Principles vs Pragmatism

[Logik]

There is rigour and objectivity but there be no specific tool called a rigour and objectivity scale like you claimed

But there is a concept, no? Otherwise you wouldn't be using the words.

And if any human can determine whether something is "rigorous" or "objective" then they are the yardstick for "rigor" and "objectivity".

From observation to experimentation to replication to peer review - each one as brutal and as rigorous as possible
Taking testable hypothesis and subjecting them to absolute destruction - or as close as possible to - in order to gain scientific knowledge

I guess we can throw away all of psychology in the pseudo-scientific trash can then. 80%+ of it doesn't replicate...

So we can safely ignore the armchair psychologists on this thread/forum.

[surreptitious57]

I guess we can throw away all of psychology in the trash can then

I think we should keep psychology because it is rather useful
Even though it may not be as rigorous as say physics or math

[Logik]

I think we should keep psychology because it is rather useful
Even though it may not be as rigorous as say physics or math

How is it useful if it doesn't replicate?
How is it useful if it doesn't predict anything?

[Judaka]

No Logik, it's pure ego.

You've said that I offer sophistry, circular logic and so on, but are you even referring to something specific? Do you even remember what you were replying to when you told me that all language is recursive and all positions are contradictory? Can you honestly say you wouldn't have to look back on the forum to check? You're just determined to believe that I'm inferior to you irrespective of anything real, it's ego. You became irritated that I didn't think much of your ideas and started telling me I ought to pay you to tutor me, that I'm an idiot who needs your help and telling me how vastly above me you are in knowledge and philosophy.

You say you've got "more self-awareness that I can imagine" don't you see how egotistical that statement is? It's not enough to say "i'm self-aware, you're wrong" you're telling me "oh I'm beyond self-aware, more self-aware than you can even imagine" LMAO, like it's a chest-beating competition for you.

Anyway, I'll stick by my word and refrain from talking to you in the future.

It is either ego or episteme.

And you have absolutely no objective criteria to decide which is which. Except for the post-hoc subjective expectations of what a “self-aware” person is supposed to behave like and say.

Sorry to shit all over your stereotype.

So keep telling yourself the story you have put together to explain my behaviour to yourself.

Tackle the person because you can’t refute the argument.

All philosophical sophistry boils down to jusrifying one’s values. There is no “what?” without a “why?”

I don't even know what your argument is or what my argument is. I don't know much about you but saying that you're egotistical which isn't a stereotype and it's pretty obvious. It is amazing listening to you go though, I'm a nihilist, I've constantly recognised the problem of interpretation and subjectivity in language to you, I reject objective meaning, objective morality, objective logic and so on. Why are you so convinced we even disagree on whatever it is you're talking about?

I don't recall having made an argument against what you're saying except that what you're proposing (defining all terms and agreeing on them with each other) is impractical and secondly that you don't actually practice what you preach. If you're actually a pragmatist and you actually recognise how subjective language and terms can be then why the fk would you hope for universal agreement on terminology? It's a completely insane and unrealistic approach and what's more, while you ask others to give their definitions, you don't feel the need to give your own. Look at page 1 of this thread, you don't offer any definitions whatsoever despite it being the first few posts - the best time to clarify such things.

Every argument in this forum, you say the same things, tell people to do things THAT YOU YOURSELF DONT DO and act superior. I find the whole thing absolutely hilarious.

I've never met anyone like you, you're not a stereotype. Position wise, other than perhaps epistemology, we seem pretty closely aligned if everything you've said is to be believed. In my only argument, even you yourself acknowledged my non-recursive non-contradictory position on cheese which you would think means something, the example was literally, the entirety of my argument against your position.

You absolutely can't come to terms with the fact that your hostility towards me and my supposed ideas is entirely prefaced upon the disrespect and contempt I've shown for you and your ideas. The moment you came to white knight Eodnhoj against me and started demanding I follow ludicrous rules that nobody could ever follow, well I can't say that I would have done anything differently. In the end, in that thread, you stopped dealing with arguments and just resorted to arguing that you're superior to me.

You keep calling my arguments sophistry but I have no idea what arguments you're talking about, you claim ad hominem (again) but I got no idea what argument you think I'm trying to disprove. I'm having fun now, tell me what you're talking about and I will give you an answer to your earlier request. I imagine that even if it's not an entirely constructive discussion, it could be interesting provided it doesn't become another debate about epistemology.

[surreptitious57]

How is it useful if it doesnt replicate ?
How is it useful if it doesnt predict ?

Is utility only to be found in replication
Is utility only to be found in prediction

[Logik]

It is amazing listening to you go though, I'm a nihilist, I've constantly recognised the problem of interpretation and subjectivity in language to you, I reject objective meaning, objective morality, objective logic and so on. Why are you so convinced we even disagree on whatever it is you're talking about?

Because you are "nihilist" who is on a philosophy forum. And I am reading into your actions more than you can ever say with your words.
Yes, nihilism is the logical conclusion of all skepticism and rational inquiry, but I am not a nihilist.

To agree with Camus: "The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself." You are still alive so... something prevents you.

I don't recall having made an argument against what you're saying except that what you're proposing (defining all terms and agreeing on them with each other) is impractical and secondly that you don't actually practice what you preach. If you're actually a pragmatist and you actually recognise how subjective language and terms can be then why the fk would you hope for universal agreement on terminology?

Because society is a contractarian construct. If we share no common goals - then we need not share opinions either.

Or waste each other's time.

It's a completely insane and unrealistic approach and what's more, while you ask others to give their definitions, you don't feel the need to give your own. Look at page 1 of this thread, you don't offer any definitions whatsoever despite it being the first few posts - the best time to clarify such things.

That's because I don't care to share my concepts with you if we don't share a common goal.

Without a common criteria for success/failure - all arguments are masturbatory power-struggles. With each person trying to frame the interpretative context.

Furthermore, it's a very realistic approach for people who understand how language-acquisition and language-creation works.
Consensus-building is a science. A computer science. But in order to play the "game" according to the "rules" we have come up with to evolve communication to such level you first gave to give up your dogma....

Hence why the level at which I CHOOSE to engage you and everybody on this site is "symbol manipulation".

Some call it logic.
Some call it metaphysics.

It's the same things.

Every argument in this forum, you say the same things, tell people to do things THAT YOU YOURSELF DONT DO and act superior. I find the whole thing absolutely hilarious.

Correct. And I find your use of the law of non-contradiction hilarious. I asked you about para-consistent logic - you didn't answer.

I'll put it to you as simply as I can.

1. The is-ought gap cannot be conquered (so say philosophers).
2. Arguments convince people to cross the is-ought gap.

So arguments are these magical things which fly over the gap that which is impossible to cross?

*yawn*

Explain this magic trick to me.

But, for philosophy's sake - you couldn't be further from the truth. Not only am I not a nihilist but I believe in objective morality and objective meaning. Of the inter-subjective kind. I am a constructivist to very last bone in my body.

If you believe of mind-independent anything you are a theist in my books.

[Logik]

How is it useful if it doesnt replicate ?
How is it useful if it doesnt predict ?

Is utility only to be found in replication
Is utility only to be found in prediction

For me - yes. If you find other utility, point it to me.

There is also psychological utility - in that having a cool-sounding story will make you feel like you know/understand something.
But in effect that's just your curiosity "e.g anxiety of not-knowing" being put to rest.

But the irony of using psychological pseudo-science to calm one's anxiety is not lost on me.

[surreptitious57]

There is also psychological utility - in that having a cool sounding story will make you feel like you know
understand something . But in effect thats just your curiosity eg anxiety of not knowing being put to res

But the irony of using psychological pseudo science to calm ones anxiety is not lost on me

I am not remotely interested in calming my apparent anxiety of not knowing because not knowing doesnt actually bother me
I avoid being dogmatic about anything even if I know it to be true and my natural mental state is to be emotionally detached

I actually know very little and have absolutely no problem with this

[Logik]

I actually know very little and have absolutely no problem with this

The most interesting meta-problem of all: how do you know that what you have is knowledge?

You know - for yourself. What can you DO (in practice!) if the thing you have is, in fact - knowledge?
What would you observe if it wasn't?

What do you use "knowledge" for?
How do you determine that what you thought was "knowledge" is actually "faux-knowledge"?

Until you can figure out a strategy for solving all of the above problems for yourself, you will always be focusing on what to think, not HOW to think.

[surreptitious57]

the most interesting meta problem of all : how do you know that what you have is knowledge

What can you DO if the thing you have is in fact knowledge

As I said I avoid dogmatism as much as possible even for what what I know or think to be true

I am interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge not as a means towards an end so not for practical application
As I probably dont know very much anyway there is no reason for me to use my limited knowledge for anything is there

The older I get the less I know so by the time I am dead I will probably know nothing at all which is fine by me
I cannot know if what I have is knowledge but as far as I know it is not going to be very much use to me anyway

[Logik]

As I said I avoid dogmatism as much as possible even for what what I know or think to be true

How do you know you are successful in this endeavor?
Is it possible that you are (accidentally) becoming dogmatic despite your best intentions?

I am interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge not as a means towards an end so not for practical application
As I probably dont know very much anyway there is no reason for me to use my limited knowledge for anything is there
I cannot know if what I have is knowledge but as far as I know it is not going to be very much use to me anyway

So you have no ways of testing whether you have attained "knowledge" or a wet newspaper?

Surely you expect more value given all the time you invest acquiring it?

[surreptitious57]

Until you can figure out a strategy for solving all of the above problems for yourself you will always be focusing on what to think not HOW to think

I am not really interested in going that high at my age because it serves no purpose
I simply want to take what is out there but without using it for any specific reason

There is no way I could learn absolutely everything with the time I have left so I just let it go
It would be a complete waste of both mental and physical energy so I remain ignorant instead

I shouldnt even be here because I cannot justify my prescence but as I am practically invisible it makes no difference

[surreptitious57]

So you have no ways of testing whether you have attained knowledge

I am not really interested at my age in testing the truth claims of any knowledge I have acquired
It may be true or it may be false but my philosophy nowadays is just to leave it be whatever it is

I cannot be checking every single thing scientists say on the internet every single day because that is just insane
I have absolutely no idea how right or wrong they are because I do not possess the knowledge base that they do

I think maths and physics are important but beyond that I really dont know much about them at all so I just let it be

[Logik]

There is a concept in epistemology known as the "raft" problem.

You can have vast amounts of "knowledge" which on the surface all "makes sense".
Because "consistency" is your only criterion by which to assert the "quality" of that which you learn
it becomes a "raft" floating out in the ocean with zero contact with dry land.

Contact with reality is mandatory for weeding out bad ideas. The ones that work in theory but not in practice.

And particularly - the ones which are applicable outside of the "white room" setting of a scientific experiments.

Psychology is at grave danger at becoming a "raft" discipline.

[surreptitious57]

I have never heard of the raft problem because I know nothing about psychology
I have enough knowledge to get by but I do not really want that much at my age
I simply do not understand everything so I say nothing and be as quiet as possible