epistemology 2
bob - OK I read it again and I think it is nonsense. This bit especially ...
Quote:
Positivists inadvertently slip in an immaterial agency, whereby indeed they beg the question when they appeal to induction to explain the genesis of knowledge; the inductive process involves universal abstract principles and logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
That is not true. If someone posits a "logical law" and that logical law is not subsequently confirmed by observation of physical events then that logical law moves more into the realm of being a mistake, or flawed theory, if you'd prefer. I know how sensitive you fancy pants intellectuals can be.
fred smith - Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
bob - fred smith wrote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
Yes, I disagree that that is true. Or, to put it another way, I agree that it is a mistake. Let me give you an example. Imagine that I go to my doctor and tell him that I plan to hit myself in the head with a sledgehammer and he says "based on my experience based knowledge of seeing people hit themselves on the head with sledgehammers I feel safe in advising against such a plan as it would likely cause a nasty bump." Since I have a lot of respect for my doctor and his experience based knowledge I would be inclined to heed his advice. It's a practical thing.
bob - fred smith wrote: Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
On second thought I neither disagree nor disagree with that because it does not in fact say anything. It is a noun group modified by an adjective clause in the passive voice which is in turn modified by an adverb clause. The whole package however lacks a verb and "therefore" constitutes what is known as an incomplete idea and is impossible to agree "or" disagree with.
fred smith - Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?
butcher boy - I think you guys may have switched everyone else off. Anyway just thought you might like to search for Gettier, in regards to the never ending agrument about whether it is possible to know anything (apart from logical truths).
You could also read the link below (i admit I haven't gone that far through it yet) which seems to be drawingh the whole problem together.
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Gettier.htm
bob - fred smith wrote: Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?
Yes.
And yes, I suspect this is some kind of trap. I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before. That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread. It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.
fred smith - Quote: And yes, I know this is a trap.
This is not a trap. It is a fair question.
Quote:
I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before.
Good.
Quote: That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread.
Nothing?
Quote: It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.
Nothing to drop on your skinny neck. Just an observation (intentional). You cannot prove that true knowledge can be gleaned nor can you use sense experience to prove causes and this is something that has bedeviled philosophers for quite some time. That was what I was referring to earlier with regard to the lofty pronouncements that fans of science bandy about as if they were written in stone. Now, perhaps you will also understand why given these variables, many including those of a scientific frame of mind have gravitated to becoming religious. Once they understand the weak underpinnings of science at least in terms of metaphysics, they have to look elsewhere for answers. Now, I am not in any way suggesting that we get rid of science. I am merely pointing out that to use science to scientifically investigate the principles on which it rests show that it too requires faith to accept. Ironic isn't it?
bob - Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.
fred smith - Quote: Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.
I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here. The point is that if you can, I would like you to prove that sense experience can be the basis for true knowledge of causalities. Now, the point is that while you think that a triangle will always have three sides and it very well may, you cannot prove based on your sense experience (observations) that this was, is and always will be true. You cannot use your sense experience here to support a universal principle or universal truth. That is the plain and simple reality that philosophers have struggled without through millennia. I would be immensely pleased if we were to find some sort of hidden piece to the puzzle that has eluded the world's greatest minds all these years. So sorry, but you see where you are with this now. And as to that sense experience leading to oh for Christ's sakes man, you can see that this truth is self-evident. May I point out that it was once self-evident based on sense experience that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and no one would have ever been able to foresee the elaborate mechanisms involved in the Theory of Relativity. That is all I am asking. Please admit that universal truths cannot be buttressed by sense experience and labeled as true knowledge.
Quote:
Positivists inadvertently slip in an immaterial agency, whereby indeed they beg the question when they appeal to induction to explain the genesis of knowledge; the inductive process involves universal abstract principles and logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
That is not true. If someone posits a "logical law" and that logical law is not subsequently confirmed by observation of physical events then that logical law moves more into the realm of being a mistake, or flawed theory, if you'd prefer. I know how sensitive you fancy pants intellectuals can be.
fred smith - Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
bob - fred smith wrote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
Yes, I disagree that that is true. Or, to put it another way, I agree that it is a mistake. Let me give you an example. Imagine that I go to my doctor and tell him that I plan to hit myself in the head with a sledgehammer and he says "based on my experience based knowledge of seeing people hit themselves on the head with sledgehammers I feel safe in advising against such a plan as it would likely cause a nasty bump." Since I have a lot of respect for my doctor and his experience based knowledge I would be inclined to heed his advice. It's a practical thing.
bob - fred smith wrote: Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?
On second thought I neither disagree nor disagree with that because it does not in fact say anything. It is a noun group modified by an adjective clause in the passive voice which is in turn modified by an adverb clause. The whole package however lacks a verb and "therefore" constitutes what is known as an incomplete idea and is impossible to agree "or" disagree with.
fred smith - Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?
butcher boy - I think you guys may have switched everyone else off. Anyway just thought you might like to search for Gettier, in regards to the never ending agrument about whether it is possible to know anything (apart from logical truths).
You could also read the link below (i admit I haven't gone that far through it yet) which seems to be drawingh the whole problem together.
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Gettier.htm
bob - fred smith wrote: Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?
Yes.
And yes, I suspect this is some kind of trap. I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before. That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread. It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.
fred smith - Quote: And yes, I know this is a trap.
This is not a trap. It is a fair question.
Quote:
I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before.
Good.
Quote: That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread.
Nothing?
Quote: It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.
Nothing to drop on your skinny neck. Just an observation (intentional). You cannot prove that true knowledge can be gleaned nor can you use sense experience to prove causes and this is something that has bedeviled philosophers for quite some time. That was what I was referring to earlier with regard to the lofty pronouncements that fans of science bandy about as if they were written in stone. Now, perhaps you will also understand why given these variables, many including those of a scientific frame of mind have gravitated to becoming religious. Once they understand the weak underpinnings of science at least in terms of metaphysics, they have to look elsewhere for answers. Now, I am not in any way suggesting that we get rid of science. I am merely pointing out that to use science to scientifically investigate the principles on which it rests show that it too requires faith to accept. Ironic isn't it?
bob - Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.
fred smith - Quote: Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.
I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here. The point is that if you can, I would like you to prove that sense experience can be the basis for true knowledge of causalities. Now, the point is that while you think that a triangle will always have three sides and it very well may, you cannot prove based on your sense experience (observations) that this was, is and always will be true. You cannot use your sense experience here to support a universal principle or universal truth. That is the plain and simple reality that philosophers have struggled without through millennia. I would be immensely pleased if we were to find some sort of hidden piece to the puzzle that has eluded the world's greatest minds all these years. So sorry, but you see where you are with this now. And as to that sense experience leading to oh for Christ's sakes man, you can see that this truth is self-evident. May I point out that it was once self-evident based on sense experience that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and no one would have ever been able to foresee the elaborate mechanisms involved in the Theory of Relativity. That is all I am asking. Please admit that universal truths cannot be buttressed by sense experience and labeled as true knowledge.
posted by david at 1:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home