David Chapman describes the failure of logical positivism and I like his account better than this one. In particular, statements like “God exists” aren’t all that obviously meaningful (isn’t it...
In particular, statements like “God exists” aren’t all that obviously meaningful (isn’t it overly vague and unverifiable?) but he talks about the various meanings of “believing” here.
Sorry for the rant below, it's only vaguely related to the post. As I discussed before in a related post, is something really illogical if it provides benefits for the survival of its host? And I...
Sorry for the rant below, it's only vaguely related to the post.
As I discussed before in a related post, is something really illogical if it provides benefits for the survival of its host? And I suppose then we'd have to get into, as we did before, the big question of the universe being logical; can an illogical system (your thoughts) exist within a logical system? I can state 2+2=3 perhaps in an evil and needless to say, dumb, regime where the number 4 is outlawed and my chances of not dying are much greater than those who tell the truth or those who know basic math. Yes, it wouldn't be validated by more objective mathematical axioms proofed by Principia Mathematica but from a last discussion on this topic, it seems subjectivity is just as valid as objectivity. Philosophy seems such a mess of a subject that any statement can be validated.
I think one of philosophy's problems is that it wants to exist without context of softer sciences, itself being pretty soft as far as the sciences go if you want to even call it that. In this argument, it's a case from anthropology. Frankly, I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does. I also have a hunch that the etymylogical root of "truth" began with what could be bluntly verified, ie, having survival potential. For example, the saber tooth exists. Verifiable and the potential for getting it wrong could be death. What is the potential consequence of OP getting it wrong? Maybe a little loss of reputation. But then again, it could be like the regime that hates the #4, objectivity doesn't matter, only subjective truth within that circle even if the world outside is composed of objective truths, ie, dirt, water, planets, things that can objectively be verified.
All of that seems inconsistent but it's a lot more consistent if you view it from outside the realm of philosophy, at least established philosophy. If viewed from a sociological or anthropological standpoint, it makes much more sense. Sorry for the rant. It's just the use of the word "logical" that people use way too much as a systemic policing tool and only established philosophers have say in who's valid (logical) and who's not. Also when it's used by others in casual fashion, it's usually people who think of themselves as "smart" and logical but they're often entirely unaware of these kinds of philosophical, if you will, arguments. Some of those same folks also disdain arguments from emotion but ironically don't realize the main default driver in man for millions of years has been 'want', which has survival potential and subsequently you could easily argue logical merit. I'm not one to usually like to defend or give our more primitive instincts their due but in the pretentious world of philosophy, I think it's well over-due. Some things just get me going. Don't even get me started on USB naming conventions.
tldr, philosophy is a sham of the most pretentious kind
So, let's continue this conversation ;) it is not true that philosophy "wants to exist without context of softer sciences". It is distinct from those, it acknowledges the importance of science,...
So, let's continue this conversation ;)
it is not true that philosophy "wants to exist without context of softer sciences". It is distinct from those, it acknowledges the importance of science, and most certainly does not intend to replace it. An useful distinction is to say that science is more concerned with determining what is, while philosophy is particularly suited for answering what should.
I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does <-- that sounds like philosophy!
You got me, as I was gotten last discussion. You can't really argue against philosophy without using a philosophical argument. It's one of many paradoxes in which what we want to rid we can't rid...
I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does <-- that sounds like philosophy!
You got me, as I was gotten last discussion. You can't really argue against philosophy without using a philosophical argument. It's one of many paradoxes in which what we want to rid we can't rid without using the thing we want to rid. I digress, or want to anyway. Imma go for a ride on the motorcycle, it's my zen space, and hopefully won't come back and find out just how myopic or idiotic my original post was; I tend to do that sometimes.
while philosophy is particularly suited for answering what should.
My philosophy is that philosophy gets too much merit of what should be sometimes. It's less primitive reasoning than 'it's what I feel should be' which can offer more objectivity, yet it contradicts itself with arguing the validity of subjectivity; logical paradoxes. I think it bodes well for a theory I have I call the Champion's Paradox in that anything that becomes too great a force for its configuration state becomes self-defeating as it either has to change state (shoutout to Ship of Theseus and entry-level thermodynamics) or subdue its power to more manageable levels.
Anyway, I hope I've proved my point enough that I can logically say that philosophy is rubbish. My happiness in this argument and therefore survival may be counting on that statement being true. The argument itself may be illogical and rubbish but it's (supposedly) based on a logical system which evolved a (logical?) system as I am. And if we argue the universe isn't logical then why should I be? Because that's just not fair play!
Oh, I swore I wouldn't try to get involved in philosophical arguments on the internet but here I am. Fooled once again by you meddling kids. :)
It's great that you use philosophy to demonstrate that philosophy is worthless :P But yeah, philosophy is pretty big. It's a bit hard to say it is worthless even from a scientific standpoint, when...
It's great that you use philosophy to demonstrate that philosophy is worthless :P
But yeah, philosophy is pretty big. It's a bit hard to say it is worthless even from a scientific standpoint, when Aristotle's writings are at the foundation of western science and logic.
I don't exactly mean that though. It's just the softer sciences make it so hard to find any real logic at all that stands up to scrutiny sometimes that it's frustrating discussing it. But I...
I don't exactly mean that though. It's just the softer sciences make it so hard to find any real logic at all that stands up to scrutiny sometimes that it's frustrating discussing it. But I realize it's a tool for discovering the world, can be used in a good or bad way. Good, as we may colloquially mean, in that it nurtures survival or as some may mean, makes them feel good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science I was being generous calling it a soft science. It usually leads to a contentious debate that often centers around falsifiability. But your...
I was being generous calling it a soft science. It usually leads to a contentious debate that often centers around falsifiability. But your definition is probably as good as mine. We can get philosophical about it if you want but I digress, for now. I'm going to try to get some sleep so maybe I can wake up to snow outside and hopefully a big Red Ryder BB gun under the tree. Maybe I won't shoot my eye out. Felicitous holidays!
Oh. I actually read quite a bit on philosophy of science, including one (small...) book. Philosophy is not science at all. Have a great holiday yourself!
Oh. I actually read quite a bit on philosophy of science, including one (small...) book. Philosophy is not science at all.
The question is why use the word “logic” for this sort of thing? Do you even care about logic? You could instead say that some beliefs are useful even if they don’t turn out to be true (this...
The question is why use the word “logic” for this sort of thing? Do you even care about logic? You could instead say that some beliefs are useful even if they don’t turn out to be true (this time), and I think it would better get across what you mean.
If you want to bring math into it, I think it’s better understood using probability.
But it wouldn't tackle the question.... is it logical? It just ignores the entire philosophical discussion of whether survival is logical. You missed the point about my point. You could swathe an...
I think it would better get across what you mean.
But it wouldn't tackle the question.... is it logical? It just ignores the entire philosophical discussion of whether survival is logical. You missed the point about my point. You could swathe an entire philosophical layer over any subject. There's a philosophy of science, philosophy of math, etc. Logic, especially at the fuzzier levels of philosophy, isn't always so logical.
Do you even care about logic
I'm not sure, give me a philosophical stance that'll make me care about it and one that won't, if we want to be intellectually fair. Western philosophy seems intent on it but even Godel, a master of it, proved the self-defeating limits of it. But I think my whole reply above shows I care enough to discuss and show that I think it's used way too broadly sometimes, same with philosophy.
I see logic as a mathematical tool that’s useful in some situations. Is logic useful for survival? Maybe, sometimes. I think it might more often be useful for building tools that are useful for...
I see logic as a mathematical tool that’s useful in some situations. Is logic useful for survival? Maybe, sometimes. I think it might more often be useful for building tools that are useful for survival?
But I’m not sure how to even interpret the question of whether survival is logical. I think you might be seeing declaring something to be “logical” as a value judgement, but I’m not sure what kind.
Sometimes people use “logical” to mean predictable or easy to learn. In that sense, a machine that’s more logical might be less dangerous, since it’s less likely to behave unpredictability.
Yes, as you say, how useful something is, it just seems a more natural definition. Philosophically, it's a really muddied term where predictability means nothing. Predictable by whom? By the...
“logical” as a value judgement,
Yes, as you say, how useful something is, it just seems a more natural definition. Philosophically, it's a really muddied term where predictability means nothing. Predictable by whom? By the subject or by a more objective great entity? By such an omniscient entity it could be seen as chaos to us. Is predictability a virtue? By whom and by what measure? Philosophy's just my pet peeve, it seems all rules go out the window and you can justify anything if you're pretentious enough whether it's useful for survival or not.
I was thinking of “predictable” as an everyday, practical term: predictable by whoever needs to understand the machine for some purpose. We sometimes use terms like this as if they were universal...
I was thinking of “predictable” as an everyday, practical term: predictable by whoever needs to understand the machine for some purpose. We sometimes use terms like this as if they were universal (“this user interface is unintuitive”) but even then they’re culturally specific and people will disagree on what’s intuitive. Sometimes it makes sense to talk about averages, though.
It’s often a good idea to avoid making universal statements when you don’t have to.
Ah, so you side with subjectivity? (kidding) Of course, none of this we have to do as it's a 'philosophical' discussion. Or is it your philosophy that you'd just rather throw aside the...
It’s often a good idea to avoid making universal statements when you don’t have to.
Ah, so you side with subjectivity? (kidding) Of course, none of this we have to do as it's a 'philosophical' discussion. Or is it your philosophy that you'd just rather throw aside the philosophical discussion and look at what's more practical and imminent to everyday life? I agree, it's my whole pet peeve with philosophy. That and a philosopher stole my cat, aptly named Schrodinger (Shrody). I've had a suspicious view of them ever since.
I think it's better not to take a side. There are degrees of objectivity and they all can be useful. Getting consensus on universal statements can be hard - this is what scientists sometimes try...
I think it's better not to take a side. There are degrees of objectivity and they all can be useful. Getting consensus on universal statements can be hard - this is what scientists sometimes try to do, and often they fail.
David Chapman describes the failure of logical positivism and I like his account better than this one.
In particular, statements like “God exists” aren’t all that obviously meaningful (isn’t it overly vague and unverifiable?) but he talks about the various meanings of “believing” here.
Sorry for the rant below, it's only vaguely related to the post.
As I discussed before in a related post, is something really illogical if it provides benefits for the survival of its host? And I suppose then we'd have to get into, as we did before, the big question of the universe being logical; can an illogical system (your thoughts) exist within a logical system? I can state 2+2=3 perhaps in an evil and needless to say, dumb, regime where the number 4 is outlawed and my chances of not dying are much greater than those who tell the truth or those who know basic math. Yes, it wouldn't be validated by more objective mathematical axioms proofed by Principia Mathematica but from a last discussion on this topic, it seems subjectivity is just as valid as objectivity. Philosophy seems such a mess of a subject that any statement can be validated.
I think one of philosophy's problems is that it wants to exist without context of softer sciences, itself being pretty soft as far as the sciences go if you want to even call it that. In this argument, it's a case from anthropology. Frankly, I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does. I also have a hunch that the etymylogical root of "truth" began with what could be bluntly verified, ie, having survival potential. For example, the saber tooth exists. Verifiable and the potential for getting it wrong could be death. What is the potential consequence of OP getting it wrong? Maybe a little loss of reputation. But then again, it could be like the regime that hates the #4, objectivity doesn't matter, only subjective truth within that circle even if the world outside is composed of objective truths, ie, dirt, water, planets, things that can objectively be verified.
All of that seems inconsistent but it's a lot more consistent if you view it from outside the realm of philosophy, at least established philosophy. If viewed from a sociological or anthropological standpoint, it makes much more sense. Sorry for the rant. It's just the use of the word "logical" that people use way too much as a systemic policing tool and only established philosophers have say in who's valid (logical) and who's not. Also when it's used by others in casual fashion, it's usually people who think of themselves as "smart" and logical but they're often entirely unaware of these kinds of philosophical, if you will, arguments. Some of those same folks also disdain arguments from emotion but ironically don't realize the main default driver in man for millions of years has been 'want', which has survival potential and subsequently you could easily argue logical merit. I'm not one to usually like to defend or give our more primitive instincts their due but in the pretentious world of philosophy, I think it's well over-due. Some things just get me going. Don't even get me started on USB naming conventions.
tldr, philosophy is a sham of the most pretentious kind
So, let's continue this conversation ;)
I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does<-- that sounds like philosophy!You got me, as I was gotten last discussion. You can't really argue against philosophy without using a philosophical argument. It's one of many paradoxes in which what we want to rid we can't rid without using the thing we want to rid. I digress, or want to anyway. Imma go for a ride on the motorcycle, it's my zen space, and hopefully won't come back and find out just how myopic or idiotic my original post was; I tend to do that sometimes.
My philosophy is that philosophy gets too much merit of what should be sometimes. It's less primitive reasoning than 'it's what I feel should be' which can offer more objectivity, yet it contradicts itself with arguing the validity of subjectivity; logical paradoxes. I think it bodes well for a theory I have I call the Champion's Paradox in that anything that becomes too great a force for its configuration state becomes self-defeating as it either has to change state (shoutout to Ship of Theseus and entry-level thermodynamics) or subdue its power to more manageable levels.
Anyway, I hope I've proved my point enough that I can logically say that philosophy is rubbish. My happiness in this argument and therefore survival may be counting on that statement being true. The argument itself may be illogical and rubbish but it's (supposedly) based on a logical system which evolved a (logical?) system as I am. And if we argue the universe isn't logical then why should I be? Because that's just not fair play!
Oh, I swore I wouldn't try to get involved in philosophical arguments on the internet but here I am. Fooled once again by you meddling kids. :)
It's great that you use philosophy to demonstrate that philosophy is worthless :P
But yeah, philosophy is pretty big. It's a bit hard to say it is worthless even from a scientific standpoint, when Aristotle's writings are at the foundation of western science and logic.
I don't exactly mean that though. It's just the softer sciences make it so hard to find any real logic at all that stands up to scrutiny sometimes that it's frustrating discussing it. But I realize it's a tool for discovering the world, can be used in a good or bad way. Good, as we may colloquially mean, in that it nurtures survival or as some may mean, makes them feel good.
I don't think I quite get what you mean :/
When you say "soft sciences", what do you mean by that? Are you considering philosophy a soft science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I was being generous calling it a soft science. It usually leads to a contentious debate that often centers around falsifiability. But your definition is probably as good as mine. We can get philosophical about it if you want but I digress, for now. I'm going to try to get some sleep so maybe I can wake up to snow outside and hopefully a big Red Ryder BB gun under the tree. Maybe I won't shoot my eye out. Felicitous holidays!
Oh. I actually read quite a bit on philosophy of science, including one (small...) book. Philosophy is not science at all.
Have a great holiday yourself!
The question is why use the word “logic” for this sort of thing? Do you even care about logic? You could instead say that some beliefs are useful even if they don’t turn out to be true (this time), and I think it would better get across what you mean.
If you want to bring math into it, I think it’s better understood using probability.
But it wouldn't tackle the question.... is it logical? It just ignores the entire philosophical discussion of whether survival is logical. You missed the point about my point. You could swathe an entire philosophical layer over any subject. There's a philosophy of science, philosophy of math, etc. Logic, especially at the fuzzier levels of philosophy, isn't always so logical.
I'm not sure, give me a philosophical stance that'll make me care about it and one that won't, if we want to be intellectually fair. Western philosophy seems intent on it but even Godel, a master of it, proved the self-defeating limits of it. But I think my whole reply above shows I care enough to discuss and show that I think it's used way too broadly sometimes, same with philosophy.
I see logic as a mathematical tool that’s useful in some situations. Is logic useful for survival? Maybe, sometimes. I think it might more often be useful for building tools that are useful for survival?
But I’m not sure how to even interpret the question of whether survival is logical. I think you might be seeing declaring something to be “logical” as a value judgement, but I’m not sure what kind.
Sometimes people use “logical” to mean predictable or easy to learn. In that sense, a machine that’s more logical might be less dangerous, since it’s less likely to behave unpredictability.
Yes, as you say, how useful something is, it just seems a more natural definition. Philosophically, it's a really muddied term where predictability means nothing. Predictable by whom? By the subject or by a more objective great entity? By such an omniscient entity it could be seen as chaos to us. Is predictability a virtue? By whom and by what measure? Philosophy's just my pet peeve, it seems all rules go out the window and you can justify anything if you're pretentious enough whether it's useful for survival or not.
I was thinking of “predictable” as an everyday, practical term: predictable by whoever needs to understand the machine for some purpose. We sometimes use terms like this as if they were universal (“this user interface is unintuitive”) but even then they’re culturally specific and people will disagree on what’s intuitive. Sometimes it makes sense to talk about averages, though.
It’s often a good idea to avoid making universal statements when you don’t have to.
Ah, so you side with subjectivity? (kidding) Of course, none of this we have to do as it's a 'philosophical' discussion. Or is it your philosophy that you'd just rather throw aside the philosophical discussion and look at what's more practical and imminent to everyday life? I agree, it's my whole pet peeve with philosophy. That and a philosopher stole my cat, aptly named Schrodinger (Shrody). I've had a suspicious view of them ever since.
I think it's better not to take a side. There are degrees of objectivity and they all can be useful. Getting consensus on universal statements can be hard - this is what scientists sometimes try to do, and often they fail.
I'll link to David Chapman again. In particular see "Degrees of objectivity" and "How objective is enough?"
Interesting read. Thanks. I think I'd generally agree with it.