Re: Philosophy undermines truth
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:53 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
With your hat on you forgot to answer my question: Where on the spectrum of compulsive behaviour do you place the game of "trying to get reality right"?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:48 am With my online psychologist hat on, let me tell you that is not what I call compulsive behaviour.
Cripes! You really are forgetful:Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:53 pm You've dodged this question twice now, so I am certain I must re-ask it...
With your hat on you forgot to answer my question: Where on the spectrum of compulsive behaviour do you place the game of "trying to get reality right"?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:48 am With my online psychologist hat on, let me tell you that is not what I call compulsive behaviour.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:36 pmIt has clearly slipped your mind: all stories are underdetermined.
Well... the story that Earth is flat is underdetermined. The story that Earth is an oblate spheroid is underdetermined, but if you think that one underdetermination is like the other you may be a the point of the OP...Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:24 pmCripes! You really are forgetful:Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:53 pm You've dodged this question twice now, so I am certain I must re-ask it...
With your hat on you forgot to answer my question: Where on the spectrum of compulsive behaviour do you place the game of "trying to get reality right"?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:48 am With my online psychologist hat on, let me tell you that is not what I call compulsive behaviour.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:36 pmIt has clearly slipped your mind: all stories are underdetermined.
You really do have a poor memory:
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
Nowhere near as poor as your memory.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:09 pmYou really do have a poor memory:Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
Almost as if underdetermination doesn't stop you from making decisions in practice.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
P1. So what has Godel's opinion to do with it?Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:08 amI wonder what that means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
P1. Sculptor doesn't understand (in)completeness.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:21 pmP1. So what has Godel's opinion to do with it?Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:08 amI wonder what that means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
P2. Do they? How and where?
C. Conclusion not met, even if P1&P2
Bit of an odd quote to pull up if you are hoping to demonstrate a shoddy memory on my part. You clearly have forgotten that I already gave my response:
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 amWell, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.
You don't understand Descartes' point, and you certainly don't understand how it rubs up against underdeterminism. If you accept Cartesian grade scepticism, then the hypothesis that you are being deceived and everything you experience is the product of an evil demon, becomes a working hypothesis. There is no conceivable experiment you could conduct that could falsify such an idea, making it underdetermined and therefore, every other idea as well.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:01 pmAlmost as if underdetermination doesn't stop you from making decisions in practice.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
If two ideas for the same phenomenon aren't equally underdetermined, they aren't underdetermined, because you have a reason to choose one over the other. Issues that are underdetermined include things like whether god exists, or if morality is objective. On those types of issue, people who make decisions do so for essentially aesthetic reasons, even if they convince themselves post hoc, that they have sound reasons for their choice.
I understand just fine. I understand so well, in fact I am going to keep drilling you on the question.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:06 amBit of an odd quote to pull up if you are hoping to demonstrate a shoddy memory on my part. You clearly have forgotten that I already gave my response:Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 amWell, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.You don't understand Descartes' point, and you certainly don't understand how it rubs up against underdeterminism. If you accept Cartesian grade scepticism, then the hypothesis that you are being deceived and everything you experience is the product of an evil demon, becomes a working hypothesis. There is no conceivable experiment you could conduct that could falsify such an idea, making it underdetermined and therefore, every other idea as well.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:01 pmAlmost as if underdetermination doesn't stop you from making decisions in practice.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
In practice, nearly everyone decides to ignore that possibility and assume that there is a world out there. That being so, underdeterminism only applies when there are two or more theories that explain the same phenomenon equally well. For example, we currently have no way of determining whether gravity is caused by warped spacetime, or the exchange of virtual particles called gravitons. A rocket scientist might well say 'shut up and calculate' because all they need to know is how big a rocket to build to overcome the effect of gravity, never mind the cause.If two ideas for the same phenomenon aren't equally underdetermined, they aren't underdetermined, because you have a reason to choose one over the other. Issues that are underdetermined include things like whether god exists, or if morality is objective. On those types of issue, people who make decisions do so for essentially aesthetic reasons, even if they convince themselves post hoc, that they have sound reasons for their choice.
To sum this all up; you seem to have gone from "Philosophy is story-telling"; to "All stories are underdetermined." to "some stories about some issues aren't underdetermined"Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:06 amBit of an odd quote to pull up if you are hoping to demonstrate a shoddy memory on my part. You clearly have forgotten that I already gave my response:Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 amWell, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.You don't understand Descartes' point, and you certainly don't understand how it rubs up against underdeterminism. If you accept Cartesian grade scepticism, then the hypothesis that you are being deceived and everything you experience is the product of an evil demon, becomes a working hypothesis. There is no conceivable experiment you could conduct that could falsify such an idea, making it underdetermined and therefore, every other idea as well.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:01 pmAlmost as if underdetermination doesn't stop you from making decisions in practice.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:51 pmAll stories, hypotheses and theories are underdetermined. Some are much more plausible than others, some better supported, some more parsimonious, but it is very difficult to rule anything out completely.
In practice, nearly everyone decides to ignore that possibility and assume that there is a world out there. That being so, underdeterminism only applies when there are two or more theories that explain the same phenomenon equally well. For example, we currently have no way of determining whether gravity is caused by warped spacetime, or the exchange of virtual particles called gravitons. A rocket scientist might well say 'shut up and calculate' because all they need to know is how big a rocket to build to overcome the effect of gravity, never mind the cause.If two ideas for the same phenomenon aren't equally underdetermined, they aren't underdetermined, because you have a reason to choose one over the other. Issues that are underdetermined include things like whether god exists, or if morality is objective. On those types of issue, people who make decisions do so for essentially aesthetic reasons, even if they convince themselves post hoc, that they have sound reasons for their choice.
I'll say it again:
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:06 amYou don't understand Descartes' point, and you certainly don't understand how it rubs up against underdeterminism. If you accept Cartesian grade scepticism, then the hypothesis that you are being deceived and everything you experience is the product of an evil demon, becomes a working hypothesis. There is no conceivable experiment you could conduct that could falsify such an idea, making it underdetermined and therefore, every other idea as well.
It's like I am speaking to a brick wall.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:46 amI'll say it again:Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:06 amYou don't understand Descartes' point, and you certainly don't understand how it rubs up against underdeterminism. If you accept Cartesian grade scepticism, then the hypothesis that you are being deceived and everything you experience is the product of an evil demon, becomes a working hypothesis. There is no conceivable experiment you could conduct that could falsify such an idea, making it underdetermined and therefore, every other idea as well.
all predeterminer · determiner · pronoun : used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
I'd think, that if many underdetermined stories arrived at point B, then attempting to find which "story" arrives at point B with the most efficiency, should be examined first.
So why can't we just focus on B and ignore the stories?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:02 amI'd think, that if many underdetermined stories arrived at point B, then attempting to find which "story" arrives at point B with the most efficiency, should be examined first.
Sort of, Occams Razor stuff. (how water flows etc..)