|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st December 2012, 07:43 PM | #401 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
1st December 2012, 08:16 PM | #402 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,942
|
Ah, you want me to explain. It made me laugh out loud because it is hilariously wrong and profoundly stupid at the same time. Juxtaposed with the fact that, as a member of JREF forums, you probably think you are smart and understand science, well that made it the icing on the cake. So I had a hearty belly laugh. Thanks, I needed that.
|
__________________
"Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast |
|
1st December 2012, 08:18 PM | #403 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
That's not exactly true. If a philosopher said, "I decided this morning, over breakfast, that the whole world is made of jam. I don't need to prove it." then your characterization of philosophy would be correct. In reality a philosopher would not get away with doing that. A philosopher would only usually say something like that to point out the fact that not all explanations are equally worthwhile and that if someone were to make a statement like that the burden of proof was on them rather than the person listening.
Instead, philosophers may try to give an account of what it is that people mean when they talk about human concepts such as justice, morality, aesthetic judgement etc...* For example, Hume gave an account of how humans make moral judgements that can be either agreed to or dismissed according to the argument itself. Science cannot really determine whether Hume is correct or incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enqu...ples_of_Morals * And, of course, knowledge, language and various other things. |
1st December 2012, 08:24 PM | #404 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
…yes of course. That would be the ‘one’ (reality) about which you had this to say: …and about which Richard Feynman had this to say… The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work Would appear that someone has missed a few science classes. Question #1: Does meaning exist? Question #2: Which branch of science has explained it? ....something else Mr. Feynman had to say: One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. |
1st December 2012, 08:43 PM | #406 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
|
1st December 2012, 09:55 PM | #407 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,146
|
How is one to reconcile this with what these physicists had to say about Popper's idea of falsification?
Quote:
Fairly certain PixyMisa has me on ignore. If any body is interested in seeing how he/she might respond to this they are probably going to have to quote this post |
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski |
|
1st December 2012, 10:22 PM | #408 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
|
1st December 2012, 10:23 PM | #409 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
We have reached the point in the conversation where someone is going to have to buy me a beer or I'm going home to see what's on the telly.
|
1st December 2012, 10:26 PM | #410 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
I have read Sokal and Bricmont's book, and my understanding of what they said was that they largely agreed with Popper on falsification, as opposed to Feyeraband's "anything goes" anti-method method, that a scientific principle must be falsifiable in principle, but that they disagreed with the strong form of Popper's argument that all scientific theories will remain mere conjecture regardless of how many times something is tested. Sokal and Bricmont argued that tests which don't falsify a scientific principle will amount to a certain amount of confirmation and support for the principle.
What Popper was largely arguing against was the logical positivists' assertion that verification was the only means by which something is regarded as scientific. The problem for the logical positivists is that by their own standards nothing was verifiable, including causation (which they believed, in agreement with Hume, couldn't be verified), therefore they were left with a big problem of not being able to say anything at all about the physical world. Also, the logical positivists believed there were only two kinds of knowledge, that which is demonstrated by logic and reason, i.e analytic a priori truths, or things which were true by definition and told us nothing interesting about the world, and that which was confirmed by experience, i.e synthetic a posteriori truths. They emphatically disagreed with the Kantian notion of synthetic a priori truths which were truths which could be determined by reason that did tell us something useful about the world. Unfortuantely for them, if true, the verification principle would also be a synthetic a priori truth. |
2nd December 2012, 08:38 AM | #413 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
Quote:
Anyway, it's laughably arrogant, seeing as how 95% of the energy and matter of the universe are still a mystery to us. |
2nd December 2012, 08:52 AM | #414 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
It was a while ago. I certainly said that, and it's entirely correct in context. (That context being that dualism is worthless nonsense even if it is correct.)
Quote:
|
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
2nd December 2012, 08:59 AM | #415 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
|
2nd December 2012, 09:07 AM | #416 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
Again, this makes the most sense if you contrast it with dualism.
Dark energy interacts with space-time, and thus with matter and energy. We know this, because we detect the effect it has on space-time via matter and energy. (We look through our material telescopes, collecting light energy, and see that there's a pattern of acceleration of distant galaxies.) Since all these things interact, they are ultimately all the same kind of stuff - in a Grand Unified Field Theory sense. Under dualism, the concept is that you have two (sometimes more, but usually two) types of stuff - matter and mind, or the prosaic and the spiritual - that don't interact at all. That is, they are fundamentally distinct, and can't be unified by definition. Of course, dualism also says that these two fundamentally distinct types of stuff do interact, which is why it is useless even if it is true. |
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
2nd December 2012, 09:44 AM | #417 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
2nd December 2012, 09:47 AM | #418 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
2nd December 2012, 10:09 AM | #419 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,942
|
Asking for an explanation wasn't particularly funny, so I didn't laugh out loud on that one. But I was laughing at your quote, not myself or yourself (technically on the latter, though I presume every body on these boards think they are smart and somewhat at least understand science). I am curious as to whether you realise how wrong your statement (that scientific reasoning does not rely on assumptions) was though.
|
__________________
"Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast |
|
2nd December 2012, 02:11 PM | #420 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
This guff made me laugh.
''Since the moral principle of the categorical imperitive requires that the moral agent abstract from the concrete content of duties and aims, its application necessarily leads to tautological judgements'' |
2nd December 2012, 02:30 PM | #421 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
|
2nd December 2012, 02:42 PM | #422 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
2nd December 2012, 04:12 PM | #423 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
2nd December 2012, 04:14 PM | #424 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
Quote:
“Culture is part of the absurdity of consciousness,” says Foucault; however, according to Werther[1] , it is not so much culture that is part of the absurdity of consciousness, but rather the meaninglessness, and thus the rubicon, of culture. Baudrillard promotes the use of posttextual narrative to modify and read sexual identity. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term ‘the capitalist paradigm of expression’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox. I can discern no meaning that word salad. Why would consciousness be absurd? Perhaps one of the philosophy aficionados can explain. |
2nd December 2012, 04:34 PM | #425 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
I'll play this game with you for one more round, but I don't place a very high probability on the theory that you have any genuine desire to learn something. I think you've committed yourself to philosophy-bashing at this stage and to try to save face you'll be contributing nothing but vacuous ridicule from this point forward.
I note that you haven't taken on board, for example, that moral philosophy is completely uncontroversially part of philosophy, and that moral philosophy is important. Anyway, ''Since the moral principle of the categorical imperitive requires that the moral agent abstract from the concrete content of duties and aims, its application necessarily leads to tautological judgements''. The moral principle of the categorical imperative is that you should act in such a way that you could will with a good conscience that everyone else in the same situation act likewise. Or alternatively, to treat people always as ends in themselves not merely as means to your end. (Kant contended that these two formulations were functionally identical but many think this is nonsense). From this principle Kant got to the conclusion that nobody should ever steal, for example, because if everyone stole society wouldn't work and also because stealing people's stuff treats them solely as means to your end of having more stuff. So it's accurate to say that "the categorical imperative requires that the moral agent abstract from the concrete content of duties and aims". You aren't doing moral reasoning based directly on concrete duties like "do not park on a yellow line" or "do not steal that purse" but on more abstract, higher-level reasoning. A "moral agent" is an entity capable of knowing right from wrong. Animals aren't usually considered moral agents, and profoundly brain damaged humans might not, but if sapient aliens landed on Earth tomorrow they'd probably count. The argument they are gesturing towards without explicating in detail is something about how this leads to tautological judgments. Tautological judgments would be things like "You should not steal because you should not steal", which would be circular and hence meaningless. I'm not sure how they plan to get to that conclusion and I doubt their argument is going to be watertight, but that's what they are saying Hegel showed. Since it's Hegel I doubt he managed it to my satisfaction but I speak without having read the specific argument so maybe I'm wrong. Why do they write that way? Well, maybe part of it is obscurantism or a desire to appear academic. On the other hand "categorical imperative" is a term every moral philosopher understands immediately, "moral agent" is a very useful term to avoid making claims that are too broad or too narrow, "tautology" is a logical term every philosopher understands, "necessarily" is a very useful logical connective used to express a specific claim, and if you think words like "abstract" or "application" are highfalutin' then academia definitely isn't an area you're cut out for. There is obscurantist philosophical writing, and as far as I'm concerned Acleron's quote is representative of such writing (“Culture is part of the absurdity of consciousness,” says Foucault; however, according to Werther[1] , it is not so much culture that is part of the absurdity of consciousness, but rather the meaninglessness, and thus the rubicon, of culture. Baudrillard promotes the use of posttextual narrative to modify and read sexual identity. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term ‘the capitalist paradigm of expression’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox."). That's Continental philosophy for you. However the text you've found simply is not obscurantist. It's not aimed at you. it's aimed at philosophers, and to them it's perfectly comprehensible. |
2nd December 2012, 05:09 PM | #426 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
As if philosophy had the patent on obscure, in-crowd chatter:
"A Hilbert space is an abstract vector space possessing the structure of an inner product that allows length and angle to be measured. Furthermore, Hilbert spaces must be complete, a property that stipulates the existence of enough limits in the space to allow the techniques of calculus to be used." Talk about abstract nonsense! (And that's the easy version.) |
2nd December 2012, 05:46 PM | #427 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
You didn't explain why consciousness is absurd, or meaningless. Are you just taking that for granted? Why would
crossing the Rubicon be involved? A google of ''post textual narrative'' produced this load of cobblers: Madona, Marxism and the Post-textual Paradigm of Narrative Boyang Zhang ''The main theme of the works of Madonna is the stasis of capitalist society. In a sense, the destruction/creation distinction prevalent in Madonna's Sex emerges again in Material Girl, although in a more self-referential sense. If one examines the posttextual paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept Derridaist reading or conclude that language may be used to exploit the proletariat, but only if the premise of predialectic theory is valid; if that is not the case, Foucault's model of the posttextual paradigm of narrative is one of "subdialectic material theory", and thus part of the genre of art. Marx uses the term 'predialectic theory' to denote a mythopoetical paradox. Therefore, Reicher[1] holds that the works of Madonna are modernistic. The primary theme of Tilton's[2] analysis of the posttextual paradigm of narrative is the role of the observer as artist. Bataille suggests the use of predialectic theory to challenge sexism. In a sense, the main theme of the works of Madonna is a semioticist whole.'' http://voices.yahoo.com/madona-marxi...ve-138890.html If you can read that without laughing then you have a heart of stone ( with apologies to Oscar Wilde) |
2nd December 2012, 05:50 PM | #428 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 05:55 PM | #429 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
2nd December 2012, 06:01 PM | #430 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:02 PM | #431 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:04 PM | #432 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
2nd December 2012, 06:07 PM | #433 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:07 PM | #434 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
|
Ironic that the people with the highest post counts are saying the least.
|
2nd December 2012, 06:15 PM | #435 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:15 PM | #436 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
2nd December 2012, 06:16 PM | #437 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
2nd December 2012, 06:22 PM | #438 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:28 PM | #439 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:33 PM | #440 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|