Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:12 pm I've seen this expressed in several ways before but never with this phrase.
There is no entry for it in Stanford, and I can't see how "criterion" is an apt word for what is being asked.
It is the standard opening gambit of epistemology.

"criterion" is a perfectly apt word.

criterion. noun. a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.

What principle or standard would you use to decide what is knowledge and what is not-knowledge?

Any process of binary classification (sorting things into two categories) requires a classification rule. This is the foundation of science. This is how null and alternative hypotheses are conjured and tested.

If I gave you a bag full of ААААААAAAAАААAAAАAAAАААAAAAAAAААAAAAA and I told you to sort it into two homogenous categories, you have to first be able to tell the difference between A and А before you can sort them.

Recognition is fundamental to epistemology. It's not a gambit - it's a fact.

Trivially demonstrable by showing you the METHOD for achieving the task: https://repl.it/repls/ImaginativeBlondCase

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:28 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:12 pm I've seen this expressed in several ways before but never with this phrase.
There is no entry for it in Stanford, and I can't see how "criterion" is an apt word for what is being asked.
It is the standard opening gambit of epistemology.

"criterion" is a perfectly apt word.

criterion. noun. a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.

What principle or standard would you use to decide what is knowledge and what is not-knowledge?

No. This is an example of a modern philosopher re-hashing a much older and traditional set of questions, and applying a word from sideways.
"The Criterion Problem" is meaningless on its own. It is in fact the age-old "problem of knowledge". It might as well be the criterion problem for the alcohol in beer; the criterion for criterion for voting age; or the criterion for shoe size.

Clearly Roderick Chisholm is a talented self publicist. But has he anything new?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:05 pm No. This is an example of a modern philosopher re-hashing a much older and traditional set of questions, and applying a word from sideways.
"The Criterion Problem" is meaningless on its own. It is in fact the age-old "problem of knowledge". It might as well be the criterion problem for the alcohol in beer; the criterion for criterion for voting age; or the criterion for shoe size.

Clearly Roderick Chisholm is a talented self publicist. But has he anything new?

If you don't like the word chose another one that pleases you. If you don't like the word "knowledge" change it also. Henceforth I am going to use the word "crumpets" instead of the word "knowledge". There is no age-old "problem of crumpets" so your inner nit-picker can be at ease.

My argument is not about defining crumpets. My argument is about recognising actual crumpets despite it having a thousand definitions. To this end you need some subjective criterion/heuristic to admit "crumpets" and discard "not-crumpets" as you go about living in this world.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:08 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:05 pm No. This is an example of a modern philosopher re-hashing a much older and traditional set of questions, and applying a word from sideways.
"The Criterion Problem" is meaningless on its own. It is in fact the age-old "problem of knowledge". It might as well be the criterion problem for the alcohol in beer; the criterion for criterion for voting age; or the criterion for shoe size.

Clearly Roderick Chisholm is a talented self publicist. But has he anything new?

If you don't like the word chose another one that pleases you. If you don't like the word "knowledge" change it also. Henceforth I am going to use the word "crumpets" instead of the word "knowledge". There is no age-old "problem of crumpets" so your inner nit-picker can be at ease.

My argument is not about defining crumpets. My argument is about recognising actual crumpets despite it having a thousand definitions. To this end you need some subjective criterion/heuristic to admit "crumpets" and discard "not-crumpets" as you go about living in this world.

See now you are just being silly. What criterion are you using for crumpets? Why not tea cakes?
I'll stick to the "Problem of Knowlege" that has existed for 2,500 years.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:23 pm See now you are just being silly. What criterion are you using for crumpets? Why not tea cakes?
I'll stick to the "Problem of Knowlege" that has existed for 2,500 years.

Empirical testability, falsifiability and reproducibility. The only possible epistemology there is.

I even offered you a demonstration. An experiment. Living proof, and you are still trying to drag this down into the trenches of Philosophical sophistry.

Which I shall re-state again:

If I gave you a bag full of ААААААAAAAАААAAAАAAAАААAAAAAAAААAAAAA and I told you to sort it into two homogenous categories, you have to first be able to tell the difference between A and А before you can sort them. Trivially demonstrable by showing you the METHOD for achieving the task:

https://repl.it/repls/ImaginativeBlondCase

Hypotheses non fingo.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:23 pm See now you are just being silly. What criterion are you using for crumpets? Why not tea cakes?
I'll stick to the "Problem of Knowlege" that has existed for 2,500 years.

Empirical testability, falsifiability and reproducibility. The only possible epistemology there is.

I even offered you a demonstration. An experiment. Living proof, and you are still trying to drag this down into the trenches of Philosophical sophistry.

Which I shall re-state again:

If I gave you a bag full of ААААААAAAAАААAAAАAAAАААAAAAAAAААAAAAA and I told you to sort it into two homogenous categories, you have to first be able to tell the difference between A and А before you can sort them. Trivially demonstrable by showing you the METHOD for achieving the task:

https://repl.it/repls/ImaginativeBlondCase

Hypotheses non fingo.

This is off topic.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:29 pm This is off topic.

How is it off-topic? If you don't subscribe to the scientific epistemic criterion then what epistemic criterion do you subscribe to?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:29 pm This is off topic.

How is it off-topic? If you don't subscribe to the scientific epistemic criterion then what epistemic criterion do you subscribe to?

Where is emergence?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 pm Where is emergence?

In the same place all your concepts reside.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:33 pm Where is emergence?

The same place all your concepts live.

Not relevant.
Where is it in your post?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:37 pm Not relevant.
Where is it in your post?

It's not in my post. It's in my postS.

Collate them.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:38 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:37 pm Not relevant.
Where is it in your post?

It's not in my post. It's in my postS.

Collate them.

I don't like imperatives.

But it is as it seemed to be: the discussion is at an end.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:41 pm

PTH wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:02 pm When would you say "I pay it" and when would you say "I pay it gladly"?

Whenever I feel like it. Why do you ask?

That's consciousness demonstrated.

Twice.

PTH wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:03 am That's consciousness demonstrated.

Twice.

How do you know?

I openly admit that I don't know what "consciousness" is, and so I can neither assert nor reject me possessing such property.
While I am agnostic with respect to "consciousness", you seem to know what it is. More than that - you seem to be ascribing that property to me.

If you are going to claim that I am demonstrating "consciousness" then you must be epistemically honest with yourself and admit that it's just a hypothesis. I can trivially dismiss your claim of "consciousness demonstrated" with an accusation of confirmation bias.

You have an a priori belief of what 'consciousness' is and does; and you are projecting that belief onto me. You have fallen for the mind-projection fallacy.

In your mind, what evidence/demonstration would falsify the hypothesis "Skepdick is conscious"? If you can't answer that question your hypothesis is Not even wrong.

But that's not even the thing that puzzles me the most. If you already know what 'consciousness' is and you already know how to recognise 'consciousness', what is it exactly that you need explained? You know more about 'consciousness' than I do (obviously, because I don't know anything about it)!

So it is pertinently obvious that you should be explaining to me what you believe 'consciousness' is. Go right ahead!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:41 am While I am agnostic with respect to "consciousness", you seem to know what it is. More than that - you seem to be ascribing that property to me.

Its more that you are demonstrating it. Similarly, a cat can eat, but can't define nutrition.

You also seem to be demonstrating empathy. See how much you know?