic.
Of course you object to economics as well, a topic of another thread and a rant no known university, business, or government leader would agree with. I find it strange that virtually all people in higher education consider economics to be the most rigorous field in the social sciences largely due to its relatively greater reliance upon quantitative, rather than qualitative data. What happened to you to cause this strange hatred of economics? Did you get a D?
And then, of course, they show up here and act like smug assholes.
If that is what you insist, then that is the reality we must all live under.
It's because my opponents are delivering sophistry instead of rebuttals. It's precisely the sort of thing they prize in philosophy, and it's precisely the sort of thing that the rest of us reasonable people can't stand about you all.
You are the only one arguing that all three of the entire fields of economics, philosophy, and theology "contribute nothing to human knowledge." IMHO it should be nominated for FSTDT
Edited by anglagard, : a bit more on what a profession means.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2007 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 8:12 PM anglagard has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 307 (431899)
11-02-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
11-02-2007 6:33 PM


arguing past one another
It can't even say what is maybe true or false.
I linked you to a wikipedia article that discusses the various levels of confidence we can have in any proposition of truth.
So your argument is false.
That's philosophy literally hand-waving away the concern I'm talking about. I'm not the one dismissing anything, Mod - your quotation is.
My quotation is stating something you and I both know is true. There is no way to know for sure if something is true or not. Science cannot determine what is true or not. It can determine what is very very likely to be true or false. We can say that they are very likely to be true or false by arguing the merits of the various criteria of truth.
Nothing can tell truth from falsity. Nothing. You argue like philosophy is in a unique position here. The attempt to argue what is true or false is a philosophical endeavour. Science points to philosophical arguments to try and show why its conclusions are very likely to reflect a truth about nature.
The question "How do we know when something is true?", is a question of philosophy. The answer will be a philosophical argument. A scientist will point to the fact that his theory is fully coherent with all the facts, for example.
The point is, we can't prove that a coherent theory is true. We can only argue that a coherent theory is what we'd expect from a true theory, and argue that it being coherent is a good indication that it is true.
I'm still waiting around for any of you to address them. Why is that?
Well so far - you have yet to provide a source that describes modern philosophy in a way consistent with your criticism. You certainly have argued rigorously against something - but that something is not what I recognize to be philosophy. Without this source we will be arguing past one another - you attacking one thing, and me defending another.
I've provided my understanding of philosophy, and given sources which basically confirm this understanding. It is a discipline in which (among other things) people attempt to determine ways of knowing truth from fiction, and to determine ways of knowing right from wrong (And to try and understand what 'right' and 'wrong' means).
You seem to think philosophy is creating metaphysical rules and try develop theories that are consistent with these rules or something akin to that. I'd like to see some kind of source on that - I do not dispute that some of philosophy, indeed much of it, has explored avenues of thought that have proven unproductive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 8:18 PM Modulous has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 154 of 307 (431901)
11-02-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
11-02-2007 6:33 PM


Re: The criteria of truth (telling it from fiction)
Crashfrog to Modulous writes:
Um, what? No, you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand. Conclusions flowing logically from their premises is something that I have never put forward as a "criterion of truth", in fact quite the opposite, which again makes me wonder about your ability to understand plain statements in English.
So you are putting forward "quite the opposite" - that conclusions flowing logically from their premises are a criterion of falsehood?
It makes me wonder about some things on your part concerning plain statements in English as well.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 8:13 PM anglagard has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 307 (431906)
11-02-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by anglagard
11-02-2007 7:18 PM


We're on economics now, apparently
You do realize that the professions such as medicine, law, engineering, business, education, etc. often have competing foundational models from multiple fields.
I don't know what you think that sentence means, exactly. Neither law, business, or education purport to model the natural world. Engineering is a form of applied science.
I meant hand-made, not mass produced.
I know what you meant. Still an engineering problem.
Well lets try sculpture or painting (not house painting, but rather painting on a canvas as in art), how about music?
Art contributes not to human knowledge of the natural world, but to self-knowledge. Art, also, does not attempt to describe the natural world or to develop accurate models.
Look, Ang, I've addressed this.
Why are the classes in history not under the anthropology department nor classes in crafts not under an engineering department in universities?
Why does the University of Missouri at Columbia consider the study of insects to fall under plant science? Insects are significant pests of crop plants, and their interactions are worth studying from both sides, but the way universities decide to organize themselves is irrelevant to what's what, here. I thought Subbie was kidding when he made this argument the first time, it's so specious. It's astounding to me that two people find it compelling.
Is this what they're teaching in philosophy these days? Unbelievable.
I don't really see anyone arguing that it is everything or that it is impossible to learn how to weave baskets without a firm grounding in neo-Platonism.
Then I wonder, seriously, if you're reading every post in this thread Have you missed all the people who have told me that "philosophy is everything?" Have you missed every attempt by Mod and others to assert that, even when I'm arguing against the merits of philosophical argumentation, I'm doing philosophy?
Did you miss it when NJ said the following?
quote:
Crash, everything you have stated is philosophical. Everything! You really can't see the irony in all of this? You are nailing your own coffin shut. You can't even glean answers about science without having first dealt with the philosophical aspect.
quote:
I think perhaps the problem is that when we think of philosophy, we tend to associate these with some grand Aristotlean paradox, which, while being an aspect of philosophy, is not in and of itself the summation of philosophy. Children learn very early on about philosophy. Any truth claim made, or the very nature of what truth is, is philosophical. They are tackling epistemological questions before they can entertain scientific ones. What is true? What is false? What is truth? What are falsehoods? These come before the Pythagorean theorem or the aggregate air speed of an African swallow-- none of which, by the way, could be understood without that integral understanding of some basic philosophical points first.
How did you manage to miss all this, Anglagard? Philosophy's defenders are telling me that not only is philosophy worthwhile, it's essential to all other forms of human endeavor. No learning is possible sans philosophy, I'm informed by philosophers, who apparently ignore the fact that most people have zero exposure to formal philosophy until college - after 12 whole years of learning for most people (in my country, anyway.)
What is your objection to people learning about ethics or logic?
Ethics has no rigor, but its understood that ethics are personal anyway so it doesn't really matter. Logic is best considered mathematics, which I already proved to Subbie. I have no objections to people learning either. Indeed this discussion might be improved if my opponents would make a commitment to studying both.
I find it strange that virtually all people in higher education consider economics to be the most rigorous field in the social sciences largely due to its relatively greater reliance upon quantitative, rather than qualitative data.
I find it unlikely that this is the case. Everybody I know in the social sciences doesn't consider economics a science, doesn't consider it a field with rigor, and aren't impressed by the "reliance on quantitative data", which they observe is less than any other social science. For instance, George Akerlof's 2001 fake-Nobel Prize-winning paper in economics contained no quantitative data whatsoever. No data? Truly astounding for something that's supposed to be a science.
If economics were as you describe, I would have a better opinion of it. In practice economists rely on ideology, not data. There's a very good reason that there's no such thing as the "Nobel Prize in Economics" - only a prize given out by a Swedish bank in Alfred Nobel's name (a practice that they regularly are criticized for.)
You are the only one arguing that all three of the entire fields of economics, philosophy, and theology "contribute nothing to human knowledge."
Sadly for you, this is false. I'm by no means the only person arguing against the merits of these fields. Schraf (and Ben, in the beginning) has repeatedly staked out a position similar to my own, re: philosophy. (As a glutton for punishment, it's no surprise that I've stuck around to bear the indignities of dishonest philosophers, but I don't think any less of Ben or Schraf for having less of a stomach for arrogant bullshit artists.) No less a figure than Richard Dawkins recently called for universities to defend their departments of theology, since the object they claim to study (God) does not, apparently, exist.
And economics has long been known as the "dismal science", a nickname it had even before people began questioning its status as a "science."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2007 7:18 PM anglagard has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 307 (431907)
11-02-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by anglagard
11-02-2007 7:29 PM


Re: The criteria of truth (telling it from fiction)
So you are putting forward "quite the opposite" - that conclusions flowing logically from their premises are a criterion of falsehood?
Wow. Just, wow.
Have you ever studied logic? I mean, ever? You'd never know from this, I assure you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2007 7:29 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2007 10:26 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 307 (431908)
11-02-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Modulous
11-02-2007 7:25 PM


Re: arguing past one another
So your argument is false.
There's nothing in that article that disproves my argument.
Nothing can tell truth from falsity. Nothing.
Certainly not in a philosophical sense, no. Nonetheless, the conclusions of empiricism are confirmed, empirically. That philosophy cannot recognize this as true is philosophy's problem.
Well so far - you have yet to provide a source that describes modern philosophy in a way consistent with your criticism.
That's abundantly false, Mod. Everyone in this thread has described modern philosophy in a way consistent with my criticism, including yourself.
Philosophy is a field with no rigor. If this was not true, it would have been sufficient for any of the four of you to show me what the rigor is, instead I've simply been subject to a continuing stream of dishonesty and sophistry.
One post would have settled the whole issue, but for some reason, none of you can write that post. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2007 7:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 5:55 AM crashfrog has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 158 of 307 (431928)
11-02-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
11-02-2007 8:13 PM


Re: The criteria of truth (telling it from fiction)
crashfrog writes:
Have you ever studied logic? I mean, ever? You'd never know from this, I assure you.
In philosophy and higher mathematics, thats why I know the difference between P and ~P.
Edited by anglagard, : take out ad hominem

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 10:38 PM anglagard has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 307 (431929)
11-02-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by anglagard
11-02-2007 10:26 PM


Re: The criteria of truth (telling it from fiction)
In philosophy and higher mathematics, thats why I know the difference between P and ~P.
That's great, but did you skip class when they covered predicate logic? The negation of "all" is not "none", it's "some".
Even if you didn't know that, surely you could have read my remarks in context, and seen that I was simply repeating something that I'd said previously in the same post, and that the position that axiomatic validity indicates falsehood is not one that I had ever taken in this thread.
Of course, that would have required that you were reading for comprehension to prepare substantial rebuttals, not simply looking for potentially ambiguous statements to misinterpret in the most assailable way. Once again I'm wondering aloud why philosophy's defenders can't seem to comport themselves honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2007 10:26 PM anglagard has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 160 of 307 (431967)
11-03-2007 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
11-02-2007 8:18 PM


rigour, and how we know it
There's nothing in that article that disproves my argument.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were arguing that there is no verification, no way of telling truth from fiction, in philosophy. Of course, if you really were stupid enough to think that - the criteria of truth article puts that belief to rest. Since you don't we'll drop that line of enquiry.
Certainly not in a philosophical sense, no.
In any sense.
Nonetheless, the conclusions of empiricism are confirmed, empirically.
Right - it works. And the idea that something that works is probably true, was argued by the pragmatists. It's right in the criteria of truth article you've obviously read.
If you mean something else by the conclusions of empiricism are confirmed empirically, you'll need to explain in less circular terms so that I might understand.
That philosophy cannot recognize this as true is philosophy's problem.
That you cannot prove this is as true is subjective flawed humanity's problem. In order to try and 'do our best' to solve the problem, we philosophize. I know you think that it 'thinking about the nature of reality' might seem like a dirty word when we call it philosophy, but it really isn't that bad.
Everyone in this thread has described modern philosophy in a way consistent with my criticism, including yourself.
So you agree that modern philosophy is about finding out the truth, that modern philosophy rejects the obscure, the irrelevant, and the impenetrable? I thought you were defining it as obscure and irrelevant? You agree that philosophy is about discussing ethical concerns, about the correct principles of reasoning and about defining knowledge and discriminating truth from fiction?
There has been a tragic error in communication then.
Philosophy is a field with no rigor.
Erm, so actually, you aren't talking about the field I'm talking about. Can you show me this field you are talking about? I've been talking about a field which not only has rigour, but it goes out if its way to discuss how much rigour it has.
If this was not true, it would have been sufficient for any of the four of you to show me what the rigor is, instead I've simply been subject to a continuing stream of dishonesty and sophistry.
Well, I tried, but you seemed to be wilfully not reading. I talked about verificationism for several posts, defined it and posted a link to it and you still didn't know what it is. I mentioned the criteria of truth, which are the criteria for discriminating truth from falsity. These are clear, reasoned arguments that have been developed, and used in the real world. They are not dishonest, nor are they sophistry.
Crashfrog's dilemma You say that rigour is the thing to aim for in a discipline. You like empiricism. Show me that empiricism has rigour -which we are defining as the ability to discern true models from false ones. If you cannot do this, you entire point seems to have collapsed since rigour is so very important to you. You can use whatever example you like. I thought evolution might be a good one, but its not compulsory.
The dilemma is this: Either empiricism has no rigour and you are forced to abandon it. Or it does have rigour - and you have to appeal to philosophy. No doubt you are utterly convinced that it both has rigour and that philosophy doesn't enter into it. We will see.
The statement 'empiricism is proven empirically' is exactly as meaningful as 'theology is proven theologically' and I have the same amount of respect for it. Come on crash, you can do better than resorting to tautologies and falsity can't you?
Just to show good faith, I'm going to provide you with the argument you should be advancing - the reasonable argument. This argument was put forward by a philosopher. That argument is titled Higher-order truths about chmess
quote:
Many projects in contemporary philosophy
are artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance, but it
is treacherously easy for graduate students to be lured
into devoting their careers to them, so advice is proffered
on how to avoid this trap.
That is the direction you should be going in. Dennett argues that there is plenty of useless crap in philosophical discussions, and young philosophers are more likely to fall into the latest fad, wasting their time. He proffers advice on how to avoid the traps as best they can.
He is agreeing with your central points, but does not agree with your conclusion - that all of philosophy is a waste of time. Let's see if we can't both come to agree with this article. I chose this one, because many of the points you have raised are raised in this article almost exactly. I will end with another Dennett quote:
quote:
I say, along with many predecessors, that philosophy is what you are doing when you don't yet know what the right questions are. Once you ask the right questions (and know why these are the right questions), your attempt to answer them is not philosophy but . . . whatever it is - science, history, economics, . . . So philosophy is inescapably informal, more like art than science, a matter of imaginatively poking around and trying things out--with plenty of rigorous criticism of those attempts, but still, it's the bold strokes of imagination that do the heavy lifting. At its best (when it is well informed in the discipline whose questions it is trying to refine and improve), it makes significant contributions. But it's chief risk are flights of fantasy that may only divert the fantasists (while diverting the attention of more reality-based researchers from the questions they could more fruitfully pursue).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2007 8:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 11:25 AM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 307 (431995)
11-03-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Modulous
11-03-2007 5:55 AM


Re: rigour, and how we know it
Still you can't seem to answer the question.
Mod - where's the rigor? Anything else is sophistry. You're not showing me the rigor, you're excusing philosophy's lack of it, but that's just proving my point with every post.
"Verificationism", whatever that may have been, was not rigor. It was simply philosophy's excuse for not having rigor. There's absolutely no requirement in philosophy, after all, that a philosopher use verificationism, or even consider it valid. It's optional. Didn't you see that in the article?
The dilemma is this: Either empiricism has no rigour and you are forced to abandon it. Or it does have rigour - and you have to appeal to philosophy.
Except that we covered this, Mod, in a thread of argumentation that you abandoned, remember? I need not appeal to philosophy to defend the rigor of empiricism, except in the sense where you keep using "philosophy" to describe any kind of thinking at all; it's sufficient to observe the rigor of empiricism with our senses.
That's it. It's simple as hell. So show me the rigor of philosophy, if you can. Don't explain why it isn't there; I've already done that to my satisfaction.
Come on crash, you can do better than resorting to tautologies and falsity can't you?
The problem is that philosophy can't; that as a framework it offers no better a justification for empiricism than it does for theology. But it's obvious that empiricism is truer than theology.
That's what I've been getting at, this whole time. You continue to think of the circular justification for empiricism as a problem with empiricism. It's not. The problem is that philosophy, lacking rigor, offers no better justification for something that we can just see is true.
Mod - where's the rigor? Verificationism wasn't it; it was just one of a bazillion differing philosophical positions on truth that a philosopher might hold, or might not, as the fancy struck him. That's not rigor. That's why there's no rigor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 5:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 12:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 162 of 307 (432008)
11-03-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
11-03-2007 11:25 AM


Re: rigour, and how we know it
Mod - where's the rigor?
Criteria of truth have been posed as an answer to this question.
"Verificationism", whatever that may have been, was not rigor. It was simply philosophy's excuse for not having rigor.
So the idea that we should be able to verify our statements about the world is not rigour. OK, no problem - you brought up verification as a criteria, I just went along with it. What about some other criteria of truth?
Philosophy does not excuse itself for the lack of rigour. If you make an unrigorous philosophical statement, it will be rigorously criticised by on the grounds that it is not rigorous.
I need not appeal to philosophy to defend the rigor of empiricism, except in the sense where you keep using "philosophy" to describe any kind of thinking at all; it's sufficient to observe the rigor of empiricism with our senses.
Then don't use 'philosophy', just explain to me how it has the quality of being rigorous. How does empiricism tell true models from false ones? You may use an example.
So show me the rigor of philosophy, if you can. Don't explain why it isn't there; I've already done that to my satisfaction.
It is there, see criteria of truth, as a means of rigorously examining the truth of any statement or collection of statements or model or whatever.
The problem is that philosophy can't
Of course it can. Evolution is a coherent, consistent theory that has a high degree of correspondence with reality as agreed on by many people, and it can be used for a variety of purposes
That was really easy. Philosophy even goes into why coherency is a desired criterion and the degree of confidence we can have in it as an indication of truth. That is using philosophy - rather than ridiculous appeals to tautology.
What do you use to convince someone who has been taken in by creationism? Do you just say that empiricism just works, or do you explain to them why the fact that it works and is coherent strongly suggests that it is a true reflection of reality?
You continue to think of the circular justification for empiricism as a problem with empiricism.
Of course it isn't a problem with empiricism - it's a problem for you since it simply contains no useful information, does not advance any argument and doesn't justify using empiricism over other methods.
I can quite happily justify empiricism, logical positivism, or whatever - and I don't need to create tautologies - I just appeal to fallibilism or tentativity and say 'we can't know for sure, but empiricism has some strong arguments to suggest very strongly that its the best way ascertaining true things from false ones'. You seem to be saying that because we can't know for sure - this is a problem for philosophy.
It isn't - it's a problem with subjective entities exploring objective entities.
Mod - where's the rigor? Verificationism wasn't it; it was just one of a bazillion differing philosophical positions on truth that a philosopher might hold, or might not, as the fancy struck him. That's not rigor. That's why there's no rigor.
Right - and any method of rigour that you might have (feel free to actually give us some examples whenever you are ready) - is almost certainly one of those 'bazillion'. You have decided that this system is 'best', just as I have decided that a similar but slightly different system is best. Just as NJ has decided on a different one again.
We can argue and argue for years on end, but there is nothing which absolutely disproves or proves that the method we consider rigorous is the correct one. That's why this site exists, to try and convince people on the other side that your way of examining the world is superior - is more rigorous, and that rigour is a desired trait in the pursuit of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 11:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 1:40 PM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 307 (432024)
11-03-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Modulous
11-03-2007 12:39 PM


Re: rigour, and how we know it
Criteria of truth have been posed as an answer to this question.
And so which is the criteria of truth you've proposed that is accepted by all philosophers, and that nothing is philosophy is accepted as true or valid unless it meets that criteria?
In other words - where's the rigor?
So the idea that we should be able to verify our statements about the world is not rigour.
Sure, it could be rigor, if philosophers were required to use it. But you have yet to show me that verificationism is universally applied to philosophy, that it's a requirement of philosophical reasoning in the same way that empirical verification is a requirement of acceptable scientific reasoning.
I don't see anything in philosophy to indicate that philosophers are required to employ verificationism. In fact, your quotations proved the exact opposite, proved my point - that philosophers can use verificationism, or they can decide not to, and philosophy doesn't seem to care. A given statement in philosophy isn't automatically less true simply because verificationism wasn't applied.
Right?
How does empiricism tell true models from false ones?
Empiricism is telling the true models from the false ones, by recourse to testing and observation. Empiricism doesn't have rigor, it is rigor in the sciences.
We can argue and argue for years on end, but there is nothing which absolutely disproves or proves that the method we consider rigorous is the correct one.
I'm aware that that's the position of philosophy. My whole point is that this is the position of philosophy.
Stop telling me things I already know, stop telling me things that prove my position instead of yours, and show me the rigor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 12:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 2:06 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 165 by subbie, posted 11-03-2007 2:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 164 of 307 (432035)
11-03-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
11-03-2007 1:40 PM


Re: rigour, and how we know it
And so which is the criteria of truth you've proposed that is accepted by all philosophers, and that nothing is philosophy is accepted as true or valid unless it meets that criteria?
There is no such criteria - only reasons for why certain criteria can give a better sense of what is true and false. Just like the criteria you use to judge true from false. Just like the criteria all people use. Since people use different criteria, how do you convince them yours is better? You present an argument in support of it and try and convince them. That would be philosophy.
Sure, it could be rigor, if philosophers were required to use it.
They aren't required to use it. If they don't they will be criticised by those that believe it is a requirement to avoid saying nonsense. Such as yourself - and myself - and many modern philosophers.
I don't see anything in philosophy to indicate that philosophers are required to employ verificationism
Nobody is required to employ it. If they want to try and uncover a truth about the world, and they do not utilize verificationism or similar such theories of truth, their arguments will be dismissed as meaningless by many modern philosophers and even if they have sticking power they will probably be forgotten about in a year or two. See Dennett's criticism on philosophizing about Chmess (and how it compares to philosophizing about Chess).
Empiricism is telling the true models from the false ones, by recourse to testing and observation. Empiricism doesn't have rigor, it is rigor in the sciences.
So, explain to me how 'testing' and 'observation' can tell a true model from a false one. I submit that a statement in science has to have some kind of correspondence with reality as we know it, and we can establish this correspondence through testing - correct?
I submit to you that this doesn't prove that one thing is true or false. It just gives a strong indication that it is. Unless you reject tentativity? It would make sense of your position, but it would make your position terrible so I will assume that you do accept tentativity unless corrected.
I'm aware that that's the position of philosophy. My whole point is that this is the position of philosophy.
You keep inserting the word philosophy. I said NOTHING. NOTHING, not science, not religion, not art, not reason, not logic, not maths not observation. Nothing in human endeavour can prove that our preferred way of establishing truth about the world (eg empiricism) is true, correct or accurate.
Attempting to argue why one way of establish truth (empiricism) is better than another (theology) is called philosophy. Most of the great philosophical works will include a criticism of rival methods for determining truths. One of those methods, has won hearts and minds so much it led to the refined and disciplined methodology we call modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 1:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 2:17 PM Modulous has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 165 of 307 (432039)
11-03-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
11-03-2007 1:40 PM


Re: rigour, and how we know it
Rigor in philosophy is exactly the same thing as rigor in science: consensus.
Rigor in science is producing reproducible results, in other words, the ability to convince other scientists that one's conclusions are correct. Rigor in philosophy is constructing an argument that other philosophers agree with, in other word, the ability to convince other philosophers that one's conclusions are correct. Rigor in either field is the ability to convince others in the field that one's conclusions are correct.
The difference, of course, is that science deals in conclusions about the natural world, whereas philosophy deals in conclusions about nonmaterialistic matters.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 1:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2007 2:22 PM subbie 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