Principles vs Pragmatism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

But if you really insist on playing the (mis)interpetation game...
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:23 pm impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality
I impartially assert that you are still hungry and therefore - you have failed to achieve your goal.
In a completely unbiased and unprejudiced manner I assert that 3 days after setting out to make pancakes you have made none. Unless you have eaten something other than the pancakes you failed to make, I am reasonably concluding that you are still hungry. So with an even head and a fair consideration of the plausible scenarios I neutrally predict that you have failed to achieve what you set out to do.

It all boils down to one damn question: Are you still hungry? Yes or no.

Talk about synonymous use of 'objectivity'...
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Nick_A »

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:32 am Nick_A

I'm not really sure what you're ideas behind the goal of science are, I think science has no objecive ideal and people will have their own ideas on what it should be for. The pragmatist doesn't really have a clear idea on what science should be used for, it depends on how short-long term they're thinking, who they're trying to benefit and what their goals are.

I am saying that pragmatism is based off such considerations, considerations that one could call principles. Much of what you've tried to depict as being pragmatism, I would say is merely a possible interpretation out of many. There are problems with the interpretation you describe but you don't need to see those problems just by looking at it from the perspective of idealism or science, pragmatism itself can reject the ideas you've laid out.

Whether Socrates was being an idealist or a pragmatist can't be said from just his actions, that's how broad the spectrum of possibilities are for a pragmatic outlook. Which is why I suspect your OP is actually more similar to alternative interpretations from a pragmatist framework clashing, as opposed to a depiction of something vs pragmatism.
Could we agree that the scientific method is a principle of science. Science would not be science without it. Its goal is to establish the relationships between phenomenon.

Pragmatism refers to the use of knowledge of these relationships in the cause of truth or a lie.. Where principles refer to what science is, pragmatism refers to its use. You seem to deny this and I don't know why?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:02 pm Could we agree that the scientific method is a principle of science. Science would not be science without it. Its goal is to establish the relationships between phenomenon.

Pragmatism refers to the use of knowledge of these relationships in the cause of truth or a lie.. Where principles refer to what science is, pragmatism refers to its use. You seem to deny this and I don't know why?
Every time you ask "what X is" or you state that "X is Y" you have committed a metaphysical error.

Science is behaviourism. It deals with dynamic interactions between abstract concepts/phenomena. Science does NOT dabble in metaphysics.

And so a better question would be to ask "what science does". It produces mathematical models of reality.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Nick_A »

Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:21 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:02 pm Could we agree that the scientific method is a principle of science. Science would not be science without it. Its goal is to establish the relationships between phenomenon.

Pragmatism refers to the use of knowledge of these relationships in the cause of truth or a lie.. Where principles refer to what science is, pragmatism refers to its use. You seem to deny this and I don't know why?
Every time you ask "what X is" or you state that "X is Y" you have committed a metaphysical error.

Science is behaviourism. It deals with dynamic interactions between abstract concepts/phenomena. Science does NOT dabble in metaphysics.

And so a better question would be to ask "what science does". It produces mathematical models of reality.
Why is H2O as water a metaphysical idea? It is an expression of a principle of chemistry. How we use water is determined by pragmatic needs.

There are certain principles necessary to sustain a free society. One of these principles is the obligation to protect it from the need to deprive people of it for pragmatic gains.

Some people "feel" the value of the obligation to vote even though their vote may be meaningless. The apparent contradiction can only be reconciled for those willing to ponder the analogy of the needs of a forest and its trees. Both are true yet they can be opposed. Trees need light to survive yet for the forest to allow light to enter excess trees mus die. What is unique about human consciousness is that it can experience both the truth and values of the needs of individuals and at the same time the truth and values of the needs of the collective. How well we understand and live by this apparent opposition of needs IMO indicates the quality of human as opposed to animal intelligence.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:52 pm Why is H2O as water a metaphysical idea? It is an expression of a principle of chemistry. How we use water is determined by pragmatic needs.
Because H2O is a synthetic concept.

It's reducible to smaller parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

And in particular - the water from your tap reduces to more than just hydrogen and oxygen atoms...
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:52 pm There are certain principles necessary to sustain a free society. One of these principles is the obligation to protect it from the need to deprive people of it for pragmatic gains.
Naturally. But it's still an ontological error. The choice to commit it is still yours. Pragmatic necessity or otherwise.

The irony is not lost on me that we have to distinguish between water and distilled water, so don't put tap "water" in your car battery...
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Nick_A »

Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:57 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:52 pm Why is H2O as water a metaphysical idea? It is an expression of a principle of chemistry. How we use water is determined by pragmatic needs.
Because H2O is a synthetic concept.

It's reducible to smaller parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

And in particular - the water from your tap reduces to more than just hydrogen and oxygen atoms...
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:52 pm There are certain principles necessary to sustain a free society. One of these principles is the obligation to protect it from the need to deprive people of it for pragmatic gains.
Naturally. But it's still an ontological error. The choice to commit it is still yours. Pragmatic necessity or otherwise.

The irony is not lost on me that we have to distinguish between water and distilled water, so don't put tap "water" in your car battery...
You seem to be expressing what I know of as levels of reality in which every whole consists of smaller parts defined by material density and vibratory frequency

You seem to build from the bottom up and I begin from the top down or the ONE as described by Plotinus. The whole or ONE devolves into a virtual infinity of lawful fractions during the act of Creation which manifest at distinct levels of reality. The ONE and levels of reality within the ONE simultaneously exist. Devolutions of the whole including the point where H2O is no longer water but smaller particles continue until the lawful bottom of creation.

The point I’m making is that the relationship of levels like the forest and the trees or water and its particles is far more interesting than we normally appreciate and the comparison of objective principles and the objective value of their pragmatic use is one part of it
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:47 pm You seem to build from the bottom up and I begin from the top down or the ONE as described by Plotinus.
I do both. Reductionism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism ) and Holism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism ).
I also do factual AND counter-factual reasoning.

It's part and parcel of systems thinking and calculating the consequences of one's decisions and actions.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:47 pm The point I’m making is that the relationship of levels like the forest and the trees or water and its particles is far more interesting than we normally appreciate and the comparison of objective principles and the objective value of their pragmatic use is one part of it
OK. Interesting or not, your car battery still requires DISTILLED water, not water. But if you are after entertainment (e.g interesting) put water anyway.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

Logik
I don't know what you think I don't understand, ever since talking to you it's been clear that you're happy to throw around accusations without even knowing what it is you're talking about. You've called out my arguments as being sophistry and as being circular but you couldn't tell me which arguments you're referring to, you keep saying things about "philosophers" and "humans" as though these things apply to me even when they most certainly don't. This all just seems like an ego trip for you.

Comprehension in language isn't 0 or 100, I wouldn't dream of calling my competence with language to be anything approaching flawless either. You still need to be able to comprehend enough to be able to use it in a way others can understand as a bare minimum example.

I've said this a few times now but the cure is better than prevention in definitions. Do you remember this in "The Limits of Morality"?
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I meant it when I said "Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen!"
So can you be forth-coming about your criteria for "intelligible" vs "unintelligible".
I still subscribe to something like the dictionary for whether you've used a word correctly or not, you could right now, challenge that definition in this debate but you haven't done that. You've just continued to use the word however it suits you. I won't trade off language functionality for any of your ideals. The alternative is that we simply don't use the word objectivity anymore. There are also certain words where the definition really doesn't need to be challenged. I don't see any problems with the word objectivity lol.

At this point, you've said you believe in objective morality and meaning and although you generally use words in ways I agree with, now I am thinking I don't understand. You say objective and objectivity like they're the same thing, you don't believe in mind-independent knowledge and I'm starting to think, are you talking about something like impartial morality? These kinds of confusions become commonplace when words are no longer used conceptually correctly.

As for this pancake example, I really brought it up to show why the truth doesn't matter in pragmatism as far as it is considered a problem in epistemology, it's about causation and goals. Yes, if I burn the pancakes then I'm hungry and I failed my goal but is that supposed to be a metaphor for the usefulness of epistemology or what? You never responded to the pancake example as was intended and now I got no idea what ur thinking.

Nick_A

In a pragmatism framework, science is still science, it just becomes a tool rather than an end in itself. How one uses a tool depends on their goals. We can't know how a pragmatic person would think science should be used until we know their goals. A pragmatist could decide that science should retain its current structure because it's continuing to deliver the results they want and they're sceptical that outside interference will improve the results. A pragmatic person could think science is going to lead to our destruction, which unless we radically change or even get rid of science, will undoubtedly be inevitable.

I don't disagree that pragmatists care about how science is used, I disagree that you can say what it is they think science should be used for. Even with my debate with Logik here, we both call ourselves pragmatists yet our views on certain things are completely different to the point we can't even understand the merit of the other's positions.

The difference isn't just in prognostication and probability, we measure ends differently. We measure those ends using value judgements and principles. This is all I'm saying.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am Logik
I don't know what you think I don't understand, ever since talking to you it's been clear that you're happy to throw around accusations without even knowing what it is you're talking about. You've called out my arguments as being sophistry and as being circular but you couldn't tell me which arguments you're referring to, you keep saying things about "philosophers" and "humans" as though these things apply to me even when they most certainly don't. This all just seems like an ego trip for you.
It's not about understanding/not-understanding. No need to frame the discussion in a dichotomy. I simply question the fidelity of that which you call "understanding".

There's a great overlap between pragmatism and instrumentalism. You haven't mastered your instruments. You haven't dismantled them to see how they work under the hood! Understanding and the process for acquiring knowledge itself being an instrument. A system that you get to design/optimise yourself.

And so I don't have to re-invent the wheel: https://fs.blog/2015/09/two-types-of-knowledge/

You are Planck's chauffeur, not Planck.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
Comprehension in language isn't 0 or 100, I wouldn't dream of calling my competence with language to be anything approaching flawless either. You still need to be able to comprehend enough to be able to use it in a way others can understand as a bare minimum example.
That's in the scope and context of language in a vacuum.

Holistically you also lack systemic comprehension of how language/logic/reason interact in forming knowledge and understanding through empiricism.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
I've said this a few times now but the cure is better than prevention in definitions. Do you remember this in "The Limits of Morality"?
Definitions are not a cure. You only think they are because you lean far towards logocentrism. In fact - when it comes to science, definitions are can be harmful.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I meant it when I said "Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen!"
So can you be forth-coming about your criteria for "intelligible" vs "unintelligible".
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
I still subscribe to something like the dictionary for whether you've used a word correctly or not,
Yes. You take language for granted. That is the problem I am trying to point out ;)

If language shapes your thoughts, and you default to English, then would you say that the language of Mathematics might shape your thoughts differently?

There isn't exactly a dictionary for Mathematics...
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
you could right now, challenge that definition in this debate but you haven't done that.
You don't seem to draw a distinction between knowing the name/definition of something and knowing something.

https://fs.blog/2015/01/richard-feynman ... something/
What a good way to begin a science course! Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy, the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That’s good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
You've just continued to use the word however it suits you. I won't trade off language functionality for any of your ideals.
That's an ironic statement by a pragmatist :lol: :lol: :lol: Yes! Language is a tool.
In this choice you choose the ability to interact and to be understood at the expense of freedom of thought.

If social acceptance you value more than independent thinking - so be it. It is your choice to make.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
The alternative is that we simply don't use the word objectivity anymore.
The alternative is that you re-conceptualise it as an ideal that's actually achievable in practice, rather than salivating over a pie (pancake?) in the sky.

You know - because pragmatism.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:10 am
There are also certain words where the definition really doesn't need to be challenged. I don't see any problems with the word objectivity lol.
You don't see the problem with the concept of objectivity/mind-independence when it has been proven impossible?

"Objectivity" is a 1-word oxymoron!

Is there anything more to say then, except that you have deluded yourself to think you are a pragmatist?
From where I am looking you are a dogmatist/idealist.

Proofs of impossibility is exactly how science annihilates dogma! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Impossibilities are the only absolute truths we have!

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am You don't see the problem with the concept of objectivity/mind-independence when it has been proven impossible?
Here's my scepticism Logik, I've defined objectivity at minimum twice now, I've given you a list of synonyms explaining what I think the word means. Putting aside whether it's correct for me to use the generally accepted definition or your own personal definition, I'm here trying my best to tell you what I am referring to when I use the word objectivity but you still, after all this time, don't read my usage of the word to be saying what I've told you I think it says.

I won't repeat how I define objectivity. How can I believe that my own definitions for words will be useful when talking to someone who doesn't use the same definitions when you of all people make it so hard? What option is there for us but to use words in the way the dictionary has defined? I'm not arguing for universal definitions but I still want a workable system.

I have come to the understanding that the definition of a word is insufficient for understanding, there are many peripheral aspects which allow for flexibility in interpretation but I won't get into that here.

Explain to me what it is you're proposing that we do exactly?

Is there anything more to say then, except that you have deluded yourself to think you are a pragmatist?
From where I am looking you are a dogmatist/idealist.
I don't really know what you're talking about, I don't think you have any idea how I think about language except that I want it to be functional. I'm getting tired of being your punching bag, I read what you're saying and it juast has absolutely nothing to do with me. When I do talk about the things I believe, you don't really face them, instead, you just continue to tell me about what humans and philosophers do, what you think is wrong with how people think and blah blah blah.

Why do you think I am a dogmatist/idealist?

Now whether being dogmatic is necessarily bad or not, I won't get into, but you are clearly a dogmatist Logik. Your argument hasn't changed or adapted whatsoever based on the fact you're talking to me rather than someone else and you are beyond convinced that everything you say is correct to the point where every post is smug and condescending.

Are you an idealist? Maybe?
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am In this choice you choose the ability to interact and to be understood at the expense of freedom of thought.
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am If language shapes your thoughts, and you default to English, then would you say that the language of Mathematics might shape your thoughts differently?
Most of your arguments don't argue for practical utility or usefulness, they don't include plans for implementation and you don't argue for the plausibility for an alternative. You care about the purity of thought, truth and enlightenment more than any of these things, at least as far as you argue. You clearly consider the practical aspect at some level but it's not present in your arguments, begging the question of whether it is really the motivation for your claims.

I said this when we first talked in "Limits of Morality" but you are great at pointing out problems, not necessarily problems that I'm ignorant of although you always assume unfavourably for me but I think you're not wrong in identifying the problems you have. You don't actually appear to have any implementable solution to these problems though. I asked you for one there, I am still asking but it's nowhere to be seen.

Although I am sure you scoff at the concept, I have thought very deeply about the problems of interpretation in language and how they impact our thinking and opinions. I have my own answers to some of the problems you describe although I don't identify all the problems you do as actual problems.

After all this, I still don't think you're actually here to have a serious debate. Your main motivations involve demonstrating your superiority over me and others, putting "philosophers" in their place and etc. This last commnent of yours isn't even trying to paint a picture of something different. if you have an actual solution in mind for the problems you talk about, that you think is implementable on a personal or societal level, then share but I'm not here to beat chests, nobody will win such a competition even if both walking away thinking they did.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am I won't repeat how I define objectivity. How can I believe that my own definitions for words will be useful when talking to someone who doesn't use the same definitions when you of all people make it so hard? What option is there for us but to use words in the way the dictionary has defined? I'm not arguing for universal definitions but I still want a workable system.
We negotiate its meaning/definition. Allow it to emerge rather than prescribe it ;)
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am I have come to the understanding that the definition of a word is insufficient for understanding, there are many peripheral aspects which allow for flexibility in interpretation but I won't get into that here.
Hence the problem. I don't like your interpretation of objectivity. You don't like mine.

And then? :)

In distributed computing we call this problem Leader Election ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_election ).

Do you have ANY ideas how to solve it? I do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am Explain to me what it is you're proposing that we do exactly?
Lets start with discussing your concepts and expectations. What do you expect "impartiality" to look like ?
How do you expect it to "work" ?
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am I don't really know what you're talking about, I don't think you have any idea how I think about language except that I want it to be functional.
Functional to what end?
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am Why do you think I am a dogmatist/idealist?
Because you have incoherent (self-contradictory) concepts to which you aspire to.

Like the concept of "impartiality" and "absence of bias" etc.

At the mechanical level of decision making there is no material distinction between "bias" and "values".
An unbiased agent has NO prreferences.
An unbiased agent makes NO choices.
An unbiased agent makes NO decisions.

An unbiased Oracle machine always answers "I don't know".

The consequence of bias-absence is indecision. So tell me, how you pragmatically intend to be unbiased AND assertive at the same time without becoming Buridan's ass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass )
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:13 am Are you an idealist? Maybe?
Yes. I am a die-hard pragmatic. The principle of equifinality is my religion.
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am Most of your arguments don't argue for practical utility or usefulness, they don't include plans for implementation and you don't argue for the plausibility for an alternative.
Because strategy comes before planning. Failing to draw a distinction between short and long-term (tactical vs strategic) decision-making inevitably results in one man's solution being another man's new problem.
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am You care about the purity of thought, truth and enlightenment more than any of these things, at least as far as you argue. You clearly consider the practical aspect at some level but it's not present in your arguments, begging the question of whether it is really the motivation for your claims.
No. I care about strategy. And the extent to which I care about strategy is "how do you plan to navigate around all the problems you don't know how to solve?"

Including your strategy for navigating around the vagueness, ambiguity and duplicity of language WHILE communicating.

Your strategy is to throw around definitions.

My strategy is drawing distinctions/juxtaposition/thought experiments/counter-factual reasoning and process of elimination.

Science. Applied to communication. In real time.
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am I said this when we first talked in "Limits of Morality" but you are great at pointing out problems, not necessarily problems that I'm ignorant of although you always assume unfavourably for me but I think you're not wrong in identifying the problems you have. You don't actually appear to have any implementable solution to these problems though. I asked you for one there, I am still asking but it's nowhere to be seen.
And this tells me that you have never designed/built/implemented anything at scale...

You don't get to throw a solution on the table and ram it down everybody's throat.

Defining the problem IS half the solution!

Designing the solution is a social process. Consensus-building is a social process!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am After all this, I still don't think you're actually here to have a serious debate. Your main motivations involve demonstrating your superiority over me and others, putting "philosophers" in their place and etc. This last commnent of yours isn't even trying to paint a picture of something different. if you have an actual solution in mind for the problems you talk about, that you think is implementable on a personal or societal level, then share but I'm not here to beat chests, nobody will win such a competition even if both walking away thinking they did.
I am not capable of having an actual debate with you any more than you are able to have an actual debate with a 3 year old.

I have no problem interacting with people who understand game theory, strategising and problem-solving in general, and who are less dogmatic about communication/dialectic protocol.

You don't strike me as one of those people. So, I can be humble and pretend I think of you as an equal - as a peer. But I would be lying.

And if I was your manager, I'd put the kiddie gloves on and treat you like a child, and at your level of understanding.
But I am not your manager... so in this context, I have no incentive to manage you.

I simply speak of pragmatic truth given our current (best) theoretical and empirical understanding of reality. You don't have to like it.
But then again, you aren't privy to my intentions as to why I am on this forum.

So far all your guesses have been wrong. The curse of abductive reasoning is the inability to empirically validate your conclusions.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

What are you doing here then? Building a social consensus and talking strategy with all these "philosophers" who are too beneath you to talk with?

Objectivity is an endeavour, Logik, nobody is saying one can remove their biases, you can't read or choose not to. I never even said I aspire towards objectivity, you tell me you can't have a debate with me but isn't it just because you can't comprehend points and make counter-arguments? You haven't shown you can do it this whole thread.
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:29 am Because strategy comes before planning.
LMAO. You don't have a solution or even the slightest idea of what can be done. HINT: It's because there is nothing, you are hoping by defining the problem someone else will give you a solution? You're going to die waiting.
Hence the problem. I don't like your interpretation of objectivity. You don't like mine.
If I was dealing with a reasonable person, then I have many options, I was pointing this out as a problem for you but given that you haven't even thought about solutions, clearly, it's too early for that.
We negotiate its meaning/definition. Allow it to emerge rather than prescribe it
Who's the one who said let's not talk about it? Since you kept using the terms, I gave you my definitions and you either can't understand them or ignore them. You think of me as an intellectual invalid, I promise you, there's a lot of people a lot dumber than me, it's doubtful that you would be willing to negotiate with them and it's a certainty that with your attitude, they won't be willing to negotiate with you. Not to mention, you can't even deal with people, only treating them as caricatures.
Functional to what end?
You're seriously asking me questions after your last few paragraphs?
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:29 am I am not capable of having an actual debate with you any more than you are able to have an actual debate with a 3 year old.
In the end, you chose chest-beating despite what I said. As I promised, we'll both walk away thinking we won even though it's clear we both lost.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 am What are you doing here then? Building a social consensus and talking strategy with all these "philosophers" who are too beneath you to talk with?
What kind of poker player shows his hand?
If it matters to you that much - figure it out.
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 am Objectivity is an endeavour, Logik, nobody is saying one can remove their biases, you can't read or choose not to. I never even said I aspire towards objectivity, you tell me you can't have a debate with me but isn't it just because you can't comprehend points and make counter-arguments? You haven't shown you can do it this whole thread.
OK, so it is an endeavour. Like making pancakes is an endeavour. As with any endeavour you could be moving closer or further away from your goal.

With any endeavour you could be moving towards success or towards failure.

Have you heard the phrase "If you can't measure it - you can't manage it"?

How do you endeavour to determine if you/me/us are becoming more or less objective? For all you know all this talk of objectivity is doing the exact opposite. How do you know we are headed in the right direction?

Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 am LMAO. You don't have a solution or even the slightest idea of what can be done. HINT: It's because there is nothing, you are hoping by defining the problem someone else will give you a solution? You're going to die waiting.
And yet - here I am. Building things. Solving problems. Building consensus and moving forward with implementing solutions to "problems I don't have a clue how to solve or define".

The purpose of making problem-solving a social activity is SO that you are kept in the loop. To give you the the opportunity to contribute.
The human psyche tends to distrust things which emerge through a process they had no input into.

Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 am If I was dealing with a reasonable person, then I have many options, I was pointing this out as a problem for you but given that you haven't even thought about solutions, clearly, it's too early for that.
You are dealing with a reasonable person. More than most.

If I was dealing with a competent pragmatist we would figure out a way forward.
We negotiate its meaning/definition. Allow it to emerge rather than prescribe it
Judaka wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 am You're seriously asking me questions after your last few paragraphs?
Yes. I am asking your criteria for "functionality".
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:29 am In the end, you chose chest-beating despite what I said. As I promised, we'll both walk away thinking we won even though it's clear we both lost.
So you want me to manage you like a 3 year old instead?

Ok. I can do that.

So lets get back to "objectivity". I have scanned over the definition/synonyms you have given me:
impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality
I can find no common pattern in there. And the image that emerges in my mind is self-contradictory and incoherent.
Fairness (an entirely subjective notion) used as a synonym of objectivity.

open-mindedness/neutrality/disinterest is the opposite of my conception of pragmatism.
open-mindedness is indifference is indecision the same as detachment and disinterest.

Pragmatism is all about making decisions. Which requires bias and subjective initiative and total attachment/immersion in problem-solving.

I have no fucking idea what to make of the fact that you call yourself a pragmatist while giving the definition of "objectivity" above!

As best as I can tell "objectivity" is a concept in your head, but you seem to be having a hard time communicating it.

If you can't measure it - you can't manage it!

If objectivity is being impartial: how do you know you are becoming more or less impartial?
If objectivity is being unbiased: how do you know you are becoming more or less biased?
If objectivity is being fair: how do you know you are becoming more or less fair?
If objectivity is being equitable: how do you know you are becoming more or less equitable?
If objectivity is being even-headed: how do you know you are becoming more or less even-headed?
If objectivity is being detached: how do you know you are becoming more or less detached?

A nihilist that doesn't recognise the relativism of ALL adjectives. The irony!

For the record: I don't expect you to come up with any better answer to what objectivity, fairness, unbiasedness, equitability and detachment are except "I know it when I see it".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

So lets try my way: What is the value and utility you perceive in objectivity? What problem do you expect "objectivity" is going to solve?
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Why cannot these definitions be used as they both reference the measurement principle you require

Objectivity is that which can be demonstrated to be true according to pre defined axioms
Objectivity is that which has the most inter subjective consensus within science or maths

I can provide examples for the above two statements to demonstrate their truth value

It is an axiom with mathematics that every irrational number always extends to infinity
It is accepted within science that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces

Also all adjectives are relative because they deal exclusively with subjective interpretation
You cannot give not a single example of an adjective for which this definition doesnt apply
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:16 am Why cannot these definitions be used as they both reference the measurement principle you require
If man is the measure of all things then it is sufficient to agree that 'we decide what is and is not objective'.
Then work towards defining the rules by which objectivity is asserted.

To define 'objectivity' in terms of 10 other subjective metrics... That's not pragmatism. That's idiocy.

Just define "objectivity" if we see more of (X,Y,Z - Good things!), less of (P,Q,R - Bad things!) then we are moving towards objectivity.
If we see more of (P,Q,R - Bad things) and less of (X,Y,Z - Good things) then we are moving away from objectivity.

That of which you want more of - good.
That of which you want less of - bad.

We are no closer to mitigating conflict, but at least we don't have to appeal to "objectivity'.

Ail inter-subjective debates boil down to I want and I don't want.
The rest is sophistry.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:16 am Objectivity is that which can be demonstrated to be true according to pre defined axioms
Objectivity is that which has the most inter subjective consensus within science or maths
So all historical claims - out the window?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:16 am It is an axiom with mathematics that every irrational number always extends to infinity
It is accepted within science that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces

Also all adjectives are relative because they deal exclusively with subjective interpretation
You cannot give not a single example of an adjective for which this definition doesnt apply
Mathematics provides tools for reasoning. It does not tell us what to reason about.
Mathematics allows us to compute consequences of actions.

It does not help us make any decisions or value-judgments about the desirability of the outcome.
All of that is left to the humans.

Mathematics cannot solve the "garbage in - garbage out" problem.
Post Reply