Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What does it matter . . . ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    A scientific argument based upon an empirically verified scientific premise is demonstrably factual; a metaphysical premise based upon supposedly “self-evident” axioms is not. Therefore it cannot be shown to arrive at a true conclusion. It may, but it cannot be shown that it does.
    Then it cannot be shown that a metaphysical premise based upon supposedly self-evident axioms is not demonstrably factual, and so it cannot be shown to arrive at a true conclusion. Oh, wait! According to you, if that can't be shown, I have no reason to think that metaphysics can't lead to true conclusions! It sucks when you can't get your scientism off the ground without refuting yourself.


    The argument that justification is solely determined by factors internal to a person is nonsense. Justification depends on additional factors that are external to a person otherwise it is pure subjectivism...or possibly delusion.
    Then I don't need to answer your question regarding how I know certain reasons are plausible or true before I can know them. Your question presupposed the nonsensical KK principle: that I need to know how I know something before I know it.


    No. Metaphysics, whilst valuable in that it can provide the glue to hold the scientific structure together (such as ensure its self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference), cannot arrive at new facts about nature. Only science has the methodology to do that.
    Nope. That meta-metaphysics is almost completely done for. The likes of Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (by James Ladyman and Don Ross) is not taken seriously at all by metaphysicians or the majority of philosophers of science. Their progenitors (Quine, Sellars, et all.) have been almost thoroughly debunked, taking for granted extremely naive views on the epistemology of science, the ontology of science, and the philosophy of nature.

    And just so I can make sure you're honest, tell me what the methodologies of metaphysicians are according to metaphysicians working today. Not that you disagree with it! But what they are. I just want to see how much you've read on this. Physicists are typically clueless here. I don't blame them. They should just shut up and calculate. But they don't. They pontificate about matters outside they're expertise.


    "Sticks and stones....."
    It's true! You're an adherent of hard scientism. And you can't justify it without appealing to the very metaphysics you denounce as worthless.


    Philosophy can be useful, as I said. See above.
    Useful in a way inimical to your project of denouncing the methodology of metaphysicians, methodologies that don't fit into the debunked way of merely describing just how scientists do their job, or to clarify scientific language and activity, the idea that philosophy is primarily linguistic and descriptive. That philosophy of science isn't even held by a substantial minority of philosophers of science.

    I'm sure you can find many scholars that support your religious presuppositions.
    As you couldn't for your secular presuppositions.

    Back to your subjective/delusional “epistemological internalism” I see.
    Huh? I doubt you know what the words even mean. What does this have to do with the fact that you're a raging scientism-a-holic!

    I prefer substantiation for what I believe; you're free to believe any subjective nonsense you chose.
    Substantiation is a code-word for scientific demonstration, which is not the only methodology to finding out about reality. So, you're free to believe whatever objective nonsense you choose!


    “Second or third-hand reports” amount to anecdotal evidence, which is insufficient information upon which to accept the alleged miraculous events of the Jesus story.
    Prove it. Cite me an ancient historian, please. I'm sure not going to take your word for it.


    For the reason given directly above; even first-hand claims would be suspect given the improbable nature of the claims.
    Prove it. And what theory of probability are you using to call such events improbable? Please don't say Hume.


    It is reasonable to assume that Paul seems totally unaware of the Jesus stories and teachings that ended up in the gospels...because he doesn’t mention them. He may have known of them, but we don’t know that he did.
    Cite me scholars that agree with you here.
    And your argument is an argument from silence.
    Last edited by mattbballman31; 02-18-2018, 04:25 PM.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Faith in objective criteria.
      Other than objective verifiable evidence concerning our physical existence is easily defined but it is not used to define truth. It is used to falsify, and verify theories and hypothesis in science.

      Is there another 'objective criteria' that would apply to your standard of Truth that you would believe.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Yes, it comes down to how do we know what we know. And what we think we know happens to be what we choose to believe is true or not true as the case may be.
        One generally chooses to believe that which is supported by verifiable evidence.

        The method called the scientific method has to be believed as a method. Can that method be used to test itself?
        Yes, by its results. The scientific method is a collection of hypotheses and theories which are evaluated together over time by a community of scientists. Each theory must not only survive falsification it must also be consistent with other established theories – it must fit into the web of evolving scientific theories.

        By using such methodology we have put man on the moon.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          Then it cannot be shown that a metaphysical premise based upon supposedly self-evident axioms is not demonstrably factual, and so it cannot be shown to arrive at a true conclusion. Oh, wait! According to you, if that can't be shown, I have no reason to think that metaphysics can't lead to true conclusions! It sucks when you can't get your scientism off the ground without refuting yourself.
          I didn’t say that it couldn’t lead to a true conclusion. It may. But you cannot SHOW that it is a true conclusion, is what I said.

          Then I don't need to answer your question regarding how I know certain reasons are plausible or true before I can know them. Your question presupposed the nonsensical KK principle: that I need to know how I know something before I know it.
          Many “reasons” are seemingly “plausible” without actually being true, e.g. it was plausible for centuries to assume incorrectly that the earth was flat.

          Nope. That meta-metaphysics is almost completely done for. The likes of Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (by James Ladyman and Don Ross) is not taken seriously at all by metaphysicians or the majority of philosophers of science. Their progenitors (Quine, Sellars, et all.) have been almost thoroughly debunked, taking for granted extremely naive views on the epistemology of science, the ontology of science, and the philosophy of nature.

          And just so I can make sure you're honest, tell me what the methodologies of metaphysicians are according to metaphysicians working today. Not that you disagree with it! But what they are. I just want to see how much you've read on this. Physicists are typically clueless here. I don't blame them. They should just shut up and calculate. But they don't. They pontificate about matters outside they're expertise.
          I’m not sure what you are saying here.

          It's true! You're an adherent of hard scientism. And you can't justify it without appealing to the very metaphysics you denounce as worthless.
          Metaphysics is not worthless. As I said it is very important in ensuring self-consistency, and guarding against errors of false inference etc. But is cannot arrive at new facts about nature, is this point I’m making. Only science has the methodology to do that, metaphysics does not.

          Useful in a way inimical to your project of denouncing the methodology of metaphysicians, methodologies that don't fit into the debunked way of merely describing just how scientists do their job, or to clarify scientific language and activity, the idea that philosophy is primarily linguistic and descriptive. That philosophy of science isn't even held by a substantial minority of philosophers of science.
          Metaphysics does not have the means to establish a true premise. Therefore, without a demonstrably true premise, it cannot arrive at a demonstrably true conclusion. In short, whilst it may present a perfectly ‘valid’ deductive argument, it cannot present a ‘sound’ argument.

          Substantiation is a code-word for scientific demonstration, which is not the only methodology to finding out about reality. So, you're free to believe whatever objective nonsense you choose!
          What do you mean by “reality”?

          Prove it. Cite me an ancient historian, please. I'm sure not going to take your word for it.




          Prove it. And what theory of probability are you using to call such events improbable? Please don't say Hume.
          “Probability: 1. likely to occur or prove true”. Generally speaking claims of bodily resurrection etc are not likely to prove true. If such claims are made one would expect substantive evidence to support such claims, not merely second or third hand, probably highly embellished, accounts.

          Cite me scholars that agree with you here.
          And your argument is an argument from silence.
          Yes it’s an argument from silence, but it’s a strange silence considering the highly improbable claims made in the Jesus story...the apologist rationalisations for the silence are not convincing.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Other than objective verifiable evidence concerning our physical existence is easily defined but it is not used to define truth. It is used to falsify, and verify theories and hypothesis in science.

            Is there another 'objective criteria' that would apply to your standard of Truth that you would believe.
            It has often been argued one cannot prove a negative. But falsification is just that. Showing something proposed is not true. Yet the method is believed in this to be true as a method.

            What is true is not merely my or as you said "your standard of Truth." What is or is not true is independent of human opinion. Truth is not dependant on belief. Rather, our beliefs are dependant on our understanding of what is true.

            What is your standard for truth?
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              One generally chooses to believe that which is supported by verifiable evidence.



              Yes, by its results. The scientific method is a collection of hypotheses and theories which are evaluated together over time by a community of scientists. Each theory must not only survive falsification it must also be consistent with other established theories – it must fit into the web of evolving scientific theories.

              By using such methodology we have put man on the moon.

              Ok, we accept, believe the results as truthful. That something is confirmed or falsified. The method on the basis that it has seemingly successfully confirmed [proven something true] and/or falsified what was tested. In use of the method there are in it things we believe and in using the method the method is believed.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                It has often been argued one cannot prove a negative. But falsification is just that. Showing something proposed is not true. Yet the method is believed in this to be true as a method.
                Falsification cannot prove a negative, because falsification does not prove anything, and it does not show something is not 'true.' Falsification will show a hypothesis does not meet or does meet the standards of falsification by scientific methods. Actually, when new knowledge is made available a hypothesis may be modified and retested to find it meets the standards of falsification. Science does not function on the proposition that something is absolutely true of false.

                What is true is not merely my or as you said "your standard of Truth." What is or is not true is independent of human opinion. Truth is not dependent on belief. Rather, our beliefs are dependent on our understanding of what is true.

                What is your standard for truth?
                I do not have a standard for 'Truth,' because it has too many anecdotal connotations. I have a standard for falsification based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'

                You have not answered the question; What is your standard for 'Truth' so that you are willing to believe.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-19-2018, 10:00 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Falsification cannot prove a negative, because falsification does not prove anything, and it does not show something is not 'true.' Falsification will show a hypothesis does not meet or does meet the standards of falsification by scientific methods. Actually, when new knowledge is made available a hypothesis may be modified and retested to find it meets the standards of falsification. Science does not function on the proposition that something is absolutely true of false.



                  I do not have a standard for 'Truth,' because it has too many anecdotal connotations. I have a standard for falsification based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'

                  You have not answered the question; What is your standard for 'Truth' so that you are willing to believe.
                  If falsification does not prove anything, then it does not prove anything is false.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    I didn’t say that it couldn’t lead to a true conclusion. It may. But you cannot SHOW that it is a true conclusion, is what I said.
                    Yes, it can be shown. Metaphysics uses a methodology that differs from the hard sciences, and which the hard sciences presuppose to do their science. To deny that, and expand the methodology of the hard sciences to all domains of inquiry, is scientism.


                    Many “reasons” are seemingly “plausible” without actually being true, e.g. it was plausible for centuries to assume incorrectly that the earth was flat.
                    I have no idea what relevance that bit of trite triviality had to what I said.


                    I’m not sure what you are saying here.
                    Then you're oblivious about the debate going on in meta-metaphysics involving philosophers of science and metaphysicians.


                    Metaphysics is not worthless. As I said it is very important in ensuring self-consistency, and guarding against errors of false inference etc. But is cannot arrive at new facts about nature, is this point I’m making. Only science has the methodology to do that, metaphysics does not.
                    So you've already blithely stated, and so I've already addressed.


                    Metaphysics does not have the means to establish a true premise. Therefore, without a demonstrably true premise, it cannot arrive at a demonstrably true conclusion. In short, whilst it may present a perfectly ‘valid’ deductive argument, it cannot present a ‘sound’ argument.
                    So you've already blithely stated, and so I've already addressed.

                    Look at this way. Here's your argument for the idea that you need demonstrably true premises to get at a demonstrably true conclusion, a point that metaphysicians and philosophers of science are obviously aware of, another instance of scientism patronizing their department colleagues about idiotically obvious trivialities that no one would question.

                    1. The only means of establishing a true premise is via the methodology of the hard sciences.
                    2. Metaphysics does have the means to establish a true premise.
                    C. Without a demonstrably true premise, it cannot arrive at a demonstrably true conclusion.

                    Please scientifically establish premises 1 and 2 without using philosophy.

                    What do you mean by “reality”?
                    Oh geez! You really want to go there? Are you a scientific antirealist?

                    “Probability: 1. likely to occur or prove true”. Generally speaking claims of bodily resurrection etc are not likely to prove true. If such claims are made one would expect substantive evidence to support such claims, not merely second or third hand, probably highly embellished, accounts.
                    Mr. Dictionary to the rescue! Citing dictionary definitions are the last refuge of the desperate. That's why philosophical disputes in journals are never settled by a stupid reference to Webster. Webster gives usages; philosophy provides a conceptual analysis. The definition is trivial. What does likely mean, then? Probable?

                    Yes it’s an argument from silence, but it’s a strange silence considering the highly improbable claims made in the Jesus story...the apologist rationalisations for the silence are not convincing.
                    Glad you admit your argument is based on a fallacy!
                    1. You still haven't illuminated the concept of probability.
                    2. Which apologist rationalization, Mr. Well-Poisoner?
                    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                    George Horne

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                      Yes, it can be shown. Metaphysics uses a methodology that differs from the hard sciences, and which the hard sciences presuppose to do their science. To deny that, and expand the methodology of the hard sciences to all domains of inquiry, is scientism.
                      Not “scientism”, scientific method...there’s a difference. Yes metaphysics “uses a methodology that differs from the hard sciences”. The scientific method can establish a verifiable true premise for deductive augments and consequently arrive at a verifiable true conclusion. OTOH metaphysics must make do with a premise based on an unverifiable axiom which may or may not be true, hence the conclusion cannot be shown to be true. It may be true but cannot be shown to be true.

                      Look at this way. Here's your argument for the idea that you need demonstrably true premises to get at a demonstrably true conclusion, a point that metaphysicians and philosophers of science are obviously aware of, another instance of scientism patronizing their department colleagues about idiotically obvious trivialities that no one would question.

                      1. The only means of establishing a true premise is via the methodology of the hard sciences.
                      2. Metaphysics does have the means to establish a true premise.
                      C. Without a demonstrably true premise, it cannot arrive at a demonstrably true conclusion.

                      Please scientifically establish premises 1 and 2 without using philosophy.
                      Please explain how “Metaphysics does have the means to establish a true premise”, i.e. a verifiable true premise, not an axiom that’s just assumed to be self-evident or true. This is where your little syllogism falls down. Because, as I'm sure you know, "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

                      https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Not “scientism”, scientific method...there’s a difference. Yes metaphysics “uses a methodology that differs from the hard sciences”. The scientific method can establish a verifiable true premise for deductive augments and consequently arrive at a verifiable true conclusion. OTOH metaphysics must make do with a premise based on an unverifiable axiom which may or may not be true, hence the conclusion cannot be shown to be true. It may be true but cannot be shown to be true.
                        Nope. Wrong again. What are the methodologies of metaphysicians? Do you even know? Waiting . . .

                        Please explain how “Metaphysics does have the means to establish a true premise”, i.e. a verifiable true premise, not an axiom that’s just assumed to be self-evident or true.
                        I will. Right after you admit that you have no idea what methodologies metaphysicians use to establish true premises, verifiable or otherwise.

                        This is where your little syllogism falls down. Because, as I'm sure you know, "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
                        Thanks for the logic lesson. I teach it for a living so thanks for that time-waster. Metaphysics can construct sound arguments using their own methodologies without it being necessary to visit the scientistic premise-factory.
                        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                        George Horne

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

                          Metaphysics can construct sound arguments using their own methodologies without it being necessary to visit the scientistic premise-factory.
                          So you keep saying. I don't believe you.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            So you keep saying. I don't believe you.
                            I don't give two craps.

                            Are you going to answer my question or just stall some more?
                            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                            George Horne

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              I don't give two craps.

                              Are you going to answer my question or just stall some more?
                              I’m calling you out on your claim that metaphysics can construct sound arguments using their own methodologies. Whilst a metaphysical argument can be a perfectly ‘valid’ deductive argument from its axiomatic premise, it cannot be a ‘sound’ argument because it has no way of showing that its premise (and therefore its conclusion) is true.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                I’m calling you out on your claim that metaphysics can construct sound arguments using their own methodologies.
                                You can call me out until the cows come home. Ain't gonna happen until you answer my question, dodge-master!


                                Whilst a metaphysical argument can be a perfectly ‘valid’ deductive argument from its axiomatic premise, it cannot be a ‘sound’ argument because it has no way of showing that its premise (and therefore its conclusion) is true.
                                Nope. The arrows accumulating around the target is looking pretty embarrassing.

                                P.S. Can we deactivate Shunya's 'amen' function due to cognitive malfeasance? Or, maybe Tass Guy the Scientism Guy needs his solitary cheerleader.
                                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                                George Horne

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X