First-Science

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:00 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;128374 wrote:
I sometimes think a new name is in order to separate logical truth, necessary truth, colloquial truth, etc... because all too often they are mixed and mingled, diced and sliced in conversation making it very hard to distinguish one's usage of the word (and we all know we hate adjectives right?)


I can see where you are coming from. "Truth" is a hornet's nest.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 09:17 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128222 wrote:
But why could not some statement be true that is inconsistent with the evidence. Many people think that the statement that there is a God is inconsistent with the evidence, but it may be true nonetheless.
I suppose I see what you're saying but the god example isn't a very good one. If an agent's attributes contradict observed reality then the logical conclusion is that such an agent does not exist. If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.

 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:45 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;128475 wrote:
If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.

You make a good point, but what authority is this should grounded upon? Should the claim that a universally applicable reason exists also be rejected on parsimonious grounds? Or is faith in a universal reason justified by its fruit?
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 03:46 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128200 wrote:
It is true, I think, that nothing is certain. But why should that mean that there is no truth? What have certainty and truth to do with one another?
I meant "there is no truth" as in "nobody knows the truth". Who can say what is true?

But I admit I was wrong, I forgot there are certain things that are certain and true. I exist, for example =)

Off course, my existance is only certain to myself.

Scottydamion;128374 wrote:
I sometimes think a new name is in order to separate logical truth, necessary truth, colloquial truth, etc... because all too often they are mixed and mingled, diced and sliced in conversation making it very hard to distinguish one's usage of the word (and we all know we hate adjectives right?)
I agree, and I think there are many other words that should be "split" into many meanings. Sadly language cannot be altered at will, our only hope is to invent words/expressions for our own use and hope they will spread.

Reconstructo;128300 wrote:
I can't agree with this. I don't think we "know what's down there." I don't think that "there is nothing new under the sun." I don't think that fundamental questioning "leads nowhere." Are we forgetting Socrates?
I dont mean that there is nothing else to be know, but that this kind of question has already been asked in this forum a lot. You will always find something new then you dive in the ocean, but ever next dive will be less interesting, and you will be less likely to accept an invitation from someone to another dive.

Then I say that it leads nowhere, its mostly a joke about how we are hardly ever able to relate these findings to the "real visible world".

By the way, I dont really know anything about Socrates, but shouldnt we question his views as well? I think we shouldnt worry about forgetting his ideas.

Reconstructo;128300 wrote:

Another thing: do you find no thrill in the grand questions?
If I found no thrill in then I wouldnt have bothered to dive in even once =)

I think thats true for everyone, what also means that everyone is thrilled by those questions. But, like I said, the more you have already tried to answer then, the less you want to try =)
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:35 pm
@Reconstructo,
But isn't it also very likely that the more times one considers these questions, the deeper the understanding of them becomes? And isn't it also sometimes the case that each time, we ask a slightly different question that leads us into unchartered and, for each of us, unencountered waters?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:57 pm
@manored,
manored;128645 wrote:
I meant "there is no truth" as in "nobody knows the truth". Who can say what is true?



But I know a great many truths. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I know that Mars is the fourth planet. I know that I was born, and I had parents. Shall I go on? And so do you know many truths. I can say that all these truths are true.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 05:58 PM ----------

jgweed;128669 wrote:
But isn't it also very likely that the more times one considers these questions, the deeper the understanding of them becomes? And isn't it also sometimes the case that each time, we ask a slightly different question that leads us into unchartered and, for each of us, unencountered waters?


No. ............Why do you think so?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 06:01 PM ----------

hue-man;128475 wrote:
I suppose I see what you're saying but the god example isn't a very good one. If an agent's attributes contradict observed reality then the logical conclusion is that such an agent does not exist. If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.



I said that many people believe what is inconsistent with the evidence. I did not say they should do so.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 09:50 pm
@manored,
manored;128645 wrote:

I think thats true for everyone, what also means that everyone is thrilled by those questions. But, like I said, the more you have already tried to answer then, the less you want to try =)


I find it addictive. I also reject the notion that the results are the same for everyone. I utterly reject that assumption. The more books one reads and more importantly digests, the richer one's vocabulary becomes for re-contextualization of these texts, for pitting them against one another.

I like Bacon. Knowledge is sometimes power. But I don't think philosophy is all about the practical. This is philosophy, not carpentry or waste management.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 10:53 PM ----------

manored;128645 wrote:
I meant "there is no truth" as in "nobody knows the truth". Who can say what is true?

I can relate to your open-mindedness. For me, this kind of skepticism is not a curiosity killer.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 10:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128680 wrote:
I said that many people believe what is inconsistent with the evidence. I did not say they should do so.


I know that's not what you meant, but you stated it as an example so I addressed it.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:39 PM ----------

Reconstructo;128627 wrote:
You make a good point, but what authority is this should grounded upon? Should the claim that a universally applicable reason exists also be rejected on parsimonious grounds? Or is faith in a universal reason justified by its fruit?


This should is grounded upon logical coherence with the world around you. There is a such thing as reality and a such thing as imagination. Any confusion of the two is an affirmation of the latter.

Your statements imply that we need a transcendent, metaphysical authority in order to have a coherent view of reality. God is dead but you remain in his shadow.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 10:47 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;128807 wrote:

This should is grounded upon logical coherence with the world around you. There is a such thing as reality and a such thing as imagination. Any confusion of the two is an affirmation of the latter.

Your statements imply that we need a transcendent, metaphysical authority in order to have a coherent view of reality. God is dead but you remain in his shadow.


That's hilarious, man. You are stealing my lines! Actually we are both stealing Nietzsche's and Rorty's lines. If you are a neo-pragmatist, I salute you.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:49 PM ----------

hue-man;128807 wrote:

Your statements imply that we need a transcendent, metaphysical authority in order to have a coherent view of reality. God is dead but you remain in his shadow.


I just looked at my statements to make sure. What are you talking about? Are you on this planet?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:51 PM ----------

hue-man;128475 wrote:
I suppose I see what you're saying but the god example isn't a very good one. If an agent's attributes contradict observed reality then the logical conclusion is that such an agent does not exist. If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.



In my opinion, this "reality" of yours is the shadow of "God." Is this the age-old correspondence theory of truth? Old news. Good for certain purposes but crammed with prejudice.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:01 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128813 wrote:
That's hilarious, man. You are stealing my lines! Actually we are both stealing Nietzsche's and Rorty's lines. If you are a neo-pragmatist, I salute you.
Well we're both thieves. That's a fun fact!

Reconstructo;128813 wrote:
I just looked at my statements to make sure. What are you talking about? Are you on this planet?
I took a rocket ship to your planet and attempted to speak your language. You keep mentioning authority and the fact that man invents concepts and words, which seems to render everything (even truth) relative in your view. This results from your lack of belief in an omniscient metaphysical authority to give you a god's eye view. Not that you're consciously aware of this, though.

Reconstructo;128813 wrote:
In my opinion, this "reality" of yours is the shadow of "God." Is this the age-old correspondence theory of truth? Old news. Good for certain purposes but crammed with prejudice.


Let's see if you've been paying attention. What is my view of reality and what is my theory of truth?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:03 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;128822 wrote:

Let's see if you've been paying attention. What is my view of reality and what is my theory of truth?


How about you just save us the time and briefly state your position.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 12:08 AM ----------

hue-man;128822 wrote:
You keep mentioning authority and the fact that man invents concepts and words, which seems to render everything (even truth) relative in your view. This results from your lack of belief in an omniscient metaphysical authority to give you a god's eye view. Not that you're consciously aware of this, though.


You're right. I don't believe in an omniscient authority. (I thought you were implying the opposite of this). I would say that I'm a relativist, but that's only relatively true. (I don't think philosophy should exclude jokes, either). I quite consciously aware of this. I write especially on the theme of self-consciousness. I fascinated by the way humans present themselves to themselves.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 12:10 AM ----------

hue-man;128807 wrote:

This should is grounded upon logical coherence with the world around you. There is a such thing as reality and a such thing as imagination. Any confusion of the two is an affirmation of the latter.

Sincerely, you seem to be using the word "affirmation" is a strange manner here. Also, "logical coherence" is a questionable phrase.

Do you mean that our practical necessities ground our epistemology? Well, I agree with that. But it's not the whole story. For a well-fed man wants myths, stories, entertainment, etc. And this is where wishful thinking comes in, as a luxury item.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 01:42 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128101 wrote:

Reconstructo;128101 wrote:
Do we stop questioning because our current position is emotionally satisfying? Are all intellectual positions based on a sort of faith? On the cessation of questioning?
Is the "pursuit of truth" a bluff, then? Is "truth" just adjustment?


Do you question the singularity of reality because you fear to face it? Is your implicitly relativistic position the rationalization of a coward? Isn't this pseudo-problematic exhibition a refuge from the real work of philosophy?
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:00 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128101 wrote:



Do you question the singularity of reality because you fear to face it? Is your implicitly relativistic position the rationalization of a coward? Isn't this pseudo-problematic exhibition a refuge from the real work of philosophy?


Wait, did you just debate yourself online? Isn't that like talking to yourself outloud but ten times worse? Razz
 
jgweed
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 11:13 am
@Reconstructo,
Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 11:27 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;129033 wrote:
Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.


Perhaps, but emphasis on debating with oneself online. I'm just giving him a hard time, in a sense I think we function by debating with ourselves, kind of like a sane version of multiple personality disorder.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 12:57 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;128669 wrote:
But isn't it also very likely that the more times one considers these questions, the deeper the understanding of them becomes? And isn't it also sometimes the case that each time, we ask a slightly different question that leads us into unchartered and, for each of us, unencountered waters?
I did say this, quoting myself...

"You will always find something new then you dive in the ocean"

I hope the ocean analogy is not giving anyone trouble, I though it was a good one =)

kennethamy;128680 wrote:
But I know a great many truths. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I know that Mars is the fourth planet. I know that I was born, and I had parents. Shall I go on? And so do you know many truths. I can say that all these truths are true.
What if the people of Quito are wrong, and that is not the name of the city? It may be thousands and thousands of people with centuries of writen history against one crazy man, but is it really impossible for the crazy man to be wrong?

Reconstructo;128793 wrote:
I find it addictive. I also reject the notion that the results are the same for everyone. I utterly reject that assumption. The more books one reads and more importantly digests, the richer one's vocabulary becomes for re-contextualization of these texts, for pitting them against one another.
You should have quoted a bit more, what I said to be true for everyone are not the results, but the fact that you need to have some interest in a question to make it. Nobody makes a question without having interest in the answer. Since everyone makes the grand questions, everyone is interested in then.

Reconstructo;128793 wrote:

I like Bacon. Knowledge is sometimes power. But I don't think philosophy is all about the practical. This is philosophy, not carpentry or waste management.
I agree, though I dont see how this is an answer to what I said.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

jgweed;129033 wrote:
Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.
I have to agree, and comment that it is both sad and hilarious...

Scottydamion;129037 wrote:
Perhaps, but emphasis on debating with oneself online. I'm just giving him a hard time, in a sense I think we function by debating with ourselves, kind of like a sane version of multiple personality disorder.
Ever so often I catch myself having a mental debate with myself. Sometimes I even tell parts of my mind to shut up mentally. Its like there is someone else in here with me, perhaps the subconscient.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:09 pm
@manored,
manored;129062 wrote:

What if the people of Quito are wrong, and that is not the name of the city? It may be thousands and thousands of people with centuries of writen history against one crazy man, but is it really impossible for the crazy man to be wrong?





What if my grandmother had wheels? She would be a bicycle. But there is absolutely no reason to think that my grandmother has wheels, and every reason to think she does not. And there is absolutely no reason to think that the people of Quito are wrong, and every reason to think they are right. A crazy man might be right (I think you mean) but there is no reason to think he is, and every reason to think he isn't.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
kennethamy wrote:

But why could not some statement be true that is inconsistent with the evidence. Many people think that the statement that there is a God is inconsistent with the evidence, but it may be true nonetheless.


You mean it might be true, not may be true, right?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;129070 wrote:
You mean it might be true, not may be true, right?


It certainly might.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:20 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128823 wrote:
How about you just save us the time and briefly state your position.
You spoke as if you knew what my position was. I'm a scientific realist and my position is that truth is logical and parsimonious consistency with evidence. In order for something to be true, I hold that is must be able to be verified by empirical study or logical decidability. For example, it's true that your screen name is Reconstructo. That's a synthetic proposition that can be verified by empirical study. Here's another truth: all bachelors are unmarried. That's an analytic proposition. My notion of truth is coherence grounded in correspondence and justified by pragmatic meta-consideration.

Reconstructo;128823 wrote:
Sincerely, you seem to be using the word "affirmation" is a strange manner here. Also, "logical coherence" is a questionable phrase.
My use of the word may have been slightly out of context, but you get my point. Logical coherence is only a questionable phrase if you don't know what I mean by logical. There a field in philosophy known as logic. The field uses induction and deduction to arrive at a coherent conclusion. In other words, 1+1=2 and 2+1=3.

Reconstructo;128823 wrote:
For a well-fed man wants myths, stories, entertainment, etc. And this is where wishful thinking comes in, as a luxury item.
That's what aesthetics is for.



 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:57 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;129033 wrote:
Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.


Yes, indeed. And I would bet that you and a few others understand why I did such a thing in this first-science thread. A bold and sincere first science seems necessarily to be a wrestling with one's self. I can easily imagine Nietzsche's turbulent internal dialectic. I wonder how often Socrates, when he was lost in thought, was in a heated debate with himself.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 03:01 PM ----------

hue-man;129075 wrote:
You spoke as if you knew what my position was. I'm a scientific realist and my position is that truth is logical and parsimonious consistency with evidence. In order for something to be true, I hold that is must be able to be verified by empirical study or logical decidability. For example, it's true that your screen name is Reconstructo. That's a synthetic proposition that can be verified by empirical study. Here's another truth: all bachelors are unmarried. That's an analytic proposition. My notion of truth is coherence grounded in correspondence and justified by pragmatic meta-consideration.

My use of the word may have been slightly out of context, but you get my point. Logical coherence is only a questionable phrase if you don't know what I mean by logical. There a field in philosophy known as logic. The field uses induction and deduction to arrive at a coherent conclusion. In other words, 1+1=2 and 2+1=3.

That's what aesthetics is for.





I think all of your replies were intelligent, and I can respect your position. Mine probably lays more stress on the fusion of the epistemological and the aesthetic, as I think that a person's choice of an epistemology cannot be justified by that same epistemology. I also think the self is largely contingent, by which I mean determined by circumstance.

I do think that your position and any position is questionable. I think that our method is always ultimately itself grounded on faith, on unprovable axioms.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 03:04 PM ----------

manored;129062 wrote:

You should have quoted a bit more, what I said to be true for everyone are not the results, but the fact that you need to have some interest in a question to make it. Nobody makes a question without having interest in the answer. Since everyone makes the grand questions, everyone is interested in then.

Sorry if I took you out of context. I agree that questions are motivated.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 03:11 PM ----------

Scottydamion;129037 wrote:
Perhaps, but emphasis on debating with oneself online. I'm just giving him a hard time, in a sense I think we function by debating with ourselves, kind of like a sane version of multiple personality disorder.


No offense taken by the way.

I wasn't sober, for one thing. But just as important, I have always want to manifest my ironic mentality -- from writerly motives especially. Joyce in Finnegans Wake has his father character (representing himself, Shakespeare, God, Totality, etc.) split into two sons. These two sons are mentally against one another.

The word "doubt" comes from the word "zwei" which means two. (This German word happens to begin my last name.) To doubt is to be of two minds. Doubt is schizophrenia light. As you implied in your own words.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 10:29:40