From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:09 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:24 pm
What the hell does "in the ultimate sense of reality" even refer to first off?
As usual you are unable to infer what is common philosophical knowledge because you are dogmatic and don't bother to reflect more deeply and widely.

1. When we look at rocks, common sense of reality will represent them as solid physical things which is easily observable with the senses directly.

2. At the conventional senses, the reality of the rocks are represented by their various features in terms of molecules, atoms.

3. At the more refined level of reality, that solid physical rock could be comprised of waves or particles and other sub-atomic particles.

4. At the penultimate level of reality, as Russell implied, perhaps there is no physical rocks at all.

5. At the ultimate [not absolute] level of reality, what is solid rocks and all levels of reality are subsumed within the human conditions [collectively].

Hope you get it?
That doesn't help. Re 1, 2 and 3, aside from the fact that "comprised of waves" would be incoherent (waves have to be a processual function of some sort of material(s)), those three views are not forwarding anything different ontologically. (Sub-atomic) particles in dynamic relations are what atoms, molecules, etc. are comprised of, and atoms/molecules in particular dynamic relations, with particular properties, is what solidity is.
The point here is there are various acceptable finer perspectives of reality.
Making a jump from that to 4 and/or 5 is a non-sequitur, where 4 is also incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent) and 5 is just gobbledygook.
No. 5 is the fundamental principle of Philosophical Anti-Realism which oppose the unrealistic claims of Philosophical Realism.

gobbledygook??
That is typical of your response without arguments because you have been influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.

At least Conde Lucanor is trying to provide some philosophical arguments against Philosophical Anti-Realism in this thread,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481&start=240

You, Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher are triggered by some desperate psychology in merely making noises [throwing in all sorts of pejoratives like your philosophical ancestors] without any counter arguments.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amHow many % of scientists are theists?
Don't know, don't care. It's just a silly point scoring game between metaphysicians on either side of a pointless argument. It really doesn't matter. Science, if it has any quality that applies across the board is simply about discovering how the world works, and what we can do to make it work the way we want it to. Why anyone thinks the world behaves as it does makes no difference to the way it actually behaves.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amAs stated, the majority of scientists are not too bothered with a specific scientific framework and system, but those of philosophers of science do and well as some scientists.
On the contrary, scientists generally are committed to at least a few agreed rules, both in practice and research. That's the point Fleck, Polyani and nearly every philosopher of science since Kuhn has understood. I wrote an article on Kuhn too, as it happens. I've linked that one too. The point is that any FSK, to use your term, that scientists use has a specific and limited applicability.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amRegardless of the variations of views re the scientific practices, there are various generic principles that are intrinsic that are fundamental to what is Science.
Example all scientific knowledge are fundamentally empirical-based even for scientific speculations.
'Fundamentally empirical-based' isn't an FSK, it's just the fact that if there isn't a phenomenon, there is nothing to investigate. I suppose the closest moral equivalent is the golden rule - some version of 'Don't shit on others for no good reason'. I doesn't tell you anything about how to achieve that, it's just the reason you're bothered in the first place.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:22 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:09 am
As usual you are unable to infer what is common philosophical knowledge because you are dogmatic and don't bother to reflect more deeply and widely.

1. When we look at rocks, common sense of reality will represent them as solid physical things which is easily observable with the senses directly.

2. At the conventional senses, the reality of the rocks are represented by their various features in terms of molecules, atoms.

3. At the more refined level of reality, that solid physical rock could be comprised of waves or particles and other sub-atomic particles.

4. At the penultimate level of reality, as Russell implied, perhaps there is no physical rocks at all.

5. At the ultimate [not absolute] level of reality, what is solid rocks and all levels of reality are subsumed within the human conditions [collectively].

Hope you get it?
That doesn't help. Re 1, 2 and 3, aside from the fact that "comprised of waves" would be incoherent (waves have to be a processual function of some sort of material(s)), those three views are not forwarding anything different ontologically. (Sub-atomic) particles in dynamic relations are what atoms, molecules, etc. are comprised of, and atoms/molecules in particular dynamic relations, with particular properties, is what solidity is.
The point here is there are various acceptable finer perspectives of reality.
Making a jump from that to 4 and/or 5 is a non-sequitur, where 4 is also incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent) and 5 is just gobbledygook.
No. 5 is the fundamental principle of Philosophical Anti-Realism which oppose the unrealistic claims of Philosophical Realism.

gobbledygook??
That is typical of your response without arguments because you have been influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.

At least Conde Lucanor is trying to provide some philosophical arguments against Philosophical Anti-Realism in this thread,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481&start=240

You, Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher are triggered by some desperate psychology in merely making noises [throwing in all sorts of pejoratives like your philosophical ancestors] without any counter arguments.
If an utterance is gobbledygook it's a bit difficult to "argue again it." The utterance makes no sense as an utterance. It's like trying to argue against "Mambo dogface on the banana patch." You have to be able to make sense of an utterance before you can argue against it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amHow many % of scientists are theists?
Don't know, don't care. It's just a silly point scoring game between metaphysicians on either side of a pointless argument. It really doesn't matter. Science, if it has any quality that applies across the board is simply about discovering how the world works, and what we can do to make it work the way we want it to. Why anyone thinks the world behaves as it does makes no difference to the way it actually behaves.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amAs stated, the majority of scientists are not too bothered with a specific scientific framework and system, but those of philosophers of science do and well as some scientists.
On the contrary, scientists generally are committed to at least a few agreed rules, both in practice and research. That's the point Fleck, Polyani and nearly every philosopher of science since Kuhn has understood. I wrote an article on Kuhn too, as it happens. I've linked that one too. The point is that any FSK, to use your term, that scientists use has a specific and limited applicability.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 5:10 amRegardless of the variations of views re the scientific practices, there are various generic principles that are intrinsic that are fundamental to what is Science.
Example all scientific knowledge are fundamentally empirical-based even for scientific speculations.
'Fundamentally empirical-based' isn't an FSK, it's just the fact that if there isn't a phenomenon, there is nothing to investigate. I suppose the closest moral equivalent is the golden rule - some version of 'Don't shit on others for no good reason'. I doesn't tell you anything about how to achieve that, it's just the reason you're bothered in the first place.
How is that science is differentiated from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-sciences and other non-science subjects?

If there is no specific framework and system attributed to science, then anything goes, i.e. then astrology, and all sort of mystical practices, religions etc. can claim the 'scientific label'. But it is not the case with the state of knowledge at present.

In that sense, [without going into the details] science must have its specific framework and system that enable it to be recognized as distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amHow is that science is differentiated from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-sciences and other non-science subjects?
Science is making things work. Philosophy is explaining why it works. Theology is wishing someone could make it work better. History is all the ways we have tried to make things work, some of which still do. Pseudo science is people kidding themselves that something works.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amIf there is no specific framework and system attributed to science, then anything goes, i.e. then astrology, and all sort of mystical practices, religions etc. can claim the 'scientific label'. But it is not the case with the state of knowledge at present.
Dunno what planet you're from but all sorts of cranks claim to be scientific. Astrology makes a claim about how things work, which is the philosophy side, and it makes predictions based on that theory. Being able to predict things is characteristic of science, but with astrology, the more specific the prediction, the less accurate they tend to be, which makes it more or less useless to anyone who isn't emotionally invested in it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amIn that sense, [without going into the details] science must have its specific framework and system that enable it to be recognized as distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects.
Well, if you can't go into the details, you haven't got a case.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amHow is that science is differentiated from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-sciences and other non-science subjects?
Science is making things work. Philosophy is explaining why it works. Theology is wishing someone could make it work better. History is all the ways we have tried to make things work, some of which still do. Pseudo science is people kidding themselves that something works.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amIf there is no specific framework and system attributed to science, then anything goes, i.e. then astrology, and all sort of mystical practices, religions etc. can claim the 'scientific label'. But it is not the case with the state of knowledge at present.
Dunno what planet you're from but all sorts of cranks claim to be scientific. Astrology makes a claim about how things work, which is the philosophy side, and it makes predictions based on that theory. Being able to predict things is characteristic of science, but with astrology, the more specific the prediction, the less accurate they tend to be, which makes it more or less useless to anyone who isn't emotionally invested in it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:48 amIn that sense, [without going into the details] science must have its specific framework and system that enable it to be recognized as distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects.
Well, if you can't go into the details, you haven't got a case.
I believe the inference is easy, i.e.
we have public and common knowledge that science is distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects,
therefore it must have distinctive features [framework structures] that enable the differentiation.

It is like why a dog is not a table?

If you insist on the details [embarrassing] I will get to it, I have other more important things to focus on.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 amI believe the inference is easy, i.e.
we have public and common knowledge that science is distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects,
therefore it must have distinctive features [framework structures] that enable the differentiation.

It is like why a dog is not a table?
Then it should be as easy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 amIf you insist on the details [embarrassing] I will get to it...
Can't wait.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 am...I have other more important things to focus on.
Careful now: “One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.” Bertrand Russell
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 amI believe the inference is easy, i.e.
we have public and common knowledge that science is distinct from philosophy, theology, history, pseudo-science and other non-science subjects,
therefore it must have distinctive features [framework structures] that enable the differentiation.

It is like why a dog is not a table?
Then it should be as easy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 amIf you insist on the details [embarrassing] I will get to it...
Can't wait.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:46 am...I have other more important things to focus on.
Careful now: “One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.” Bertrand Russell
I have long been involved in the cultivation of equanimity, so I have no worries with the above.
At present I doing a 5-days [now 2nd day] water fasting, i.e. drink water only for 5 days, thus is not in my tip top condition.
Post Reply