tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8102855156525449687..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Economics and Biology AgainEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30008302550592618242011-03-24T15:39:56.011-04:002011-03-24T15:39:56.011-04:00I guess we are done with this discussion, having b...I guess we are done with this discussion, having beat the horse to death too many times. I will leave you with this article I just found that you may profit from. I have not read the whole thing but the first few pages offered a good critique of Hume, Kant, and Popper along the same lines I have been arguing so enjoy...or not. til next time.<br /><br />http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htmRShttp://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48619275904747348312011-03-24T11:35:13.063-04:002011-03-24T11:35:13.063-04:00I am not projecting any obsession. I am adhering t...I am not projecting any obsession. I am adhering to a standard, just as a scientist would adhere to a law of physics in designing an experiment or in solving a problem only in this case the problem is perception of truth. You are perfectly free to say or think what you want only so long as it does not adhere to any standard it cannot qualify as truth, only as dogma.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91146138239341123432011-03-24T11:21:55.257-04:002011-03-24T11:21:55.257-04:00Sure, I run into inconsistencies. I am not claimin...Sure, I run into inconsistencies. I am not claiming omniscience nor am I claiming to be infallible. I am claiming to know truth and to know absolute and certain knowledge about some things but not all. If I find an inconsistency I attempt to resolve it logically and cease to draw any further conclusions on the given issue until the inconsistency is resolved, just as any rational person would do.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58537193613511768192011-03-24T11:17:07.417-04:002011-03-24T11:17:07.417-04:00Perception of the world we live in that other peop...Perception of the world we live in that other people seem to share.<br /><br />You're really obsessed with knowing truth. You fret over knowing what insanity is if we can't identify sanity. All I'm saying is "we make do with these words and sometimes we have problems with their application but that seems like a dumb thing to worry about". You're projecting your obsession with absolute truth on me.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13030654752205374812011-03-24T11:15:27.128-04:002011-03-24T11:15:27.128-04:00and yet you chose, as the title of your blog, out ...and yet you chose, as the title of your blog, out of all the multitued of possibilities:<br /><br />"FACTS and other stubborn THINGS"<br /><br />What are you referring to by "facts" and "things" if not your grasp of truth?RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-53644281882127856172011-03-24T11:11:32.469-04:002011-03-24T11:11:32.469-04:00You make much of the fact that by asserting that y...You make much of the fact that by asserting that your mind is capable of these things you don't run into any inconsistencies. I'm not clear on what's so great about not running into any inconsistencies.<br /><br />Not that being inconsistent is a good thing - it's not. But being consistent doesn't strike me as being especially important either.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13849414261547735062011-03-24T11:10:01.643-04:002011-03-24T11:10:01.643-04:00this quote is particuarly applicable...
"Obs...this quote is particuarly applicable...<br /><br />"Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”<br /><br />Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.<br /><br />The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.<br /><br /> Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” <br />The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 9.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-85017838553594527942011-03-24T11:09:24.028-04:002011-03-24T11:09:24.028-04:00"Tell me, at what point in your life did you ...<i>"Tell me, at what point in your life did you come to accept as an absolute truth the proposition that your mind is fundamentally incapable of interpreting reality from the data provided by your senses?"</i><br /><br />I have yet to accept this position as absolute truth and your repeated insistence that I have is why this conversation hasn't ended yet. It could be capable. I live life as if it were capable. If someone asks me if it's capable I really have no reason to assert it is and I'm going to be up front about the fact that I have no reason to assert it is. It seems safe to emphasize the very real possibility that I am incapable. I may be capable, though.<br /><br /><i>"So as a conclusion it must be invalid and is simply dogma, as I have been stating all along."</i><br /><br />Sir, this may be the case but I continue to be confused about why you think this is my conclusion.<br /><br />You are trying to juxtapose me with you and put me in the position of Kant. My view is this: you seem to be naive and have an outsized view of what you can say, and Kant was overly cautious. I'd prefer to note with Kant that I don't know what you think you do, and I'd prefer to note with you that Kant is unnecessarily giving himself an ulcer.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-38899819068170823102011-03-24T11:04:15.097-04:002011-03-24T11:04:15.097-04:00Tell me, at what point in your life did you come t...Tell me, at what point in your life did you come to accept as an absolute truth the proposition that your mind is fundamentally incapable of interpreting reality from the data provided by your senses?<br /><br /><br />Omniscience, like the concept of god or a squared circle, cannot exist. It is a fantasy concept used to project a human consciousness not limitted by anything i.e. by reality.<br /><br />Wherever did you get the notion that truth requires omniscience? What facts did you truly identify in order to arrive at this conclusion? NONE. So as a conclusion it must be invalid and is simply dogma, as I have been stating all along. I am waiving my hand at it because it is an arbitrary assertion not based on any factual evidence experienced by any human consciousness as you so like to use term. It is by far much more dangerous to allow the arbitrary to guide your judgements as to what is possible and what is not. Just look at where it has gotten you ;-).<br /><br /><br />What you are doing is using the concepts of "truth", "fact", "establishment", "success" etc. as what Ayn Rand termed "stolen concepts". <br /><br />See here for a more detailed description:<br /><br />http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept--fallacy_of.htmlRSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73349093120049186492011-03-24T05:49:51.401-04:002011-03-24T05:49:51.401-04:00RS -
I agree completely with this:
"In othe...RS -<br /><br />I agree completely with this:<br /><br /><i>"In other words, "truth" can only be a concept that describes a consciousness’s successful attempt to identify a fact of reality (i.e. correspondence theory of truth)."</i><br /><br />But think you misdiagnose the situation with this:<br /><br />"<i>It cannot be a concept that is used to setup reality as something outside of man’s perception which he then fails to perceive.</i>"<br /><br />I am not "setting up" reality at all. All I'm suggesting is that while truth can only be a concept that describes a consciousness's successful attempt to identify a fact of reality, <i>I have no way of establishing whether such an attempt was ever successful</i>. That is the sum total of all that I am saying here.<br /><br />I see no basis at all for these claims:<br /><br />"<i>Such a concept injects omniscience into the standard of truth and since man is not omniscient he will necessarily fail to meet it. This is the colossal straw man that Plato and a long line of Kantian philosophers have setup to invalidate reason. Reason cannot be used to invalidate reason.</i>"<br /><br />How is this a strawman? Waving your hands at our lack of omniscience as if it didn't matter seems like a far more dangerous approach than confronting its implications.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36914215419266673532011-03-23T17:43:33.297-04:002011-03-23T17:43:33.297-04:00First off, you cannot abstain from making epistemo...First off, you cannot abstain from making epistemological claims, it is impossible, as in, beyond your control, outside of your choice, part of your (and my) nature as conceptual beings.<br /><br />Second, the reason it is important is the same reason why you think acting on those ideas is important, the consequences and outcomes of those ideas depend on it. What those consequences are and which outcomes are preferable over others depend on it. If they matter then so do the ideas that produced/chose them.<br /><br />Third, ALL inferences on the nature of your perceptions through introspection can only come from the data provided by your senses through extrospection so any conception of "truth" (the "absolute" truth as you are using the term) that is somehow above/beyond/outside of your senses artificially injects a mystical standard into your conception of what "truth" (i.e. facts) you think your perceptions "should" refer to, but fail to do.<br /><br />In other words, "truth" can only be a concept that describes a consciousness’s successful attempt to identify a fact of reality (i.e. correspondence theory of truth). It cannot be a concept that is used to setup reality as something outside of man’s perception which he then fails to perceive. Such a concept injects omniscience into the standard of truth and since man is not omniscient he will necessarily fail to meet it. This is the colossal straw man that Plato and a long line of Kantian philosophers have setup to invalidate reason. Reason cannot be used to invalidate reason.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58325762106337483632011-03-23T16:47:41.687-04:002011-03-23T16:47:41.687-04:00re: "This is yet another example of one of th...re: <i>"This is yet another example of one of those statements."</i><br /><br />What I am saying is that you are reading historical, cultural, or practice claims and reading them as categorical and epistemological claims. I've told you several times now I'm abstaining from epistemological claims.<br /><br />There's a kernel of truth packed in this statement of yours: <i>"Both are required for science to progress as a science, even if the people who practice the field only follow it implicitly."</i> I agree that acting <i>as if</i> we were perceiving some absolute truth is very important for science to work well. But I haven't heard you or anyone else provide any good reason for thinking or caring that that working assumption or useful fiction is actually accurate or even why it needs to be accurate.<br /><br />When I stop and think about how I perceive and talk about and study things, I can say I'm not sure if I'm perceiving absolute truth - but when I actually perceive and talk about and study things, I sure as hell act as if it is absolute truth. That's how we get on in the world.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-1925381065537695032011-03-23T16:34:15.839-04:002011-03-23T16:34:15.839-04:00I’m not trying to pick any fight. I do however tak...I’m not trying to pick any fight. I do however take people I do not know personally at their stated word and when they do make categorical statements with broad epistemological implications I treat them as such, even if the person speaking does not realize that is what they are, anything less would be dishonest and disingenuous.<br /><br /><br />This is yet another example of one of those statements.<br /><br />"Science is and always has been a lot more utilitarian and experiential than it has been epistemological."<br /><br />Epistemology is a base branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know and it rests on the other base branch of metaphysics. Both are required for science to progress as a science, even if the people who practice the field only follow it implicitly.<br /><br />Philosophy deals with the widest of all abstractions so all philosophical questions are necessarily interrelated. It is the reason why I take your statements literally and universally. If you don’t understand why or think it a waste of time to find out then there is nothing else I can tell you that you would choose to understand.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91727464236596278112011-03-23T16:07:40.249-04:002011-03-23T16:07:40.249-04:00"you make categorical statements that have br...<i>"you make categorical statements that have broad epistemological implications of which you deny implying but which I should refrain from inferring so as not to draw your ire"</i><br /><br />You're the one bringing the epistemological implications to the table, RS. I've never claimed any epistemological import to my use of the word "is", etc. Do you interrogate everyone on the assumption that they're making categorical statements with broad epistemological implications when they use these words?<br /><br />I'm not the one trying to prove something with word games here. I'm not the one making declarative statements. Things may be "provable" in some ultimate sense that I don't understand, but that's not something I have any confidence in claiming.<br /><br />I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. My point has always been this deeper epistemological inquiry is fine as far as it goes but it strikes me as a waste of time and we can't tie science to that. Science is and always has been a lot more utilitarian and experiential than it has been epistemological.<br /><br />You seem to be trying to pick a fight with me and trying to frame me as someone that is attempting to overthrow epistemology.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-52067255207967412292011-03-23T15:54:38.624-04:002011-03-23T15:54:38.624-04:00again, it is the same. in one breath you assert tr...again, it is the same. in one breath you assert truth as unprovable but claim to not know if it is provable or unprovable so you tell me what I should "infer" from that.<br /><br />you make categorical statements that have broad epistemological implications of which you deny implying but which I should refrain from inferring so as not to draw your ire. great. I see that this is nothing more than word games to you but it is about what I expected, given your philisophical premises.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-66637957197406529822011-03-23T15:34:53.302-04:002011-03-23T15:34:53.302-04:00OK... one of my pet peeves is when people say I im...OK... one of my pet peeves is when people say I imply something after a long chain of me denying I ever said anything, which should have clearly demonstrated that you inferred it - I never implied it.<br /><br />re: <i>"how do you know that what they are describing is NOT the absolute truth"</i><br /><br />I don't know it's not the absolute truth. It may be.<br /><br />re: <i>"If this is TRUE, then how do YOU know it?"</i><br /><br />When did I claim to know it? It seems reasonable to act on it rather than tie myself in knots over proving the unprovable. I'm not claiming to know it. All I'm saying is that if we chase understanding that is useful to us experientially, and act AS IF that is "real", we seem to do well by ourselves.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-40663085139095988272011-03-23T15:31:30.553-04:002011-03-23T15:31:30.553-04:00They are implied in your statements. If someone de...They are implied in your statements. If someone describes a desk as "brown", how do you know that what they are describing is NOT the absolute truth? The presumption is is that "truth" is something outside of someones ability to perceive. If this is TRUE, then how do YOU know it?RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-20520533360283149062011-03-23T15:21:56.156-04:002011-03-23T15:21:56.156-04:00"according to you, your own experiences are a...<i>"according to you, your own experiences are also not true"</i><br /><br />RS, I don't recall ever saying this. Where did I say this?<br /><br /><i>"while asserting that you do in fact know it"</i><br /><br />What is "it" and when did I say I know "it"?<br /><br /><br />You keep telling me that I've asserted that I know the absolute truth of certain things when I don't recall ever making such an assertion!dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-82589836682859726402011-03-23T15:17:06.168-04:002011-03-23T15:17:06.168-04:00Just because you cant or wont see the contradictio...Just because you cant or wont see the contradiction does not mean you are not making one.<br /><br />On what grounds can you assert that other people's experiences are not true? Only on the grounds of your own experience right? You make an inductive generalization, going from the few to the many, by applying what you experience to everyone else must also experience and assume such an inductive generalization is true, i.e. that it really truly applies universally to everyone right?<br /><br />Except that, according to you, your own experiences are also not true so whatever you are generalizing about is also not true. <br /><br />In other words, you are generalizing from what you say you dont know to what you say no one can know all the while asserting that you do in fact know it. If that does not qualify as dogma then nothing does.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49393063364243740932011-03-23T14:53:41.248-04:002011-03-23T14:53:41.248-04:00Hmmmm... I think "is" is used far more c...Hmmmm... I think "is" is used far more casually than you're trying to make me use it.<br /><br />Put it this way - would someone that thinks like I do always be using "is" as a categorical statement that I believe has some truth element (in the sense of an "absolute truth") to it?<br /><br />You are taking a very unnatural, absolutist use of these words and trying to catch me in a contradiction by assuming I'm using them in that way. The more reasonable assumption is that I'm using the word how most people use it and not how someone who thinks how I have already claimed not to think would use it.<br /><br />When someone says "the desk IS brown" they're describing their experience of the desk, but the absolute truth of the situation is the furthest thing from their mind. This is how I'm using the word.<br /><br />We've raised the issue here of epistemology, ontology, and more absolute truths. I've rejected that exercise as futile. I'm not sure citing my use of one of the most common words in the English language constitutes proof that I'm being inconsistent.<br /><br />How would you even establish an absolute truth? On what do you base your "standard of truth" that you mentioned earlier? How is that NOT dogma and mysticism?dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72085145564535858612011-03-23T14:46:52.508-04:002011-03-23T14:46:52.508-04:001. I am assuming that when you say "x IS y &q...1. I am assuming that when you say "x IS y " or "knowledge IS subjective" that you are making a categorical statement that you believe has some truth element to it.<br /><br />2. see answer to 1 and compare to your previous responses.<br /><br />3. that is entirely up to you and it is why I say that if you dont know the reasons why x is true or false but are simply just asserting it regardless of reason then that is properly called dogma. no more important or scientific or relevant than scripture.RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-15444242368723214202011-03-23T14:21:29.100-04:002011-03-23T14:21:29.100-04:00"Well, if so, then how do you know it?"
...<i>"Well, if so, then how do you know it?"</i><br /><br />1. What do you mean by "know it"?<br /><br />2. When did I claim to "know it" in the sense that you are using that term?<br /><br />3. Why should I care about "knowing it" in the sense that you are using that term?dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16452987541223804972011-03-23T14:19:37.853-04:002011-03-23T14:19:37.853-04:00You seem to be saying that if we have experiential...You seem to be saying that if we have experiential evidence for something but not objective affirmation of absolute truth, it is "dogma".<br /><br />Not really, consider what you mean by "objective affirmation". Affirming something objecitvely requires both experiential evidence AND the volitional comparison to a standard of truth i.e. metaphysical fact, something that can only be done conceptually, not perceptually.<br /><br />Perceptually, all you have is a bunch of sensations experienced over time and integrated into basic conceptions automatically by your subconscious (e.g chair, tree, flower etc.). <br /><br />The iteraive process of deductive/inductive reasoning only happens after that and it requires the abstract identification of a an objective standard for it to be affirmed as true, a process that you are explicitly asserting to be inherently subjective in nature. Well, if so, then how do you know it?RSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-51441418332365865132011-03-23T13:57:21.078-04:002011-03-23T13:57:21.078-04:00How should I know if it is an absolute truth or no...How should I know if it is an absolute truth or not, and why should I care?<br /><br />Now, you claim that makes it "dogma". Why? "Dogma" is typically a word we reserve for something for which there is neither an objective foundation of absolute truth (whatever that is) <i>nor</i> experiential evidence. You seem to be using it here differently. You seem to be saying that if we have experiential evidence for something but not objective affirmation of absolute truth, it is "dogma". That's an odd use of the word "dogma" my friend. One usually doesn't subjectively experience "dogma". One simply asserts it. I am not doing that. I have experiences. How "real" those experiences are isn't something I'm privy to, but going through life as if they were "real" seems to have worked well for me (experientially, at least).<br /><br />As for mysticism - as I said earlier, I can see why someone might call that "mysticism", but again that seems to use the word in a completely different way from how people normally use it.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-18722274892166819732011-03-23T13:52:57.564-04:002011-03-23T13:52:57.564-04:00"I am saying that out experience is subjectiv..."I am saying that out experience is subjective, contingent on our perceptions, etc. - that's the source of it"<br /><br />Is this an absolute truth i.e. a fact or just your subjective opinion based on your perceptions?<br /><br /><br />If it is an absolute truth then how did you come to know it? divine revelation?<br /><br />If its your subjective opinion then it does not correspond to reality. supreme dogma?<br /><br />Either way the statement contradicts itself and is nothing more than mysticism.RSnoreply@blogger.com