Rationalism v. empiricism

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:17 pm
But then you are also free to make an arse of yourself too
What do you think you are doing by self-appointing yourself as a Semantic Nazi?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:35 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:20 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:17 pm
You might be able to type a few words, but you are not "literature".
Your biases for some writings over others are none of our concern.
Ooooh. "our"??? Is that the "royal We"??

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:37 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:17 pm
But then you are also free to make an arse of yourself too
What do you think you are doing by self-appointing yourself as a Semantic Nazi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You loose!

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:37 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:17 pm
But then you are also free to make an arse of yourself too
What do you think you are doing by self-appointing yourself as a Semantic Nazi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You loose!
Sure, he is a looser, but not on account of Godwin's Law:
Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy
Of course, it doesn't. Some people really are Semantic Nazis, in a manner of speaking, obviously.
So, it all depends on who you are. But, you Nazi or not, the guy is a real looser, that's correct.
However, you're use Godwin's Law as if it was proving fallacy is itself a fallacy.
Now, that you loose does't mean he doesn't. Both loose.
Still, I didn't know this "Law", so thanks.
Still, Godwin's Law is not true. Some people will never end up calling each other Hitlers or Nazis. Rather, the proportion of people who will is worryingly high, and indeed some people like our Big Looser here will invariably resort to it after usually only a few posts. He is a temperamental and can't stand the contradiction. He can't keep his mind focused on the argument for very long and will resort to the "Nazi" word out in desperation.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:37 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:37 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 pm

What do you think you are doing by self-appointing yourself as a Semantic Nazi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You loose!
Sure, he is a looser, but not on account of Godwin's Law:
Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy
Of course, it doesn't. Some people really are Semantic Nazis, in a manner of speaking, obviously.
So, it all depends on who you are. But, you Nazi or not, the guy is a real looser, that's correct.
However, you're use Godwin's Law as if it was proving fallacy is itself a fallacy.
Now, that you loose does't mean he doesn't. Both loose.
Still, I didn't know this "Law", so thanks.
Still, Godwin's Law is not true. Some people will never end up calling each other Hitlers or Nazis. Rather, the proportion of people who will is worryingly high, and indeed some people like our Big Looser here will invariably resort to it after usually only a few posts. He is a temperamental and can't stand the contradiction. He can't keep his mind focused on the argument for very long and will resort to the "Nazi" word out in desperation.
EB
For the empiricists observing. This is a great anthropology lesson :)

Observe how a metaphorical use of Semantic Nazi is blown out of proportion, rather than reflecting on their own behaviour and internalising the feedback.

The inability to introspect and determine why some uses of language upsets it more than others is a distinct characteristic of the self-identified philosopher. This inability to adapt their language to the conversation greatly hinders the philosophers' ability to communicate and interact with other humans.

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:59 pm

I consider myself to be in enlightened prescriptivist.

By that I mean, for myself, I always endeavor—and sometimes fail—to use language accurately, and yet I am aware that others use colloquial or common language.

I take it as my responsibility to recognize colloquial or common language when it is being used. Sometimes I am successful and sometimes I fail.

A common use of ‘observation’ is to refer to the properties of vision, e.g. an observation car on a train or an observation tower at an airport or in a forest.

Some would call this conversational language, however it is just as problematic in a conversation as it can be in a paper or an article.

If I am unable to determine the intended denotation, I am still obligated to glean meaning from a word. To do this, I usually ask the person to explain the meaning.

And now that I have given myself some ad hominem praise, let the ad hominem attacks begin. Have at it.

Skepdick
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:59 pm

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:59 pm
I consider myself to be in enlightened prescriptivist.
If you accept that all normative theories (ethical, linguistic or otherwise) are a form of prescriptivism then John Stuart Mill makes the only argument I could ever agree with.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
commonsense wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:59 pm
If I am unable to determine the intended denotation, I am still obligated to glean meaning from a word. To do this, I usually ask the person to explain the meaning.
In human-to-human communication language works far, far better metaphorically. The philosophical straight-face, pretend-technical jargon decorum is just one of the reasons to burn The Church of Philosophy to the ground.

Philosophers take themselves far too seriously in the inconsequential Ivory Tower.

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:30 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:59 pm

If you accept that all normative theories (ethical, linguistic or otherwise) are a form of prescriptivism then John Stuart Mill makes the only argument I could ever agree with.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
To be sure, syntax and grammar are against the will of some.

But isn’t everyone free to form or join a community wherein anyone can use a variety of denotations and connotations?

Skepdick
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:30 pm
To be sure, syntax and grammar are against the will of some.

But isn’t everyone free to form or join a community wherein anyone can use a variety of denotations and connotations?
Your desire to prescribe grammar/syntax/semantics does not mean you have the ability to do so.

It is precisely the inability to prescribe grammar is why Philosophy is a minefield of mis-interpretation and language games.

Irrespective of the community you are in, if you are arguing over language rather than substance the interaction is adversarial, not cooperative.

Neither side is actually learning anything new.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:38 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm
Sure, he is a looser, but not on account of Godwin's Law:
Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy
Does not "necessarily" indicate a fallacy.
But in this case yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm
commonsense wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:30 pm
To be sure, syntax and grammar are against the will of some.

But isn’t everyone free to form or join a community wherein anyone can use a variety of denotations and connotations?
Your desire to prescribe grammar/syntax/semantics does not mean you have the ability to do so.
Blah, blah, blah.
You know what that means I take it?

Skepdick
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:10 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:40 pm
Blah, blah, blah.
You know what that means I take it?
It means your actions beg a question.

Why do you feel the need to correct a sentence that you understood?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:31 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:07 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:45 pm
commonsense wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:00 pm
But can an internal observation be objective? I think not. There can be no consensus about an observation that is limited to one observer, and an internal observation at that.
Sure, but that's still an observation of reality. And again, objectivity doesn't guaranty truth. Historically, it is always individuals who prove the objective dogma of the day to be false: Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Speakpigeon.
All objectivity relies on consensus.
Sure, that's what we have to tell ourselves.
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:07 pm
So since internal feelings and thoughts cannot be OBSERVED then no consensus is possible.
Thoughts cannot be observed from the outside but I am conscious of my own thoughts and therefore I certainly observe them.
Any observation I do is a thought and a thought is an observation. I take some thoughts to be about the objective world, but there ends up the difference.
Now, I can't observe your thoughts so I can't know about how it goes for you, so if you insist you're not conscious of your own thoughts, OK, why not.
Also, we spend a lot of our time talking about our thoughts. How could we do that at all if we couldn't observe our own?
It's also a fact that there is broad consensus on the kind of thing that goes on in a human mind, things like remembering, feelings, perception, sensation, impressions etc. How could we possibly get to this consensus without people being capable of observing their own mind? Why would we even agree that we have thoughts to begin with? How could we agree on that if we couldn't observe our own thoughts (given we can't observe that of other people)? I understand what other people will say about remembering the past or feeling exhausted because I have the same subjective experience of remembering the past or feeling exhausted.
EB

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:59 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm
commonsense wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:30 pm
To be sure, syntax and grammar are against the will of some.

But isn’t everyone free to form or join a community wherein anyone can use a v
ariety of denotations and connotations?
Your desire to prescribe grammar/syntax/semantics does not mean you have the ability to do so.
I do not have that ability, but those things are set by consensus of lexicographers.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm
It is precisely the inability to prescribe grammar is why Philosophy is a minefield of mis-interpretation and language games.
When misinterpretation seems to be the case, look for understanding.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm
Irrespective of the community you are in, if you are arguing over language rather than substance the interaction is adversarial, not cooperative.
Let me explain: I am not suggesting to argue over language, but rather to find a common understanding, regardless of language.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:26 pm
Neither side is actually learning anything new.
True. That’s why it’s important to establish a commonality of combinations of letters, etc.

The challenge is to understand the language before proceeding to argue about substance.

Otherwise, an argument over substance is null.

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:03 pm

S, S, &/or S,

Please complete the following sentence:

Let’s ASSUME for the sake of argument that OBSERVATION means...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests