Philosophy undermines truth

[Iwannaplato]

...it seemed like you knew or had some idea which questions could not be answered and in a sense which were meaningless and which had meaning and where the answer might make some practical difference.

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm not disappointed, in any case, not in the 'Oh, I wished he had the answers,' kind of way. I'm more confused or triangulating. I am still trying to get a handle on this...

At the foundational level that Descartes was trying to reach, questions like 'Is the universe material or ideal?', 'Do humans have souls?' are unanswerable.

IOW here you seem to have an idea at least which questions are answerable. Does this mean that you think they are unanswerable but given what you say below could be meaningful to people anyway. This seems sort of trivial. Like a tolerance for people having, yes sort of aesthetic experiences. Other ideas might not be merely aesthetic preferences, or?

I'm with Feyerabend on this, I actually think prescribing which ideas are meaningful is a bad idea.

I'm a fan of Feyerabends, mostly related to plurarity of methodology, perhaps epistemologes also. But I'm still seeing things like...

Some questions we don't know the answer to for practical reasons; is there life on other planets? for example. Then there are the philosophical questions. We can, and almost certainly will keep banging away at questions like does god exist? Is democracy the best form of government? Is meat murder? Is blue the best colour? and so on. What you think of those sorts of questions depend on who you are.

Here you put life on other planets in one catergory: unanswered due to practical reasons and does God exist which, I assume is in the more aesthetic category. But how do we know that's not a practical issue also?

IOW it seems sometimes like you are saying all ideas are kinda the same: they work for some people, it's a taste thing, I'm not going to get in there and suggest anything. But then at other times you are dividing ideas up into two categories (at least) where one group is a taste thing only and the other group well they may well get answers.

[Will Bouwman]

...it seems sometimes like you are saying all ideas are kinda the same: they work for some people, it's a taste thing, I'm not going to get in there and suggest anything. But then at other times you are dividing ideas up into two categories (at least) where one group is a taste thing only and the other group well they may well get answers.

Well, there's questions like do bricks fall down wells? We all know enough about how the world works to know the answer.
Another sort of question is how fast do bricks fall down wells? We can do experiments to find out, or rely on others who have done analogous experiments.
Then there are questions such as do bricks fall down wells because there is a stuff called spacetime that is warped by massive bodies? The answer to that is unlikely to have any effect on whether, or how fast bricks fall down wells. It may be the case and perhaps in the future we will find some way to make use of it, some warp drive for instance, but currently we don't know.
Then there are further questions along the lines of does an omnipotent being, who is determined to stay hidden, because faith is more important than knowledge, make bricks fall down wells? The answer to that also makes no difference to the behaviour of bricks in wells, cannot be answered definitively, but clearly it is meaningful to a great many people.
Those four might be labelled questions of observation, analysis, hypothesis and metaphysics; the answers are obvious, easy, difficult and impossible respectively. It's not an exhaustive list, but that's more or less where I stand.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I might counter with a philosophical social norm of my own, the adherents of which understand the story telling nature of philosophy, accept that every theory is underdetermined and acknowledge that any one of a number of hypotheses can explain the same phenomena, with the same precision as one or more other hypothesis and that therefore, there is no way to tell which, if any, is the truth.

I have not read this entire thread (the comments that followed this one from the first page) but it sounds to me that philosophic speculation and musing is therefore sort of a game of the mind. If indeed (and I assume you agree with this) that nothing can be concluded as being certainly true, and one explanation-system can substitute for another, then the game becomes one of trying to come up with a philosophical speculation du jour that attracts adherents (convinces them, for one reason or another).

If it is reduced to 'story-telling' -- and I certainly see your point -- then it is really a game of stories. Not so much a tool for determining what is *true*.

Yep; it's all about making a compelling case. According to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.

Except that when you say this, you yourself know that you might be convinced today, perhaps only for a moment, but that your argument is not really fully compelling because it is not actually stable and certain. You could not say 'Here is a solid and stable assertion' (except the cogito ergo sum perception) and with your statement you undermine the asserted object of philosophy. And it that is so then what real value does the narrative game of philosophy have?

I remember in other conversations you had mentioned that many things can be reduced to aesthetics: how something looks or how pleasing it is. I may be misremembering what the gist of this statement was but it seems similar to your present rendition of the use of philosophy: a reduction to the beautiful and thus compelling form of an argument.

Trust me that I believe that we are in an impasse about what is true and what is asserted as true. But is that a desired object or conclusion in your view? Put another way do you desire that it be like this?

It is futile trying to discover truth. The best you will achieve is a coherent story that is consistent with the available data. It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

I fully get what you are saying, and also why it seems inevitable as a statement. But in fact many people actually do determine truths for themselves.

[Iwannaplato]

...it seems sometimes like you are saying all ideas are kinda the same: they work for some people, it's a taste thing, I'm not going to get in there and suggest anything. But then at other times you are dividing ideas up into two categories (at least) where one group is a taste thing only and the other group well they may well get answers.

Well, there's questions like do bricks fall down wells? We all know enough about how the world works to know the answer.
Another sort of question is how fast do bricks fall down wells? We can do experiments to find out, or rely on others who have done analogous experiments.
Then there are questions such as do bricks fall down wells because there is a stuff called spacetime that is warped by massive bodies? The answer to that is unlikely to have any effect on whether, or how fast bricks fall down wells. It may be the case and perhaps in the future we will find some way to make use of it, some warp drive for instance, but currently we don't know.
Then there are further questions along the lines of does an omnipotent being, who is determined to stay hidden, because faith is more important than knowledge, make bricks fall down wells? The answer to that also makes no difference to the behaviour of bricks in wells, cannot be answered definitively, but clearly it is meaningful to a great many people.
Those four might be labelled questions of observation, analysis, hypothesis and metaphysics; the answers are obvious, easy, difficult and impossible respectively. It's not an exhaustive list, but that's more or less where I stand.

The first three are empirical, though it took a long time to find out about number three. The empirical aspects took work and technology to get to. The fourth one is a specific version of a deity, and actually not that common a version. Most religions have deities with empirical aspects and ways of getting close to them, experiencing the presence and so on. It's unclear whether it is just faith, which is also an idea more common in many facets of the Abrahamic religions that in other religions/theisms. Also it's a big leap there, in terms of most modern Westerners, from 3 to 4. Poltergeist phenomena, say, or other so called supernatural or paranormal phenomena could potentially be confirmed in some way, given changes in technology or perhaps interest from the right investigators or some other shift. What I am getting at is that I think there is more of a spectrum they discrete categories. And then, further, that different people's experiences might give people different reasons for putting a phenomenon on a different part of the spectrum. One person's seemingly aesthetic choice might actually be something that is not merely an aesthetic choice. And then also be something that gets found out at some point.

And example that was at one time just a short step from number three at one point was rogue waves. Witnesses claimed that single huge waves often in non-stormy weather hit ships. This didnt' fit with then current models and the psychology of the witnesses/experiencers was decided on. Over time cameras in the bridges of chips and then finally satellite technology confirmed that in fact many of these witnesses had probably been spot on in their estimations of these waves and new theory and models was made to fit the anomalies.

I don't think it's easy to determine where some things lie on the spectrum. What is impossible or not to find out about. I think it also entails a kind of certainty about the ontological nature of whatever X is being discussed. I can understand non-theists for example, taking certain specific theists ideas as, well, the ontological description and then saying, well based on that, we'll never know, if those specific theists are correct. But in general saying we'll never know if there is a God and no one now has anything but a faith based belief in God is problematic.

I have some skepticism about substrance claims, whether idealist or physicalist, dualist or monist. I can't rule out these things will someday be nailed down, but I don't think it's happened yet. So, I share some similar judgments about different kinds of asssertions and what we can do about them. But I am also skeptical about ruling out some future model regarding substance ever being confirmed or well justified. (I also think the various substance models are already useful in different contexts, which is not, for me, the same thing as saying they are merely aesthetic)

IOW it still sounds like you are prescribing which ideas are meaningful - you are asserting they are meaningful in the sense that people give them meaning/emotional auras, but it seems like not in the sense of having anything to do with reality or any reality we will ever know.

[bahman]

BY what fact do you claim that the proof for the truth does not exist?

I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

I am claiming THAT it is a fact that some truths are not provable with facts.

How do you know this?

[Will Bouwman]

...your argument is not really fully compelling because it is not actually stable and certain.

My argument is that there are always alternative explanations for exactly the same data. That should be utterly compelling to anyone with even a rash of imagination. Having said that, I, like many people operate with a fairly mundane set of premises: there is an external world, the sun will come up tomorrow, not being a bastard to others is good; stuff like that. I don't know if any of that is true, but as you say:

...in fact many people actually do determine truths for themselves.

Well, they create a coherent narrative based on the premises they choose.

[Skepdick]

BY what fact do you claim that the proof for the truth does not exist?

I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

I am claiming THAT it is a fact that some truths are not provable with facts.

How do you know this?

How don't you know this?

Think of an elephant. It's now true that you are thinking of an elephant. Where's the fact that you are thinking of an elephant?

[bahman]

I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

I am claiming THAT it is a fact that some truths are not provable with facts.

How do you know this?

How don't you know this?

Think of an elephant. It's now true that you are thinking of an elephant. Where's the fact that you are thinking of an elephant?

You don't need a fact for what you are thinking.

[Age]

I didn't fail, I simply choose not to waste my time trying to explain something to an autistic-schizophrenic, that he/she can't understand anyway

Okay, then ALL IS COMPLETELY and TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE here.

That is; 'you' TALK TO and RESPOND to an "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" when 'you' WANT TO SAY and CLAIM that what 'they' SAY and CLAIM is "magical thinking' or 'a fantasy', BUT WHEN the "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" ASKS 'you' A QUESTION, FOR CLARIFICATION, 'you' THEN simply CHOOSE to NOT so-call 'waste your time' trying to explain some 'thing' to THAT "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" who 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY can NOT UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, correct?

If yes, then could it be SEEN as just Truly STUPID, FOOLISH, OR 'just a waste of time' TO JUST RESPOND AT ALL?

Yes, foolish, but on your part. Almost every comment you write is foolish.

But the bigger problem is that you often ask question which would take weeks to answer. That's education, or psychotherapy.

But often the ANSWERS to the QUESTIONS I ASK have ALREADY been ANSWERED.

I am also just SEEING who KNOWS 'what', EXACTLY.

[Age]

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't. The chances of persuading someone who doesn't like your idea are slim. The only thing can't be disputed is that there are ideas. That's why 'I think, therefore I am' is so foundational, but beyond that, what we think is down to flavour, rather than fact.

And 'this' partly explains WHY it takes 'you', human beings here, so long to catch up.

[Age]

I've often been fascinated by the phrase "The truth will set you free".

WHY?

When one IS FULLY Truthful, then BECOMING WISER FOLLOWS, EXPONENTIALLY.

'you' WILL SEE IF 'you' do 'it' some time. BUT, 'you' ALSO HAVE TO WANT TO CHANGE, for the better, and NOT necessarily FOR 'you' AT ALL.

Fuck off Age.

Okay.

If you want people to change, then why don't you give it a try yourself?

What are you PRESUMING or BELIEVING I am NO 'changing' in relation to, EXACTLY?

Most of your responses to me are unsolicited and really want to make me vomit.

Okay.

They are inconsiderate toward others and usually offensive.

If you say so, noted. But could 'your' PERCEPTION here NOT be what was INTENDED?

Or, can 'you' NOT be Wrong here "gary childress"?

And you don't seem to care one bit how you brush up against others. Fucking psychopathy at its finest! Grow a fucking conscience or get the fuck away from me, asshole!!

Is there ANY 'psychopathy' in this response of 'yours' here, "gary childress"?

[Age]

BY what fact do you claim that the proof for the truth does not exist?

I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

I am claiming THAT it is a fact that some truths are not provable with facts.

Will you provide ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Skepdick]

How do you know this?

How don't you know this?

Think of an elephant. It's now true that you are thinking of an elephant. Where's the fact that you are thinking of an elephant?

You don't need a fact for what you are thinking.

Great! So you agree - it's true that you are thinking of an elephant but you can't prove it to me.

[attofishpi]

Then there are further questions along the lines of does an omnipotent being, who is determined to stay hidden, because faith is more important than knowledge, make bricks fall down wells?

Will, I've got to take you up on this. Not that an omnipotent being makes bricks fall down down wells, but well, Y does it not make itself fully knowledgeable to everyone?

As you pretty much state:- "Why does an omnipotent being, that is determined to stay hidden, require FAITH over KNOWLEDGE of its existence?"

Why does this entity we call God require FAITH, rather than make itself fully aware to all?

I think I know the reason.

What do you think the reason might be?

(maybe I should include the caveat - beyond that this God entity doesn't exist)

[Will Bouwman]

The first three are empirical...

Well yeah, but there are differences:
1. Do bricks fall down wells?
Yes they do; it's a bare fact.
2. How fast do bricks fall down wells?
This is the essence of science; you take a bare fact, work out the variables and measure them. In a simplified brick down the well scenario, that's just mass, distance and time. For most practical purposes, those will give you as much accuracy as you are likely to need, but as technology develops, more decimal points get added and more subtle influences make a difference. How the brick was dropped, flat or on edge, the smoothness of the surface, air pressure, altitude, local gravitational conditions, the influence of bodies like the sun and moon and so on.
3. Does warped spacetime cause gravity?
You say:

...it took a long time to find out about number three. The empirical aspects took work and technology to get to.

It didn't take all that long to confirm some predictions of warped spacetime. The, again simplified story of Arthur Eddington's expedition to Principe to measure the deflection of starlight by the mass of the sun during an eclipse, was only 4 years after Einstein published general relativity. Confirmation of time dilation caused by gravity took until the invention of atomic clocks that could measure time with enough decimal points to show a difference. The most famous experiment being Hafele and Keating putting atomic clocks on aeroplanes and flying them around the world in 1971.
What these experiments showed, along with every other experiment, is that the observable effects of gravity are consistent with there being some stuff called spacetime that is warped by mass. As always though, there are alternative explanations for exactly the same data, there are several versions of quantum gravity, for example. For most scientific purposes, spacetime is three measurable spatial dimensions, for example; left or right, up or down, backwards or forwards and one of time: x, y, z and t if you are using Cartesian coordinates and while experiments show that these change according to gravitational conditions, they don't prove that spacetime is some physical stuff.
In simplified quantum field, a quantum field is basically an x, y, z and t in which quantum effects associated with that field take place, just like scientific spacetime. The thing is, if we hit quantum fields really hard, as in particle accelerators, we can make matter - literally turning energy into matter, demonstrating the equivalence of E and m in E=mc2.
Like you, while scientists generally

...have some skepticism about substance claims

some are persuaded that creating matter from x, y, z and t seems implausible and that, actually quantum fields can also describe some substance. The Large Hadron Collider is supposed to have hit the Higgs field hard enough to create Higgs bosons. The energy needed to hit spacetime hard enough to create particles (gravitons) would take a collider so vast that some estimates say its mass would collapse into a black hole. Long story short, we are some way off confirming whether spacetime is a substance.
4. Does God cause gravity?

The fourth one is a specific version of a deity, and actually not that common a version. Most religions have deities with empirical aspects and ways of getting close to them, experiencing the presence and so on.

Again the god of the example is a simplified version, chosen to make a point - if an almighty god doesn't want to be seen, we're not going to see him. So:

IOW it still sounds like you are prescribing which ideas are meaningful - you are asserting they are meaningful in the sense that people give them meaning/emotional auras, but it seems like not in the sense of having anything to do with reality or any reality we will ever know.

I'm not even prescribing a meaning to meaning. If people find the existence of an invisible god meaningful, that is entirely their prerogative.