Philosophy undermines truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:13 pm If a theory doesn't work, I will modify it, or change it for a different theory. I can only give you the information, I can't give you the wit to understand it.
It's not the understanding that I am tripping over.

It's the vagueness and the lack of substance.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:18 pmIt's not the understanding that I am tripping over.

It's the vagueness and the lack of substance.
Oh dear. How sad. Nevermind.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:18 pmIt's not the understanding that I am tripping over.

It's the vagueness and the lack of substance.
Oh dear. How sad. Nevermind.
Yeah well...
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. --Edsger W. Dijkstra
Contrast that with philosophers, who use abstraction for the purpose of obscurantism.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:28 pm
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. --Edsger W. Dijkstra
Contrast that with philosophers, who use abstraction for the purpose of obscurantism.
Clearly something in your theory of philosophers works for you. My theory includes that some philosophers are unnecessarily obscure, but also accommodates philosophers who sincerely and clearly describe what they believe may be true. I think you have to be very selective, or to use your pet peeve, uncharitable, to sustain your dim view of philosophers.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:19 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:28 pm
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. --Edsger W. Dijkstra
Contrast that with philosophers, who use abstraction for the purpose of obscurantism.
Clearly something in your theory of philosophers works for you. My theory includes that some philosophers are unnecessarily obscure, but also accommodates philosophers who sincerely and clearly describe what they believe may be true. I think you have to be very selective, or to use your pet peeve, uncharitable, to sustain your dim view of philosophers.
That's hardly a problem. I am being explicit and very specific about which philosophers I am applying my theory to.

You.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:28 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:28 pm...philosophers, who use abstraction for the purpose of obscurantism.
I am being explicit and very specific about which philosophers I am applying my theory to.

You.
That in addition to:
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:18 pm...the vagueness and the lack of substance.
Ah well, if you can't appreciate that there is no one size fits all criterion for what works and what doesn't, you are a witless oaf.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:50 pm Ah well, if you can't appreciate that there is no one size fits all criterion for what works and what doesn't, you are a witless oaf.
Did I ask you for a "one size fits all"?

Would you say your superior wit is working in this particular instance?
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:05 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:50 pm Ah well, if you can't appreciate that there is no one size fits all criterion for what works and what doesn't, you are a witless oaf.
Did I ask you for a "one size fits all"?
Then you should be specific and ask what would cause me to modify or change a particular theory.
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:05 pmWould you say your superior wit is working in this particular instance?
Since you ask, like a dream.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:12 pm Then you should be specific and ask what would cause me to modify or change a particular theory.
Why would I ask you that? You already told me - if it doesn't work.

My question is more specific: How do you detect category errors between theories you've qualified as working and theories you've qualified as non-working?

Error detection and correction is covered in basic information theory. I am sure you know...
Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:12 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:05 pmWould you say your superior wit is working in this particular instance?
Since you ask, like a dream.
Great!

And what could cause you to recognize your own conclusion as a type I error a.k.a a false positive?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Sculptor »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 11:46 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:34 amThen you will never know the truth. Would you say that about yourself?
Yep.
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:34 amActually the basic three categories are "belief", "truth as correspondence" and "truth as coherence", with their own sub divisions.
They are VERY useful, very particularly useful. And help us unpack unwarranted truths.
Truth and belief are completely different, without any necessary connection, in my book. The problem with any correspondence theory of truth remains that all theories are underdetermined. As for coherence being any guide, as the old saying goes, the difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense. Not strictly true, but I'm sure you get the gist.
Sure. But truth and belief are used interchangeably - that is why it is so important for philosophy to examine the ideas.
A statement such as:
I know gravity is a force that causes things to fall. is set against:
I believe gravity is a force that causes things to fall.
What can we take from the meanings?

My watchword is believe nothing seek to know. But the word "believe" appears in place of know everywhere.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 4:19 pm I know gravity is a force that causes things to fall. is set against:
I believe gravity is a force that causes things to fall.
What can we take from the meanings?
We can take that you are putting a steelman against a strawman - splitting hairs between knowledge and belief.

If you want to do philosophy - put a steelman against a steelman.

modus tollens vs modus ponens

Set "I know that gravity is a force" against "I know that gravity is not a force."

Steel sharpens steel.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:15 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:12 pm Then you should be specific and ask what would cause me to modify or change a particular theory.
Why would I ask you that? You already told me - if it doesn't work.

My question is more specific: How do you detect category errors between theories you've qualified as working and theories you've qualified as non-working?
By seeing if they work. What "new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise" does having categories 'It works' and 'It doesn't work' add to whether it works?
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:15 pmError detection and correction is covered in basic information theory. I am sure you know...
No, I don't know. Frankly, if the above has anything to do with information theory, I don't need to know.
Skepdick wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:15 pm...what could cause you to recognize your own conclusion as a type I error a.k.a a false positive?
Well, first it would need to be a false positive.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Will Bouwman »

Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 4:19 pm...truth and belief are used interchangeably...
Not by everybody.
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 4:19 pm- that is why it is so important for philosophy to examine the ideas.
A statement such as:
I know gravity is a force that causes things to fall. is set against:
I believe gravity is a force that causes things to fall.
What can we take from the meanings?
Well, we know that things fall. We also know that they fall in predictable ways. We know that something is causing them to fall. Whatever causes things to fall is called gravity, but we don't know what it is. So we are free to believe anything we like about the cause of gravity, because it will make no difference to what we know about the effects.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Skepdick »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:31 pm Well, we know that things fall.... We know that something is causing them to fall. Whatever causes things to fall is called gravity, but we don't know what it is.
The circular reasoning is hilarious.

If you didn't pre-suppose falling to be the effect of some unknown cause you wouldn't have to fill the self-inflicted void with "gravity".
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Philosophy undermines truth

Post by Sculptor »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:31 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 4:19 pm...truth and belief are used interchangeably...
Not by everybody.
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 4:19 pm- that is why it is so important for philosophy to examine the ideas.
A statement such as:
I know gravity is a force that causes things to fall. is set against:
I believe gravity is a force that causes things to fall.
What can we take from the meanings?
Well, we know that things fall. We also know that they fall in predictable ways. We know that something is causing them to fall. Whatever causes things to fall is called gravity, but we don't know what it is. So we are free to believe anything we like about the cause of gravity, because it will make no difference to what we know about the effects.
Not the point I was making. No matter
Post Reply