The ontological error of Philosophy

[PeteJ]

Aha. A fan of scientism. This explains our disagreement.

If you can't tell the difference between science and scientism - you would disagree.

I find your approach impossible to handle. If you think empirical science can address philosophical problems then you endorse scientism.

This is just the way it is. Insulting me won't change anything,

[Belinda]

It's fascinating how many people are happy to state 'There is no ultimate truth' without having a clue as to whether this is the case. Is this doing philosophy? Or is it avoiding philosophy?

Relativity in physics has influenced philosophy like Copernican cosmology influenced philosophy and despite kicking and screaming eventually the Roman Church

[Univalence]

I find your approach impossible to handle. If you think empirical science can address philosophical problems then you endorse scientism.

I am finding it hard to understand how you've reasoned yourself into this position.

Are you saying that it is philosophy's very intent to invent problems which are empirically unsolvable?
To ask questions that are humanly impossible to be answered?

It begs a simple question: Why?

If you can't answer even that question then perhaps we ought to abandon philosophy? I have.

Empiricism (e.g human experience) is all that we have. Understanding the limits of the human condition is useful towards understanding which questions aren't even worth asking.

This is just the way it is. Insulting me won't change anything,

I don't need to insult you. Pity will suffice.

Intentionally setting yourself up for failure is irrational behaviour in my book.

For example. Computer science tells us that a search algorithm without an exit condition is an infinite loop. Do you know what is the most interesting (and very human) insight that comes out of that?

If you are searching for something (like ultimate truth), and if you were to eventually stumble upon it - how would you recognise it for what it is? You have no referent for "ultimate truth". You have no exit condition for your search algorithm.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is a mantra in the field of scientific inquiry: If you ask a stupid question - you will get a stupid answer.

I am of the opinion that all ontological questions in the form of "What is X?" are stupid questions.
We live in a dynamic universe. Change is the only constant is colloquial wisdom.

Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable. e.g not even wrong
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe.

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

Prove why falsifiability is correct...and why it is "not" the munchausseen trillema which negates your premise axiom of "computing" as the foundation for your perspective.

[Univalence]

Prove why falsifiability is correct...and why it is "not" the munchausseen trillema which negates your premise axiom of "computing" as the foundation for your perspective.

That depends on what you accept as valid proof.
The answer you are looking for is the Bayes theorem. And in this book.

Falsification then is nothing more than a Bayes factor.

You can read about it here, and here.

Or just google "Bayes and falsification".

Or start with Bayesian epistemology

[Belinda]

I wrote:

Relativity in physics has influenced philosophy like Copernican cosmology influenced philosophy and despite kicking and screaming eventually the Roman Church

I should focus on the actual events.

Copernicus discovered that Earth moved, the sun stayed still. Before Copernicus people thought that the Sun moved round Earth.Newton believed in absolute time space and motion. Einstein et al showed that everyhthingt is relative, time, space, and motion.


Earth is a moving sphere and there is no up and no down as these are relative to the observer. There is no absolute motion only motion of one thing relative to another thing. There is no absolutely right culture as cultures relate to their times and places. Morality relates to the culture in which it's embedded.

The only candidate for absolute value is love which exists when someone asks who, universally, the action will serve not excluding himself.

[RCSaunders]

Copernicus discovered that Earth moved, the sun stayed still.

There is no absolute motion only motion of one thing relative to another thing.

Isn't that a contradiction?

[surreptitious57]

Empiricism ( human experience ) is all that we have

Empiricism cannot answer every single question pertaining to human experience
However it is still used because it is the most reliable methodology that there is

[surreptitious57]

If you think empirical science can address philosophical problems then you endorse scientism

They dont really overlap because science cannot ask why questions while philosophy cannot answer them
Before the last century science was regarded as a branch of philosophy which it is although now not at all

[Belinda]

Copernicus discovered that Earth moved, the sun stayed still.

There is no absolute motion only motion of one thing relative to another thing.

Isn't that a contradiction?

As stages in the history of the idea of relativity these are cumulative ideas.

The notion of absolute position of the Earth which was circled by the Sun was superseded by the Earth circling the absolute position of the Sun. (Copernicus 1543)This was a huge shift in consciousness which was an insult to people whose belief was that our human sphere was the centre of everything. Earth had become less important relative to the Sun. Every religious tradition is based on a cosmology.

Newton realised that his laws of motion were not dependent on absolute space and time but could not quite bear to go all the way; that was Einstein' way.

The idea of relativity was further advanced by Darwin who showed we humans had evolved naturally from other life forms and were not made all at once and forever by the Creator.

The idea of relativity and the actuality of relativity mean that things and events become relativised to something else.Cultural relativity was first recognised in the late 19th century.The modern view is there is no culture free standpoint from which we can view and evaluate all cultures, What I'm writing is embedded in my own modern culture.

[Univalence]

Isn't that a contradiction?

Irrelevant. Contradictions do exist. As in physically and mathematically. Therefore the linguistic claim "Contradictions don't exist" is a lie.

Here is a contradiction. https://repl.it/repls/AdmirablePiercingMonotone

The avoidance of contradictions is an arbitrary philosophical phobia. In the quantum realm classical logic fails.

[Univalence]

So you have just illustrated why knowing "What is X?" FIRST is more useful than knowing "What X does".

I haven't done any such thing?

Having heard somebody else use the word "ugfuggel" neither means I know what "ugfuggel" is, nor what "ugfuggel" does".
Just because I have a signifier does not mean I have a signified for it also.
That is precisely why I would ask questions ABOUT the word "ugfuggel". So that I can learn what it signifies.

The same goes with the word "knowledge".

Also, what you are alluding to here misses the whole point of what I am getting at, which is; You NEED to know 'What X is' FIRST. In other words you have to have a concept of 'What knowledge is' before you could usefully start to explain what knowledge does.

Pay attention! At which point did I make any attempts to explain anything? I am just asking questions ABOUT X.
If I knew what X was or what X does I wouldn't be asking any questions about it now, would I?

If one neither knew what knowledge is; nor knows what knowledge does, then obviously that one would also have absolutely no concept of how 'knowledge' could be pursued.

How do you even know that 'knowledge' is something pursuable?

If you what to discuss with another, about X being pursued, then you, and "them", must have some idea/concept of 'What is X?' FIRST, surely.

Demonstrably false. When a child asks "Mommy, what is a vagina?" the child has no idea/concept for a "vagina". The child simply heard a new word.
Pursuing vaginas comes much later in a boy's life.

If, from your perspective, knowledge empowers you to get what you want out of life, then "What does life do?"

Life happens.

Life has already given me all of what I want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

[Age]

So you have just illustrated why knowing "What is X?" FIRST is more useful than knowing "What X does".

I haven't done any such thing?

Yes you did. You just explained "What X is", FIRST. You said, Let X be "knowledge".

So, knowing "What X is", FIRST, can be far more useful then knowing "How X behaves".

Having heard somebody else use the word "ugfuggel" neither means I know what "ugfuggel" is, nor what "ugfuggel" does".

Who cares?

Just because I have a signifier does not mean I have a signified for it also.
That is precisely why I would ask questions ABOUT the word "ugfuggel". So that I can learn what it signifies.

The same goes with the word "knowledge".

This has nothing to do with my point.

Also, what you are alluding to here misses the whole point of what I am getting at, which is; You NEED to know 'What X is' FIRST. In other words you have to have a concept of 'What knowledge is' before you could usefully start to explain what knowledge does.

Pay attention! At which point did I make any attempts to explain anything?

This also has nothing to do with what I am pointing out.

I am just asking questions ABOUT X.
If I knew what X was or what X does I wouldn't be asking any questions about it now, would I?

Who cares?

If you want to stay with your original proposition and my point regarding that, then let us discuss that.

If one neither knew what knowledge is; nor knows what knowledge does, then obviously that one would also have absolutely no concept of how 'knowledge' could be pursued.

How do you even know that 'knowledge' is something pursuable?

Why try to divert the discussion away from my point?

Stay on track instead.

If you what to discuss with another, about X being pursued, then you, and "them", must have some idea/concept of 'What is X?' FIRST, surely.

Demonstrably false. When a child asks "Mommy, what is a vagina?" the child has no idea/concept for a "vagina".

Just another diversion tactic by you.

What a child asks there mother has nothing to do with what you started talking about and what I am pointing out, which you seem to be completely missing.

The child simply heard a new word.
Pursuing vaginas comes much later in a boy's life.

Who cares.

This again has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

If, from your perspective, knowledge empowers you to get what you want out of life, then "What does life do?"

Life happens.

If this is all you can give as an answer regarding "What life does", then knowing "What life is" would be far more useful.

Life has already given me all of what I want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Again, a complete diversion away from the issue, which is you believe that; "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

Besides the use of the words 'infinitely more useful' being completely unreasonable, the actual position you hold, by itself, is so out of touch of what is really useful.

Children usually find it ("infinitely") more useful to know "What X is" before they wonder "What X does". To use your own example, children wonder and ask "What a vagina IS", FIRST, before they wonder and ask "What does a vagina do".

As I have been pointing out;
To me, I recognise that you would have to be able to at least answer the question "What is X?" first.

Without first knowing "What X is" what use is there in knowing "What X does?"

"What is X?" could be said to be far more useful. If it is infinitely more useful is another discussion.

Children wonder what a vagina IS before they wonder how a vagina behaves?

So, FIRST knowing "What X is" could be said to be far more useful than just knowing "How X behaves".

[Univalence]

Yes you did. You just explained "What X is", FIRST. You said, Let X be "knowledge".

So, knowing "What X is", FIRST, can be far more useful then knowing "How X behaves".

So let X = knowledge is an explanation?

So that is how philosophy works!

What is X? Knowledge.
What is Knowledge? P.
What is P? Q.
What is Q? R.

As long as I never circle back to "X" again it means I am winning at this game?

[PeteJ]

I find your approach impossible to handle. If you think empirical science can address philosophical problems then you endorse scientism.

I am finding it hard to understand how you've reasoned yourself into this position.

Then perhaps you could look up 'scientism,' on Wiki.

Are you saying that it is philosophy's very intent to invent problems which are empirically unsolvable?

Philosophy exists because these problems exist. It is nobody's fault.

To ask questions that are humanly impossible to be answered?

I don't know of any such questions.

It begs a simple question: Why?

Philosophy does not beg this question it attempts to answer it. Some philosophers do answer it.

If you can't answer even that question then perhaps we ought to abandon philosophy? I have.

This much is clear.

Empiricism (e.g human experience) is all that we have

Empiricism is usually associated with sensory data, not human experience. The data is empirical, the experience is not.

I don't need to insult you. Pity will suffice.

I see. It seems unsurprising that you have no grasp of philosophy given that you think you already know all about it.

Intentionally setting yourself up for failure is irrational behaviour in my book.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing.

If you are searching for something (like ultimate truth), and if you were to eventually stumble upon it - how would you recognise it for what it is? You have no referent for "ultimate truth". You have no exit condition for your search algorithm.

Of course I do. But I can't see the point in explaining this to someone who is so full of their own beliefs and ideas.