Evidence versus Proof

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;109436]Well, maybe we are more in agreement than I suspected. [/QUOTE]I think much disagreement (in general) stems from our battle with language. Of course, that's not to say people don't have substantive disagreements, but I've found that in philosophical discussions, there is much dispute over only what appears to be substantive issues. The key to getting to the heart of an issue quickly often lies in getting past the language issues.

For example, earlier I put something in parenthesis that may have gone unnoticed: "or rather, that our concepts develop." The intentional act of exposing ourselves to new ideas may result in our concepts becoming more developed, but I wouldn't want to therefore lead you to think that we are developing our concepts (although I can live with that assessment). Rather, the further development of our concepts would be a naturally occurring consequence of learning and thus saying that we are developing our concepts shouldn't be interpreted as if we are physically doing something ourselves to the concepts we have to develop them. At any rate, I feel only somewhat comfortable saying that we develop our concepts, yet I would feel very much more comfortable saying that our concepts develop.

[quote]I've been stressing that subjective (mind-dependent) reality is just as real as the "mind-independent" reality. Some of my language was tangled in response to objections from others beside yourself. I tried to tailor my persuasions to their prejudices. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]I can certainly relate to that, especially when engaging with multiple participants.

[quote]Perhaps you will admit that its obviously true that humans played a key role in the development of these concepts, which is the more moderate expression of the idea that "man creates his concepts." [/QUOTE]I think I can live with that. A couple years back, I studied a little (on the side) about childhood development where actual concept formation was touched upon, and I don't see how it could be true that we play no role, so yes, I can admit that.[/SIZE]

[quote]If you agree that our conception of objective reality is imperfect and founded on sense-data, inter-subjectivity, and language -- we really don't disagree much. [/QUOTE]Imperfect huh. Well, I agree that many of us have misconceptions, but I think some of our conceptions aren't misconceptions at all, but that's not what you asked is it. You said, "imperfect," and I'm not sure I know enough where I would feel comfortable in making that assumption. We are fallible human beings, and we sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes we think we know something when we in fact don't know what we think we do, but although we are always progressing and learning and sometimes finding out about prior mistakes, I don't think for a moment that we don't actually know a good bit. Sometimes, I think we are spot on and believe exactly what is the case.[/SIZE]

[quote]My objection has always been that to found truth on reality is redundant. How is reality established? Sense-data, persuasion (philosophy forums..), consensus(the sense-data of others as reported, common names, inherited language, common concepts), etc.[/QUOTE]You're doing it again. Losing me, that is. It seems to me that (maybe) you're asking me how can we know what is true when you ask, "How is reality established?" There is (I believe) some good answers to that question, but unless I get to the bottom of what drives you to ask me, answers (whether provided by me or others) will be met with objections that will lead us back to square one, so I speculate there is an underlying issue at play (that you have) that surrounds the fact that our understanding of the external world may be skewed because of a lack of a direct connection between (say, for example) an object in the external world, like a rock, and our mental perception of the rock. It's almost as if you're saying we can't be sure that what we think is the case is the case since each person has a unique perception of the world around us. Am I at least close?[/SIZE]

@fast,

I appreciate your courteous and thorough replay.

As far as language goes, I generally agree with who-ever said it that language philosophy is first philosophy. "Define your terms" along with "know thyself" still go a long long way toward the goal.

I suppose when I originally said that man creates his concepts, I had philosophical concepts especially in mind. Though I think we agree that even simple concepts exist in the mind and must have the mind's participation in their development/creation.

I agree that in many cases, in relation to our human needs, we do have a near perfect or perfect enough understanding of objective reality. We've come a long way. But I do expect some of today's ideas to be replaced by tomorrow's, just as yesterday's are replaced by today's.
I know the last thought is the one I get the most resistance on in general. It involves the correspondence theory of truth. The idea is that a statement is true to the degree that it corresponds to reality. So to test a statement we must look at reality for confirmation. But some aspects of reality are in dispute. For instance, eyewitnesses who disagree, or scientists who disagree. If we had a perfect knowledge of reality, the correspondence theory of truth would be perfect. But reality is still being discovered/processed/ and interpreted. So truth and reality are almost redundant in this case. In simple cases, where there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, like a security camera catching a crime, or a crowd witnessing a civil war battle, the correspondence theory is fine.

I think the coherence theory of truth is more psychologically accurate, if less ideal when it comes to the creation of technology.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109405 wrote:

Have you read any Heidegger? I already said that for me, truth is justified belief. So you can have your Quito. I never brought up the city names and the basketballs. I was aiming my guns at more speculative questions to begin with. Such as the foundation of truth.

And no of course I don't think I can prove my argument, unless prove just means persuade. If you think I'm making unpractical statements, you're attacking a scarecrow. I have no intention of denying practical truth, animal faith, the everyday sense of objective reality.

I'm questioning the theoretical as opposed to the practical validity of the correspondence theory of truth, which is built on a questionable axiom. If truth corresponds to reality, how do we know reality? Facts are sentences, not realities.

For a long while I had a justified belief that Rio de Janiero was the capital of Brazil. Guess what, it wasn't true. Brasilera was.

No one can prove arguments. Arguments can neither be proven nor disproven. What can be proven are the conclusions of arguments (or not).

A sentence is a fact. But no facts are sentences. They are facts.

The question of practicality, whatever that question is, is irrelevant.

P.S. I have (tried) to read Heidegger. And I lost a number of IQ points I could ill-afford to lose, doing it.

@fast,

Now you have a justified belief that Brasilera is the capital of Brazil.

Ok, it would be better to say prove conclusions, but you obviously knew what I meant.

I think facts are sentences. Or at least sentence phrases. Perhaps you can present an exception? And truth is a property of sentences. (though that's not the only description I could offer of "truth," as you well know.)

The question of practicality is exactly what makes us prefer the correspondence theory of truth. If we did not have a body and an environment that made demands on us, we wouldn't concern ourselves with adjusting our opinions to reality.

I know Heidegger's style is atrocious. I sure as hell wouldn't back him 100%, but he has his virtues.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109492 wrote:

Now you have a justified belief that Brasilera is the capital of Brazil.

Ok, it would be better to say prove conclusions, but you obviously knew what I meant.

I think facts are sentences. Or at least sentence phrases. Perhaps you can present an exception? And truth is a property of sentences. (though that's not the only description I could offer of "truth," as you well know.)

The question of practicality is exactly what makes us prefer the correspondence theory of truth. If we did not have a body and an environment that made demands on us, we wouldn't concern ourselves with adjusting our opinions to reality.

I know Heidegger's style is atrocious. I sure as hell wouldn't back him 100%, but he has his virtues.

Well, now I have justified true belief that B. is the capital of Brazil, so, I have justified belief that B. is the capital of Brazil. If I know, then I have justified belief, but if I have justified belief, I need not know. We should not confuse; all cases of knowing are cases of justified belief, with all cases of justified belief are cases of knowing. That would be committing the fallacy of false conversion.

The fact that the Moon exists could not have been a sentence ten million years ago, since although the Moon did exist, there was no language at that time, and therefore, there were no sentences.

I am happy that the correspondence theory is practical (whatever that means). But that is not why it is true. Although, perhaps that it is true explains why it is practical (whatever that means).

@fast,

fact 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

Unless there is man, there is no knowledge or information. Ergo no facts.

The practical issue is a strange dodge from my perspective. I'm starting to sound like the realist here.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109502 wrote:

fact 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

Unless there is man, there is no knowledge or information. Ergo no facts.

The practical issue is a strange dodge from my perspective. I'm starting to sound like the realist here.

I use the term fact the way Joe Friday of Dragnet used it when interrogating witnesses and urged, "Just the facts, m'am". That is, truths. It was a fact (truth) that the Moon existed when there was no language. Therefore, the sentence, "the moon exists" was not a fact, although, could such a sentence have been uttered, it would have expressed a fact. Sentences express facts, but are not, themselves, the facts they express. Just as words refer to things, but are not, themselves, the things to which they refer.

@kennethamy,

According to the dictionary, facts are knowledge or information. Facts imply consciousness. Of course you are welcome to your idiosyncratic definitions. But I also thought of you as a fan of the dictionary. No offense intended.

Did the moon exist before us? Sure, according to our presently existing mental-models, if we exclude the element of consciousness.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109524 wrote:

According to the dictionary, facts are knowledge or information. Facts imply consciousness. Of course you are welcome to your idiosyncratic definitions. But I also thought of you as a fan of the dictionary. No offense intended.

Did the moon exist before us? Sure, according to our presently existing mental-models, if we exclude the element of consciousness.

Facts are what we know, not the knowledge of them. Does the dictionary actually say that facts imply consciousness? And, isn't it a fact that the Moon existed before human beings? According to the best of our knowledge (or to use your phrase, "according to our mental models"). And whether we include or exclude "the element of consciousness".

Finally, a good dictionary can be very helpful. And it is an excellent start to thinking about the meaning of a term. But philosophers do more than the dictionary does. They analyze the meaning of the term. The dictionary is a good beginning, but not necessarily a good ending. It does not tell me that knowledge is true justified belief, for instance. I don't expect it to do my philosophical work for me. Sentences, to repeat, express facts, but are not the facts they express. So, to say that the fact that the Moon exists is identical with the sentence, "The Moon exists" seems to me patently false. As false as that, the word, "cat" is, itself, a cat.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109529 wrote:

Facts are what we know, not the knowledge of them. Does the dictionary actually say that facts imply consciousness? And, isn't it a fact that the Moon existed before human beings? According to the best of our knowledge (or to use your phrase, "according to our mental models"). And whether we include or exclude "the element of consciousness".

Finally, a good dictionary can be very helpful. And it is an excellent start to thinking about the meaning of a term. But philosophers do more than the dictionary does. They analyze the meaning of the term. The dictionary is a good beginning, but not necessarily a good ending. It does not tell me that knowledge is true justified belief, for instance. I don't expect it to do my philosophical work for me. Sentences, to repeat, express facts, but are not the facts they express. So, to say that the fact that the Moon exists is identical with the sentence, "The Moon exists" seems to me patently false. As false as that, the word, "cat" is, itself, a cat.

I agree that philosophers should analyze the meanings of terms. When the dictionary defined facts as knowledge or information, I thought it was safe to suggest that knowledge and information cannot exist in the absence of consciousness.

In non-philosophical discussions, it may indeed be awkward and redundant to treat facts as sentences, but this is a philosophical point and it's of the essence. I'm accusing you of neglecting the subjective element. Whereas perhaps you would accuse me of over-emphasizing it.

I would say in the practical sense that yes it's a fact "that the moon existed before man." But in a theoretical sense it's no so easy. For facts are the correspondence of knowledge with reality (so says the dictionary) and what correspondence can there be without knowledge, which seems impossible in the absence of consciousness?

No man has ever experienced anything w/o consciousness. This is a belief I describe as justified.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109532 wrote:

I agree that philosophers should analyze the meanings of terms. When the dictionary defined facts as knowledge or information, I thought it was safe to suggest that knowledge and information cannot exist in the absence of consciousness.

In non-philosophical discussions, it may indeed be awkward and redundant to treat facts as sentences, but this is a philosophical point and it's of the essence. I'm accusing you of neglecting the subjective element. Whereas perhaps you would accuse me of over-emphasizing it.

I would say in the practical sense that yes it's a fact "that the moon existed before man." But in a theoretical sense it's no so easy. For facts are the correspondence of knowledge with reality (so says the dictionary) and what correspondence can there be without knowledge, which seems impossible in the absence of consciousness?

No man has ever experienced anything w/o consciousness. This is a belief I describe as justified.

I still don't know what distinction you are making between "practical sense" and "theoretical sense". Why is it not true that the Moon existed before human beings in the theoretical sense? It is what scientific theory tell us, doesn't it? Facts are not the correspondence of knowledge with reality. We know because our beliefs correspond with the facts, i.e. we have true beliefs (which are justified). I don't understand the phrase, "correspondence of knowledge with reality". What I understand is the correspondence of our beliefs with reality, which then are knowledge.

No man has ever experienced anything w/o consciousness

That is a trivial truism, since consciousness is a necessary condition of experiencing. But it would be fallacious to conclude from this that nothing exists without consciousness. That would assume that because what you experience cannot be experienced without consciousness, that what we experience cannot exist without someone being conscious of it. And that is false. And that, of course, is the idealist fallacy (that because what you experience cannot be experienced without consciousness, that what we experience cannot exist without someone being conscious of it).

@fast,

For one thing, what you call the "idealist fallacy" is just something dreamed up by someone. The playbook of fallacies has no authority for me. You may find it persuasive. I find it quaint.

By "practical sense" I mean to make it clear that I see why someone would say that the moon existed before man. The man on the street wouldn't give it much thought. But as a foolosopher, I analyze words -- words like existence. Existence only occurs, presumably, for creatures with brains. A fact is knowledge that corresponds with reality. Of course this implies the representational theory of truth, but we'll let that be.

By "theoretical sense" I refer to the stricter use of language that I associate with philosophy. Science tells us that the moon was hear before us, yes. But science does its best to forget the subjective element. Philosophy should not. Science is an activity of man's consciousness. And if we think of the moon existing before man, this thought is existing within man. I don't think we should be so eager to dissociate consciousness from existence. This is an example of what is called the "silly fallacy."

I don't think anything exist (in my strict use of the word) without us being conscious of it. You are free to define existence as independent of consciousness. But don't turn up your nose at theism, then. (Perhaps you don't, but I feel like you might...) For what have you experienced in the absence of consciousness?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109541 wrote:

For one thing, what you call the "idealist fallacy" is just something dreamed up by someone. The playbook of fallacies has no authority for me. You may find it persuasive. I find it quaint.

No one dreamed up the Idealist fallacy. I stated it plainly, and it is clearly fallacious since the conclusion does not follow from its premise. People do not dream up fallacies. They discover that people argue in a certain way, and since that certain way of arguing is fallacious (the conclusion fails to follow from the premise) that argument is a fallacy. Quite simple.

If you think that the conclusion follows from the premise, please say why you do. Why should it follow from the premise that what I experience cannot be experienced without consciousness (which is trivially true) that what is experienced cannot exist without consciousness? Note, I am not saying that the conclusion is true or false (although it seems to me obviously false). I am just saying that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. How could that conclusion possibly follow from that premise?

I think that what you find quaint is only what you find unfamiliar. Argument. The problem is called (sometimes) "Rortyosis". It is acquired by reading too much Rorty. It makes you forget what an argument is.

@fast,

1. "Fallacy" is just one of those concepts that philosophers invent. Then some of them use it like a magical incantation, making a fetish of the word.
2. I already explained to you that for me the word "exist" implies consciousness. As no human being has experienced anything but consciousness.
3. We both agree that the scientific mental-model of the past suggest that the moon was here before us.
4. I emphasize that this mental model is man's creation, and exists by means of his consciousness. And only exists after man.
5. You have failed to provide a single example of existence devoid of consciousness. I assume you admit this is impossible.
6. No one discovers that an argument is fallacious. They describe an argument as fallacious.
7. Whether a conclusion follows a premise is determined by individual human beings. It isn't like math. If it were as simple as math, you and I would not be arguing all these points. You find some conclusions persuasive that I do not. You describe some beliefs as justified that I do not.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109546 wrote:

1. "Fallacy" is just one of those concepts that philosophers invent. Then some of them use it like a magical incantation, making a fetish of the word.
2. I already explained to you that for me the word "exist" implies consciousness. As no human being has experienced anything but consciousness.
3. We both agree that the scientific mental-model of the past suggest that the moon was here before us.
4. I emphasize that this mental model is man's creation, and exists by means of his consciousness. And only exists after man.
5. You have failed to provide a single example of existence devoid of consciousness. I assume you admit this is impossible.
6. No one discovers that an argument is fallacious. They describe an argument as fallacious.
7. Whether a conclusion follows a premise is determined by individual human beings. It isn't like math. If it were as simple as math, you and I would not be arguing all these points. You find some conclusions persuasive that I do not. You describe some beliefs as justified that I do not.

1. "Fallacy" is not a concept, it is a term.
2. The concept of fallacy was, of course, "invented" by philosophers. It is a philosophical (more accurately, logical) concept. So who else, would you expect, would "invent" it? All concepts are created by people. The people who created the concept of fallacy were philosophers. News from nowhere.
3. Science not only suggests, but asserts, that that the existence of the Moon preceded that of human beings by many years. No human being has ever reported the sudden appearance of the Moon, and I have a feeling that if that is what happened, it would have been noticed.
4. The chair on which I seat is "devoid" of consciousness. The house in which I am, is devoid of consciousness. The Moon is devoid of consciousness.
5. Numerous students taking logic have discovered that the fallacy of denying the antecedent is a fallacy. Or that the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious, if they did not know these were fallacies before. And many of them did not.
6. Whether a conclusion follows a premise can (at least in the case of formal logic) be determined by the truth table (I mean propositional logic). It can also be determined by the method of counter-example. Since the validity or invalidity of an argument is dependent on the form of the argument, it an argument of the same form as a given argument is fallacious, then the the given argument is fallacious. Only someone who know little logic could say that whether an argument is fallacious or not is determined by individual human beings. That's like saying that whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador is determined by individual human beings, or that there is a Moon is determined by individual human beings. Just plainly false. We are arguing about these matters partly because you don't know much logic. If, in the argument:

1. If 7 is evenly divisible by 3, then 7 is a number.
2. 7 is not divisible by 3

Therefore, 3. 7 is not a number.

Were believed by anyone to be valid, he would be obviously wrong, since that argument has true premises, and a false conclusion, and a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. And, in fact, the explanation of the invalidity of the above argument is that it commits the fallacy of the denial of the antecedent. If you reply, please address this example, and tell me why anyone would believe that argument was valid, when it has true premises and a false conclusion. The only explanation I can think of is that such a person does not know what the term "valid" means. From which it would follow that he knew no logic.

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;109537]I still don't know what distinction you are making between "practical sense" and "theoretical sense".[/quote]

Normal view versus twisted view (!) except that he thinks the theoretical sense is the correct view (or philosophical capital 'T' Truth) and the practical sense is our misguided common sense view (or layman lowercase 't' truth).

So, I suspect that he does NOT think that trees were really in fact around before the first humans appeared on the planet (hence, they did not exist) since it's not True in the theoretical sense (since consciousness is purportedly a requirement for Truth), yet he acknowledges our misguided common sense practical view that it's true (lowercase 't') that trees were in fact around before the first humans appeared on the planet.

Awe, but how can it be true that there were no trees before the first humans since trees that produce oxygen is a requirement for human life? Well, it can't, but (how can it be true?) is different than (how can it be True?) such that what is true isn't dependent on consciousness whereas what is True is (purportedly).

The question then is why does he even hold the conjured up view that there is a theoretical sense of Truth that is different than plain ole truth? He is quite obviously in the grip of a theory that can and does lead to his (not necessarily holding but) expression of some quite bizarre views, and I suspect it's going to be a long time coming before we find the key to unlocking and unraveling the mystery that grips him so.

But, if I had to guess, the problem lies in not having a good grasp on just how words ought to be used. If that's cleared up, I suspect that you'll find that in the end our views are not all that dissimilar.

<insert Wittgenstein quote of your choice here>

---------- Post added 12-09-2009 at 11:18 AM ----------

[QUOTE=kennethamy;109592]2. The concept of fallacy was, of course, "invented" by philosophers. It is a philosophical (more accurately, logical) concept. So who else, would you expect, would "invent" it? All concepts are created by people. The people who created the concept of fallacy were philosophers. News from nowhere.[/QUOTE]

I would have thought that having a mental concept of something is a bit like having an understanding of something. Once we discover something foreign to us, a mental concept of that something naturally develops.

For example, as I began to recognize that there is such a thing as an error in reasoning, my concept of what is referred to as a fallacy developed. I wouldn't think that philosophers invented the concept but rather invented the term to describe what was recognized (or discovered).

"All concepts are created by people."

I would never thought you to say such a thing. Oh well. This is a side issue anyway.

@fast,

fast;109601 wrote:

Normal view versus twisted view (!) except that he thinks the theoretical sense is the correct view (or philosophical capital 'T' Truth) and the practical sense is our misguided common sense view (or layman lowercase 't' truth).

So, I suspect that he does NOT think that trees were really in fact around before the first humans appeared on the planet (hence, they did not exist) since it's not True in the theoretical sense (since consciousness is purportedly a requirement for Truth), yet he acknowledges our misguided common sense practical view that it's true (lowercase 't') that trees were in fact around before the first humans appeared on the planet.

Awe, but how can it be true that there were no trees before the first humans since trees that produce oxygen is a requirement for human life? Well, it can't, but (how can it be true?) is different than (how can it be True?) such that what is true isn't dependent on consciousness whereas what is True is (purportedly).

The question then is why does he even hold the conjured up view that there is a theoretical sense of Truth that is different than plain ole truth? He is quite obviously in the grip of a theory that can and does lead to his (not necessarily holding but) expression of some quite bizarre views, and I suspect it's going to be a long time coming before we find the key to unlocking and unraveling the mystery that grips him so.

But, if I had to guess, the problem lies in not having a good grasp on just how words ought to be used. If that's cleared up, I suspect that you'll find that in the end our views are not all that dissimilar.

<insert Wittgenstein quote of your choice here>

Yes, a lot of this is just apparent disagreement (verbal disagreement). I'll quote, instead, from George Berkeley. "Philosophers themselves raise the dust, and then complain they cannot see". The original notion (you find in Plato) was that there was an Idealized Form of Truth, which was the ideal to which mundane "truth" aspired, but could never attain. That was the original "theology" (or metaphysic). But nowadays people still hold on to this notion that there are two kinds of truth, "Truth" and "truth", but they have dropped the Platonic metaphysic which gave it life. It is now a little bit like Unitarianism. Religion without theology.

@fast,

I like that quote. Thank you. Enlightening even!

@fast,

You just don't get it. You cling to your propositional logic as an altar boy clings to his rosary beads. You want claim linguistic philosophy and yet a holistic view of language seems to have not occurred to you.
That fallacy is a concept and its associated term is important, for you make a fetish of this concept. You trot it out as a bible-thumper trots out sin.

You pose as the party of common sense, and yet lack the eyes to see how the world really works. You bemoan the irrationality of a fallacious humanity... If only they knew your holy method.

You appeal to math which I have time and time again mocked as something obviously different from word. The linguistic philosophers were at their most naive and superstitious when they tried to make a sort of math out of word.

I compare your attitude to a mediocre chess player who thinks he's Napoleon.

A fact is information or knowledge that corresponds to reality. So says the dictionary. And what knowledge can there be without man?

The practical/theoretical distinction is significant. Or do you force your mother to define her terms when she says she loves you?

Numerous students taking logic have gaped at the teacher opened mouth, receiving their communion.

In philosophy, the party of common sense is often the party of flat-earthers.

What you call plainly false, that truth is determined by individual human beings in relation to one another, is plainly true. And that you don't see that strikes me as humorously superstitious.

Have you never thought about the issue?

@fast,

Great, my last post in this thread is still here, but my great thread on "percept" that would have made me famous is gone, and just think, I would have been the envy of many a philosopher too.

grrr

Philosophy Forum

Evidence versus Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know