The ontological error of Philosophy

[Univalence]

All definitions have to be universally agreed upon otherwise communication is simply not possible

That's not true.

Communication does not require symbols or definitions. I can communicate distress with simple gesturing and grunting.

I can point to one of these things and say 'pig'

cat.png (250.22 KiB) Viewed 2766 times

The linguistic descriptivist would say: 'Ooooooh, is that what you call it? I call that a cat.'
The linguistic prescriptivist would say: You are wrong! That's not a pig. That's a cat.

The linguistic prescriptivist would also go on to say things like "Liar, bullshitter etc." rather than admitting that they aren't interested in learning how you use those words.

Because the linguistic prescriptivist doesn't care about phenomenology.

[Belinda]

Univalence:

Communication does not require symbols or definitions. I can communicate distress with simple gesturing and grunting.

Expressiveness. Some communications have to be explicit e.g. how to send a rocket to Mars, or how the Queen's Household Cavalryman must dress up his horse for the ceremony. But most communications have a goodly measure of expressiveness in them.

[Univalence]

Expressiveness. Some communications have to be explicit e.g. how to send a rocket to Mars

I am not sure that's sufficient.

You can express anything. But to say that it has been effectively communicated we are back to discussing verificationism.
The distinction between expressing how to send a rocket to Mars, and verifying whether that which you have expressed will actually get your rocket to Mars is a gap in evidence.

When that which you have expressed is put to practice and the rocket either succeeds or fails to arrive at Mars, then the gap is closed.

[Belinda]

Univalence wrote;

You can express anything. But to say that it has been effectively communicated we are back to discussing verificationism.

But there are no eternal verities and no failsafe predictions. Men make reality.

'Effective' as in ''Effective communication' does not imply a proven proposition or hypothesis, only that someone else by reason of the proposition or hypothesis could see how to proceed.

[jayjacobus]

Univalence wrote;

You can express anything. But to say that it has been effectively communicated we are back to discussing verificationism.

But there are no eternal verities and no failsafe predictions. Men make reality.

'Effective' as in ''Effective communication' does not imply a proven proposition or hypothesis, only that someone else by reason of the proposition or hypothesis could see how to proceed.

The universe doesn"t see how to proceed but people must understand the universe to see how to proceed.

[Univalence]

'Effective' as in ''Effective communication' does not imply a proven proposition or hypothesis, only that someone else by reason of the proposition or hypothesis could see how to proceed.

Determinism/prediction is deeply embedded in human communication though.

When I say to you "Could I please have a glass of water?" I do so because I predict that those exact words will affect your mind in a way that ultimately gets me what I want. e.g a glass of water.
When my fiancé says "I am feeling sad today" she does so because she expects that those words will trigger the 'emotional support' routine in my head. Words of kindness, a hug. That ought to get her oxytocin flowing (because that's what she wants).

If you bring me a glass of Sprite, that signals to me that communication broke down somewhere.
If I respond to my fiancé with "Here's a glass of water", that signals to her the exact same thing.

Perhaps the request was unclear? Perhaps we speak a different languages? Either way you become aware that miscommunication has taken place.

It's up to you how to course-correct. It's all a game of prediction.

[Belinda]

Univalence, I absolutely agree with your last.

It was 'verificationism' that puzzled me and this was because we cannot verify any prediction, hypothesis, or proposition. We cannot do so for two reasons. One,(ontically ) there is no ultimate truth and two, (epistemically) induction is always uncertain.

Regarding "there is no ultimate truth" I agree with Logik's original post number one in this series.

[Univalence]

It was 'verificationism' that puzzled me and this was because we cannot verify any prediction, hypothesis, or proposition. We cannot do so for two reasons. One,(ontically ) there is no ultimate truth and two, (epistemically) induction is always uncertain.

Verificationism

All predictions are verified against our very own expectations.

I say "Could I have a glass of water, please?" because I predict that those exact words will get me a glass of water.
The glass of water arrives - my expectations are met. My prediction was correct.

Unless I get a sprite, in which case - it's a communication failure.
Either I asked for the wrong thing, or you misunderstood me.

My prediction (that uttering those words will result in me getting a glass of water) failed.

[Belinda]

Univalence, Isn't there more to verificationism than determinism and prediction being deeply embedded? I think what you explain is the case because it can't be otherwise than people basically trust each other so that if someone asks for a glass of water expecting to get it they will receive it.

[Age]

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?"

OK.

Let X be "knowledge".

Okay.

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

And then your argument becomes: Without first knowing "What knowledge is" what use is there in knowing "What knowledge does?"

You can assume and/or conclude anything you like, but to presume that MY argument would become anything like you have just proposed here, without first clarifying, is just sheer ridiculous.

My point is nothing of the sort.

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.

If one neither knows what knowledge is; nor knows what knowledge does - one would be indifferent towards pursuing knowledge, surely?

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.

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.

And if one were to be convinced to pursue knowledge, I'd imagine it's far easier to tell them what knowledge does, than what knowledge is.

This completely misses my point.

Knowledge empowers you to get what you want out of life.

I will not ask you "What life is?" here, but I will ask you if you can explain "What life does"? If you can, then please do.

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

Do you want that?

No.

Life has already given me all of what I want.

[Belinda]

But if you subtract all the attributes from X then X would not exist.

[PeteJ]

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?

[Univalence]

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?

When you have two disciplines before you. One that can answer question and one that can't....

You probably ought to throw the one away. Philosophy is the one I threw away, because science can address the problem of omniscience.

[PeteJ]

You probably ought to throw the one away. Philosophy is the one I threw away, because science can address the problem of omniscience.

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

[Univalence]

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

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