Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:56 pm If you say the way to find out what you should want is, "anthropogeny first, then of teleology, and then of ethics," instead of reason, "since you say, "what ends are, or should be, rationality never tells you," what faculty do you use for anthropogeny, teleology, and ethics?
They can only be premised on what you actually believe to be true about those questions (anthropogeny, teleology, ethics). There can be no other grounds than reality itself.
What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason? And what do you mean, "no other grounds?" No other grounds for what? You said you cannot use reason to determine right objectives, so once you have your right, "premise," and correct, "ground," what method do you use to proceed, since reason won't work?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm Now, some such beliefs are more plausible, based the evidence reality provides, than are others. And some are not plausible at all, perhaps. But people are odd: sometimes, they insist on acting on a set of beliefs they may even secretly strongly suspect isn't true.
What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible? Do you just guess, go by your feelings, or let whim decide? Reason, according to you, is out.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm For example, Socialists today have every reason to know that their creed is contrary to the realities of human nature, sociology and history, but simply refuse to accept any data as sufficient evidence to abandon their Socialism.
But according to you reason is incapable revealing they should do otherwise. What difference does it make what reason says if it cannot discover what one should do?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm Anthropogeny, teleology and ethics provide a "map" for rational behaviour. But they can't guarantee rational people. Some are just not, and prefer to live even with beliefs that are inconsistent or completely in defiance of the available data.
"Rational behavior?" Is that suddenly the same as, "right behavior?" Doesn't being a rational person mean one who uses correct reason?

You said:
It's not "irrational" to want to be the Tyrant of Russia. Reason qua reason has no opinion about whether or not you should be. ... Reason only supplies the connection between what you want and how to get there. Reason can tell you that a revolution will serve your purposes most expeditiously, so that becomes the "rational" solution. It can't tell you you "shouldn't" want to be a Russian Tyrant.
You said:
I might reason that being "not nice" is the way to get what I want the fastest, with the least cost to me: very rational indeed. To steal, when one can get away with it, is extremely rational as a way of getting what one wants. To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, ...

What difference does it makes what one's premises are or what data they have if reason is not able to tell you what you should and shouldn't do? If that were truly the case, there would be no advantage to rationality over irrationality.

Why do you hate to admit that reason is the only faculty human beings have for discovering anything and of making judgments of right and wrong? It it is not reason, what Is?

If what you believe is not based on reason, it must be based on something else. If you reject reason, I want to know what that, "something else," is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 am What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason?
I didn't say you shouldn't use reason. I said that reason qua reason did not have an opinion which premises you might take.

The premises come first. That's true of all logic. One must have at least two premises, both presumed to be true, before logic has any chance of resulting in a sound argument ("sound," meaning both true and logical).

We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises. The premises are what we have to have before the first syllogism can be formed -- in other words, before reason can have any contribution to the situation.

But reason comes to the party late. The basic premises are already in place. Reason can tell us what to do with our premises, if we want to treat them reasonably and logically; but it does not dictate the premises themselves.
What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible?

I was giving you one, actually. Empirically, we know that Socialism is a universal failure. We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
But according to you reason is incapable revealing they should do otherwise.
Reason qua reason has no particular opinions, it's true.

But reason, once supplied with at least two premises from the empirical, can tell us what is reasonable to make of our two premises, and what is not reasonable to try to make of them.
"Rational behavior?" Is that suddenly the same as, "right behavior?"
No.

"Rational" merely refers to the sort of mathematical consistency of one's thinking -- in other words, to how well one is using one's premises. But "right" refers to moral quality. And a thing can be very "rational" and yet totally not "right."
What difference does it makes what one's premises are or what data they have if reason is not able to tell you what you should and shouldn't do?
But that's the part reason CAN do. It can tell you what you can reasonably deduce from the premises you have. But it can't tell you that those premises themselves are good or evil, right or wrong. Reason can only tell you what conclusion you can sensibly draw given your premises.

To put it simply: reason doesn't dictate what the premises are. It only dictates what one can do with the premises one has, and still have a rational conclusion.

So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.


...then reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Why do you hate to admit that reason is the only faculty human beings have for discovering anything and of making judgments of right and wrong?
False premise.

I'm not "hating" anything, nor am I obligated to "admit" what is simply not true. Reason is not a moral faculty, but rather it is a logical procedure. Like mathematics, it passes no judgments on the material (or numbers) its' working with: it just does what it does.
If what you believe is not based on reason, it must be based on something else. If you reject reason, I want to know what that, "something else," is.
As I say: we all get our premises from the empirical. And I don't "reject reason" at all. I merely point out what it is, and what it is not.

The danger of not realizing what reason is, is simple: one starts to think that one's own conclusions are pure products of the only reason possible. One starts to think, "In every situation, I'm the rational guy, and everybody else is idiots." And what one thinks proves it is no more than that they disagree, or that they arrive at different conclusions from one.

But people can reason from different premises: and the problem in their judgments (if a problem exists) if often not so much in their reasoning process as in their premises. So they also know (and perhaps correctly) that they are being rational and reasonable, in that they are acting consistently with their own premises. So they remain unconvinced when one calls them "idiots," and they become aware that you simply don't know HOW they are reasoning...but they are well aware that they are.

They are also likely to see one as imperious, prejudiced, and oblivious to their reasoning...which would be quite correct, actually. So they'll dismiss one immediately.

On the other hand, if you want to change minds, most of the time you have to change people's premises. Telling them, "You're unreasonable" just won't work -- especially if they ARE being reasonable.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 am What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason?
I didn't say you shouldn't use reason. I said that reason qua reason did not have an opinion which premises you might take.

The premises come first. That's true of all logic. One must have at least two premises, both presumed to be true, before logic has any chance of resulting in a sound argument ("sound," meaning both true and logical).
Logic is a formal method, like mathematics, and language itself, invented by man to facilitate some reasoning. Most reason does not require syllogistic logic. If my car will only hold four people, I'll not be able to give six people a ride to work. If I want to know how much milk I have, I look in the frig to check and see. Both perfectly good reason without a major premise, minor premise and conclusion.

But the contention is silly. Transitional relationships are perfectly rational (A is left of B, B is left of C, C is left of D, therefore A is left of C, (with no premise at all) and, "three left turns make a right turn," hardly depend on syllogisms. [If the last confuses you, on a compass, three negative 45 degree changes in direction equals on positive 45 degree change.]

But this nonsense about, "logic," is just an evasion. What method do you use to determine whether a premise is true or not? How do you choose your premises?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain.
Start how? A, "presumption?" Really? It's not obvious what you mean by, "the empirical," but how do you decide that is where to start, and what does it mean to, "start," with it. What does that mean? This is very vague!
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am Out of this, we form premises. The premises are what we have to have before the first syllogism can be formed -- in other words, before reason can have any contribution to the situation.
"Out of, "what?" You never identified what it is, "the empirical," (whatever you mean by that) provides you to start with. It's like telling someone how to bake a cake. "First get all your ingredients," without saying what the ingredients are. Its nonsense.

How does one derive a premise from whatever you mean by, "the empirical." Does one just pop into one's head when they see something? And where do these, "rules of logic," come from. How were they ever discovered if they come before reason. What in hell did Aristotle use, if it was not reason, to discover them?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 am What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible?

I was giving you one, actually. Empirically, we know that Socialism is a universal failure.
Empirically? I have no idea what you mean by empiricism, but it can't be what what it means anywhere else. Ever dictionary I consulted agreed with Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
And you, "know," this empirically, just by, "seeing," it without identifying what socialism (a rational function) or making any rational judgement about it. You know it without having any rational idea of what human rights are or what a disaster is. I'm sorry, IC, but that whole sentence is one big rational judgement. Not empiricism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am "Rational" merely refers to the sort of mathematical consistency of one's thinking -- in other words, to how well one is using one's premises. But "right" refers to moral quality. And a thing can be very "rational" and yet totally not "right."
So, you can just "see" that socialism is, "human rights disaster," empirically, without reason, but reason (without the right premises) could never make you see anything wrong with socialism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
What difference does it makes what one's premises are or what data they have if reason is not able to tell you what you should and shouldn't do?
But that's the part reason CAN do. It can tell you what you can reasonably deduce from the premises you have. But it can't tell you that those premises themselves are good or evil, right or wrong. Reason can only tell you what conclusion you can sensibly draw given your premises.

To put it simply: reason doesn't dictate what the premises are. It only dictates what one can do with the premises one has, and still have a rational conclusion.
That is the whole question you have evaded from the beginning. Since reason cannot provide the premises and cannot be used to determine which are the right premises, what method do you use to choose your premises and ensure they are right ones.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.


...then reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Good grief. That's your example? I guess in your case it just might be possible, since you derive your premises by some so-far inexplicable method, [just saying, "empirically," is not an explanation] but for a rational individual who uses reason to do all his thinking and make all his choices, both those premises are totally irrational.

I do appreciate your taking the time to supply me with exactly the kind of material I was looking for. I have gotten a kick out of your interesting use of the word, "empirical," with its very unique meaning , as if just using it explained anything. I wonder if you have deluded yourself into thinking you can get away with believing just anything if you label it, "empirical."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:42 pm Most reason does not require syllogistic logic. If my car will only hold four people, I'll not be able to give six people a ride to work. If I want to know how much milk I have, I look in the frig to check and see. Both perfectly good reason without a major premise, minor premise and conclusion.
Yes, informal reason is much more common. But the great thing about formal logic is that it makes explicit those premises informal reasoning generally simply takes for granted...often without even examining them, and sometimes when they're dead wrong.

Formal logic is, in that sense, latent in informal reasoning. Any informal reasoning that is subjected to formal logic and fails the test will certainly turn out also to be bad informal reasoning.

So, to use your example, there are two secure premises undergirding your car ride:

1. Your car has four seats.
2. Only people with seats should ride in cars.


You may not state those things to yourself explicitly, but they're so buried in your informal reasoning that you aren't even perhaps aware of them. However, if you do not believe #2, then you can certainly cram 6 people into spaces normally designated for four. That would be bad, dangerous and illegal...but it's far from impossible that you might do it.
How do you choose your premises?
I answered that. You choose them empirically.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain.
Start how? A, "presumption?" Really? It's not obvious what you mean by, "the empirical," but how do you decide that is where to start, and what does it mean to, "start," with it. What does that mean? This is very vague!
Not really.

"Empirically" means, "with a basis in or reliance on information obtained through observation, experiment, or experience" (Websters), or alternately, "by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." (Oxford)

However, empirical knowledge is always merely probabilistic, not absolute. And it is in order to increase the chance of a proper connection between our empirical premises and our conclusions that we employ reason, whether formal or informal.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
And you, "know," this empirically, just by, "seeing," it without identifying what socialism (a rational function) or making any rational judgement about it.
No. We know it because its failure rate is 100%, and 100% with human rights disasters, too. In fact, there's not a single case where Socialism has been allowed to become the political and economic model where that has not happened.

That's an empirical observation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.


...then reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Good grief. That's your example?
It's a very good one. In it, two premises lead perfectly logically to a very immoral conclusion. It illustrates very well that reason can be employed in aid of immoral conclusions.

QED, I'd say.
"empirically," is not an explanation
Well, see above. Websters and Oxford disagree with you on that.

"Empirical" is actually the right descriptor for most human knowing...particularly for the scientific method. If you're going to say our first premises have to be "non-empirical," you're going to be in trouble for any kind of knowledge at all pretty fast. All that's left is the purely theoretical.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:24 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:42 pm Most reason does not require syllogistic logic. If my car will only hold four people, I'll not be able to give six people a ride to work. If I want to know how much milk I have, I look in the frig to check and see. Both perfectly good reason without a major premise, minor premise and conclusion.
Yes, informal reason is much more common. But the great thing about formal logic is that it makes explicit those premises informal reasoning generally simply takes for granted...often without even examining them, and sometimes when they're dead wrong.

Formal logic is, in that sense, latent in informal reasoning. Any informal reasoning that is subjected to formal logic and fails the test will certainly turn out also to be bad informal reasoning.

So, to use your example, there are two secure premises undergirding your car ride:

1. Your car has four seats.
2. Only people with seats should ride in cars.


You may not state those things to yourself explicitly, but they're so buried in your informal reasoning that you aren't even perhaps aware of them. However, if you do not believe #2, then you can certainly cram 6 people into spaces normally designated for four. That would be bad, dangerous and illegal...but it's far from impossible that you might do it.
How do you choose your premises?
I answered that. You choose them empirically.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain.
Start how? A, "presumption?" Really? It's not obvious what you mean by, "the empirical," but how do you decide that is where to start, and what does it mean to, "start," with it. What does that mean? This is very vague!
Not really.

"Empirically" means, "with a basis in or reliance on information obtained through observation, experiment, or experience" (Websters), or alternately, "by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." (Oxford)

However, empirical knowledge is always merely probabilistic, not absolute. And it is in order to increase the chance of a proper connection between our empirical premises and our conclusions that we employ reason, whether formal or informal.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
And you, "know," this empirically, just by, "seeing," it without identifying what socialism (a rational function) or making any rational judgement about it.
No. We know it because its failure rate is 100%, and 100% with human rights disasters, too. In fact, there's not a single case where Socialism has been allowed to become the political and economic model where that has not happened.

That's an empirical observation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.


...then reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Good grief. That's your example?
It's a very good one. In it, two premises lead perfectly logically to a very immoral conclusion. It illustrates very well that reason can be employed in aid of immoral conclusions.

QED, I'd say.
"empirically," is not an explanation
Well, see above. Websters and Oxford disagree with you on that.

"Empirical" is actually the right descriptor for most human knowing...particularly for the scientific method. If you're going to say our first premises have to be "non-empirical," you're going to be in trouble for any kind of knowledge at all pretty fast. All that's left is the purely theoretical.
I'm not sure why you are going on. You've already proved your point--well perhaps not the one you intended--but you've convinced me.

It's not for me, but it seems to serve your purpose. Reason cannot tel youl what is or is not true or right, only how to get what you want, if you have the right premises. Reason cannot tell what premises are correct, but, "empiricism," can do it without reason, but it isn't necessary to know how. Nothing can be known for certain because it's all only statistical, and you can define words any way you like to convince others.

Got it, and thanks. This conversation is over. I have no way of discussing anything with anyone who believes being a murderous tyrant, theif, or terrorist can be perfectly rational.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:04 am Reason cannot tel youl what is or is not true or right, only how to get what you want, if you have the right premises. Reason cannot tell what premises are correct, but, "empiricism," can do it without reason,
No, that's an inflammatory and inaccurate way to characterize the argument. The first premises are empirical. Rationality is the method that tells one what to do with those premises. Both have their roles, but we need to understand what those roles are.
...but it isn't necessary to know how.

I've said exactly how. The empirical comes first, then the rational. Or to put it another way, inductive knowledge precedes any deductive knowledge.

But that's not even a controversial statement: it's just obviously true, if one understands how human knowledge works. The empirical is always first.
Nothing can be known for certain because it's all only statistical, and you can define words any way you like to convince others.
These two statements are hogwash, but you knew that. You only inserted them as a straw man fallacy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:24 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:04 am Reason cannot tel youl what is or is not true or right, only how to get what you want, if you have the right premises. Reason cannot tell what premises are correct, but, "empiricism," can do it without reason,
No, that's an inflammatory and inaccurate way to characterize the argument. The first premises are empirical. Rationality is the method that tells one what to do with those premises. Both have their roles, but we need to understand what those roles are.
...but it isn't necessary to know how.

I've said exactly how. The empirical comes first, then the rational. Or to put it another way, inductive knowledge precedes any deductive knowledge.

But that's not even a controversial statement: it's just obviously true, if one understands how human knowledge works. The empirical is always first.
Nothing can be known for certain because it's all only statistical, and you can define words any way you like to convince others.
These two statements are hogwash, but you knew that. You only inserted them as a straw man fallacy.
Then it's your fallacy. I'm just repeating what I understood you to say. If you meant something else, it escaped me.

You said:
However, empirical knowledge is always merely probabilistic, not absolute.
... which I took to mean what you have so often insisted, that there is no absolute true knowledge, only statistically likely knowledge. Have you changed your mind about that?

You said:
On the other hand, if you want to change minds, most of the time you have to change people's premises.
... which I understood you to mean you thought that was the primary purpose of reason. Whereas the primary purpose of reason to me is to ensure one's own thinking is correct.

You're not going to convince me you meant something else.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:25 pm If you meant something else, it escaped me.

You said:
However, empirical knowledge is always merely probabilistic, not absolute.
... which I took to mean what you have so often insisted, that there is no absolute true knowledge, only statistically likely knowledge.
That's not what I said. I said that first principles, the ones that give us the premises, are empirical. And these are probabilistic judgments, not absolute ones.

Not only is that not controversial, it's manifestly correct. To disagree with it, you'd have to argue that empirical judgments are all 100% certain. Did you want to argue that?
You said:
On the other hand, if you want to change minds, most of the time you have to change people's premises.
... which I understood you to mean you thought that was the primary purpose of reason. Whereas the primary purpose of reason to me is to ensure one's own thinking is correct.
Well, I'm sorry, but what you thought you "understood" was wrong. You jumped to an unwarranted inference, one I never offered you.

You can see that I began with the hypothetical...(see "if," above). I neither said nor implied that that was the ONLY thing one could do with reason. In fact, it's not an either-or at all. One can both "ensure one's thinking is correct" -- (or better, that it's coherent with your own premises) and ALSO use your understanding of the premise-reason relationship to fashion ways to challenge other people's conclusions and change their minds.

But to do the latter, you need to be aware of their premises. If you're not, and you accuse them of "failure to reason," they will not be convinced, because you'd be wrong...they're not lacking reason, but rather reasoning from (possibly) erroneous premises. That's quite a different problem than lacking reason.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 pm ... but rather reasoning from (possibly) erroneous premises. That's quite a different problem than lacking reason.
How can there be an, "erroneous," premise? You said:
We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises.
Then, how do you know when a premise is not erroneous?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:34 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 pm ... but rather reasoning from (possibly) erroneous premises. That's quite a different problem than lacking reason.
How can there be an, "erroneous," premise? You said:
We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises.
Then, how do you know when a premise is not erroneous?
First question: "how can there be an 'erroneous' premise?" Very easily. Just don't pay close attention to the data, or lack some piece of necessary information. Either is likely to cause one to have a premise that is almost certain to be wrong. It's like the difference between pseudo-science and real science; it's the carefulness of the observation or experiment that determines the data retrieved. Sloppy observations result in sloppy conclusions.

Second question: "how do you know when a premise is not erroneous?" You don't always know. People sometimes live for years with faulty premises, often because they've let received ideas, false ideology or wish-fulfillment shape those premises, rather than the available data. Good premises are those that adhere close to reality, not those that conform to ideology or desire. But there's no guarantee that somebody's first premises will have even been examined by them -- just as often, they've been taken merely assumptively.

That's one thing that makes pointing out to a person what their first premises actually are: and that's where logic really helps. You can 'wind back' deductively from their existing conclusions to the premises they would have to believe in order to make their conclusions rational, and then say, "Is that what you really believe?" And in many case, they find they cannot any longer sustain the beliefs they would need in order to continue to warrant the conclusion. That gives them a chance to revise their assumptions...assuming the person you're talking to is one of the rational ones.

In short, careful observers discover more probable premises, and careless observers tend to settle on less probable ones. But reality tests all premises, in one way or another. So eventually, a careful and honest observer is likely to be able to correct major faults in his/her premises, if such exist.

As for the careless or ideologically-possessed observer, well, there is no likelihood of the same. Something else would have to interrupt their cycle of thinking, such as a sudden incursion of so much contrary data, or such shocking data, that they can no longer resist a paradigm shift. You often see that in the case of people who have been proceeding on the blithe assumption their life is bound to continue indefinitely, when they are suddenly diagnosed with a disease, or when somebody near to them passes away, for example. The new data shatters their old complacency, and forces them to rethink. But that's often what it takes....some major disruption to their old paradigm.

So reality itself eventually tests all paradigms. The good ones, it tends to confirm when it comes to the clinch; the bad ones, it tends to destroy by flooding the experience of the observer with upsetting data.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Sculptor »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?
Agreeing on what rights might be a good idea is one thing; paying or making an effort to ensure those rights are fulfiled is quite another.
For myself the UN charter has got it right. But only a tiny minirity of people on earth are willing to lift a finger to help those whose rights are being abused.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:18 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:34 pm Then, how do you know when a premise is not erroneous?
You don't always know.
You are either evading the answer or do not have one.

Everything else is superfluous blather to obscure the fact that you cannot say how one knows a premise is correct.

The question was not whether anyone had faulty premises, or what some faulty premises are, or why they have faulty premises.

So, if, "Good premises are those that adhere close to reality," what method does one use to identify what reality is and whether their premises, "adhere," to it (whatever you mean by adhere). I have not seen one word from you about the actual method, or means, or process by which one can judge anything, much less a premise, to be right, wrong, good, bad, true, or false. All I've seen from you are explanations about why one cannot know their premises are correct.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:52 am You are either evading the answer or do not have one.
Read on. I gave you a very full answer.
So, if, "Good premises are those that adhere close to reality," what method does one use to identify what reality is and whether their premises, "adhere," to it (whatever you mean by adhere).
Empirically. That means "by experience, experiment, or observation." In other words, open your eyes.
I have not seen one word from you about the actual method,
You're not familiar with empiricism? :shock:

And your Google is broken, too? :shock:

So you don't know what "science" is? :shock: Because science is empirical.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:10 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:52 am You are either evading the answer or do not have one.
Read on. I gave you a very full answer.
So, if, "Good premises are those that adhere close to reality," what method does one use to identify what reality is and whether their premises, "adhere," to it (whatever you mean by adhere).
Empirically. That means "by experience, experiment, or observation." In other words, open your eyes.
I have not seen one word from you about the actual method,
You're not familiar with empiricism? :shock:

And your Google is broken, too? :shock:

So you don't know what "science" is? :shock: Because science is empirical.
You are absolutely right, I have no idea what, "empiricism," is, as you use that word. My view of empiricism is like that referenced in the article I referred you to earlier, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, as well as Logical Empiricism, generally referred to today as logical positivism today, and, Scientific Realism.

The following from Philosophy Basics—Empiricism outlines perfectly my understanding of what empiricism is, and also illustrates everything that is wrong with it:
Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience). Most empiricists also discount the notion of innate ideas or innatism (the idea that the mind is born with ideas or knowledge and is not a "blank slate" at birth).

In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations, induction or inductive reasoning (making generalizations based on individual instances) must be used. This kind of knowledge is therefore also known as indirect empirical knowledge.

Empiricism is contrasted with Rationalism, the theory that the mind may apprehend some truths directly, without requiring the medium of the senses.

The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology, stemming both from the Greek word for "experience" and from the more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of "empiric", referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory (this was its first usage).

The term "empirical" (rather than "empiricism") also refers to the method of observation and experiment used in the natural and social sciences. It is a fundamental requirement of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

History of Empiricism

The concept of a "tabula rasa" (or "clean slate") had been developed as early as the 11th Century by the Persian philosopher Avicenna, who further argued that knowledge is attained through empirical familiarity with objects in this world, from which one abstracts universal concepts, which can then be further developed through a syllogistic method of reasoning. The 12th Century Arabic philosopher Abubacer (or Ibn Tufail: 1105 - 1185) demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment in which the mind of a feral child develops from a clean slate to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society on a desert island, through experience alone.

Sir Francis Bacon can be considered an early Empiricist, through his popularization of an inductive methodology for scientific inquiry, which has since become known as the scientific method.

In the 17th and 18th Century, the members of the British Empiricism school John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were the primary exponents of Empiricism. They vigorously defended Empiricism against the Rationalism of Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza.

The doctrine of Empiricism was first explicitly formulated by the British philosopher John Locke in the late 17th Century. Locke argued in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" of 1690 that the mind is a tabula rasa on which experiences leave their marks, and therefore denied that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience. However, he also held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone.

The Irish philosopher Bishop George Berkeley, concerned that Locke's view opened a door that could lead to eventual Atheism, put forth in his "Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" of 1710 a different, very extreme form of Empiricism in which things only exist either as a result of their being perceived, or by virtue of the fact that they are an entity doing the perceiving. He argued that the continued existence of things results from the perception of God, regardless of whether there are humans around or not, and any order humans may see in nature is effectively just the handwriting of God. Berkeley's approach to Empiricism would later come to be called Subjective Idealism.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume brought to the Empiricist viewpoint an extreme Skepticism. He argued that all of human knowledge can be divided into two categories: relations of ideas (e.g. propositions involving some contingent observation of the world, such as "the sun rises in the East") and matters of fact (e.g. mathematical and logical propositions), and that ideas are derived from our "impressions" or sensations. In the face of this, he argued that even the most basic beliefs about the natural world, or even in the existence of the self, cannot be conclusively established by reason, but we accept them anyway because of their basis in instinct and custom.

John Stuart Mill, in the mid-19th Century, took Hume and Berkeley's reasoning a step further in maintaining that inductive reasoning is necessary for all meaningful knowledge (including mathematics), and that matter is merely the "permanent possibility of sensation" as he put it. This is an extreme form of Empiricism known as Phenomenalism (the view that physical objects, properties and events are completely reducible to mental objects, properties and events).

In the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, several forms of Pragmatism arose, which attempted to integrate the apparently mutually-exclusive insights of Empiricism (experience-based thinking) and Rationalism (concept-based thinking). C. S. Peirce and William James (who coined the term "radical empiricism" to describe an offshoot of his form of Pragmatism) were particularly important in this endeavor. The next step in the development of Empiricism was Logical Empiricism (or Logical Positivism), an early 20th Century attempt to synthesize the essential ideas of British Empiricism (a strong emphasis on sensory experience as the basis for knowledge) with certain insights from mathematical logic that had been developed by Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. This resulted in a kind of extreme Empiricism which held that any genuinely synthetic assertion must be reducible to an ultimate assertion (or set of ultimate assertions) which expresses direct observations or perceptions.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by empiricism, but when I hear or use that word, what is described here is what I understand it to mean. I disagree with empiricism. The only part I agree with is that:

the only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of, that is, what they see, hear, feel, smell, taste and experience internally as interoception,

which means I also agree that:

there is no, "a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

[Does you view of empiricism exclude these as well?]

Everything else, from induction to the present-day abominations (like logical-positivism) are worse than simply wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:46 pm The only part I agree with is that:

the only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of, that is, what they see, hear, feel, smell, taste and experience internally as interoception,
That's what Empiricism might be, if Empiricism were to be taken to be a comprehensive philosophy...which, in some cases, it has been. Not in mine.

That is to say, if "empirically" were the ONLY way to know things, rather than merely one of various ways, then that might be a problem. But it's not.
"a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation"

[Does you view of empiricism exclude these as well?]
No.

A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, and is even sometimes very telling (but it must be carefully watched), and there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible as well, especially if, like me, one is a Theist.

Even something like "traditional" learning, -- so long as it means nothing more toxic than the passing down of true, existing knowledge to subsequent generations, is a legitimate way of knowing things (provided that it does not tip over into the uncritical and uncomprehending believing in any tradition that comes along, of course, which is always bad). That good sort of "traditional" learning is really just what we mean when we speak of "education" -- the passing down of the things learned by older generations for the use and critical reflection of the next generation. Indeed, to have absolutely NO tradition worth passing on would be a singular condemnation against any society, would it not? And I'll warrant it was by induction into the traditions of science that you first learned what science was yourself -- nobody learns it by inventing it first hand...at least, not since Francis Bacon.

So there are various routes to knowledge: empiricism, sure; but also a priori, logic and reason, intuition, revelation, education, and so on.

In fact, saying that empiricism is good for some things DOES NOT imply it's the ONLY thing that's any good for anything. :shock:

There's a word for people who believe that empiricism is the only way to know things: they're called "Scientistic," rather than "scientific," since they hold to a particular dogmatic exclusivity of belief, one that science itself neither promises nor warrants. That is, they are superstitiously credulous about the efficacy of empiricism to deal with all situations. Of course, there's nothing rational about such Scientism.
Post Reply