tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3791277770583133833..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Proving things isn't the point of definitionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38926940062807546922010-09-11T18:38:41.719-04:002010-09-11T18:38:41.719-04:00Thanks, czrpb!
I'm glad I managed to articula...Thanks, czrpb!<br /><br />I'm glad I managed to articulate the thesis in a way that makes sense to someone.<br /><br />I also draw consciously from consequentialism, phenominalsim, perspectivism, and pragmatism and probably unconsciously from others, not to mention the biology, chemistry, math, economics, etc.<br /><br />The only appropriate name I can think of for this "smorgasbord" is GENERAL UTILITY.<br /><br />I like "utility" because it ties in with the philosophy, the biology, the behavior, and the cost/benefit computations.<br /><br />So far my rendering of General Utility is sketchy, hypothetical, and naive on may levels. <br /><br />Constructive criticism and feedback from my betters is what I blog for.<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9415250525565768852010-09-11T12:10:39.564-04:002010-09-11T12:10:39.564-04:00Hi Poor Richard! I like it all!
This seems to me ...Hi Poor Richard! I like it all!<br /><br />This seems to me to include some understanding from a number of philosophies such as: Utilitarianism (I), Stoicism (II, V.B, VI, VIII), Virtue (V.B.4?), Determinism (V.B.5?).<br /><br />I pretty much wrap this up as a sort of humanistic Naturalism, to which I am sure is obvious I am partial.czrpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411515424273328980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74176266605557924742010-09-11T03:25:30.557-04:002010-09-11T03:25:30.557-04:00czrpb said..."Happiness is pleasure. We can d...czrpb said...<em>"Happiness is pleasure. We can debate the pleasure of what: Being able to fulfill one's aims/desires perhaps?"</em><br /><br />Wikipedia: "Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία) is a classical Greek word commonly translated as 'happiness'. Etymologically, it consists of the word "eu" ("good" or "well being") and "daimōn" ("spirit" or "minor deity", used by extension to mean one's lot or fortune).[1] Although popular usage of the term happiness refers to a state of mind, related to joy or pleasure,[2] eudaimonia rarely has such connotations"<br /><br />happiness/flourishing/eudaimonia = utility<br /><br />A BRIEF TAXONOMY OF FLOURISHING (UTILITY)<br /><br />I. Happiness<br /><br /> A. oxytocin<br /> B. amygdala excitation (fMRI)<br /> C. genital arousal<br /> D. full belly<br /> E. response to verbal reinforcement ("Well done, Joe")<br /> F. homeostasis<br /> G. absence of stress or other happiness inhibitors<br /> H. Whatever--you get the idea<br /><br />II. Health (many dimensions/components)<br /><br />III. Safety (ditto)<br /><br />IV. Freedom/constraint (ditto)<br /><br />V. Information<br /><br /> A. Info about consequences of alternative choices, thoughts, or behaviors<br /> <br /> 1. short-term consequences<br /> 2. long-term consequences<br /><br /> B. Self-knowledge<br /> <br /> 1. implicit associations and biases<br /> 2. conscious values/beliefs<br /> 3. strengths and weaknesses <br /> 4. habits<br /> 5. effective/ineffective reinforcement history <br /> 6. whatever<br /><br />VI. Social matrix factors affecting well-being<br /><br />VII. Duration of life and quality of life factors <br /><br />VIII. Contribution to flourishing of others (including ecosystem impacts)<br /><br />This is just off the top of my head. But I'm not a real philosopher.<br /><br />Poor Richard<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84297386296371541382010-09-10T14:34:17.104-04:002010-09-10T14:34:17.104-04:00Hi Poor Richard! I do agree that continuous enlarg...Hi Poor Richard! I do agree that continuous enlargement of the "chemistry" is a good thing. My understand of Harris is that recent technology is helping w/ this. I also believe that Bentham was basically right: Happiness is pleasure. We can debate the pleasure of what: Being able to fulfill one's aims/desires perhaps? I really do not need too much more.<br /><br />I also believe that -- as JS Mills suggested I believe -- humans have tried out a number of social arrangements and many of those can be reasonably said to be less conducive to the happiness of those involved. Obviously I am thing of authoritarian societies. So, for me, I do not really need "chemistry" to come many conclusions about how society ought to be arranged.<br /><br />So: Am I crazy (too)?!?czrpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411515424273328980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74048127395769971182010-09-10T00:45:46.143-04:002010-09-10T00:45:46.143-04:00czrpb said: "...what twists my knickers is wh...czrpb said: <em>"...what twists my knickers is when someone denies [that happiness is real] with: "Hey! Even physics can not say what is real!"</em><br /><br />I agree--that's not a satisfying argument.<br /><br />For me what makes happiness (or flourishing) not unreal, but <strong>impractical</strong>, as a basis for ethics is a lack of specificity and metrics. <br /><br />We need a "chemistry" of happiness.<br /><br />First, happiness/flourishing is not one thing but a complex composite of compound things--so we need a periodic table and a taxonomy of the various elements and compounds that can be combined to constitute happiness.<br /><br />Second, for each component or property of happiness we need appropriate weights and measures.<br /><br />Third, we need some basis for making the units of the various constituents fungible so that units of x can be substituted for f(x) units of y.<br /><br />I have said this in a half-dozen different ways but no one seems to find any merit or take any interest in this approach.<br /><br />Am I crazy?<br /><br />PR<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75596541248795882282010-09-07T23:52:26.781-04:002010-09-07T23:52:26.781-04:00Hi! Tyro said: "I'm not sure where you...Hi! Tyro said: "I'm not sure where you're getting this from."<br /><br />I know and am sorry. Let me explain my frustration (though not really with anyone here so much): I agree with Sam Harris that there are moral "facts". The ones I think exist I believe have the same degree of "Truth" as atoms: My understand of Harris -- and certainly what I believe -- is that happiness is "real" and is the ultimate desire. (I happen to also agree with Massimo about "human flourishing"; which I believe is the way to happiness.)<br /><br />Therefore, what twists my knickers is when someone denies this with: "Hey! Even physics can not say what is real! Atoms you know are not real. So certainly there are no moral truths or moral reality."<br /><br />Well, great. Frack you too. Seriously: Why do people give that reply?czrpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411515424273328980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72953535001543657172010-09-07T12:09:32.473-04:002010-09-07T12:09:32.473-04:00Just to chime in, I also really appreciate the tim...Just to chime in, I also really appreciate the time and energy Massimo puts into Rationally Speaking -- not to mention his graciousness in inviting me into his own blog and allowing me free rein to challenge his arguments.<br /><br />I generally assume it goes without saying, but it's probably worth reiterating from time to time! Thanks, Massimo.Julia Galefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020069129381463375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65580825585288658472010-09-07T10:37:07.863-04:002010-09-07T10:37:07.863-04:00Whatever indeed. Do you realize that having to exp...Whatever indeed. Do you realize that having to explain PhD-exclusive concepts to the unwashed masses is a bug, not a feature? And that it sounds just like sophisticated theologians complaining that their critics don't understand sophisticated theology?<br /><br />BTW, I appreciate you too. Seriously, thanks for putting yourself out there.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11430782892111649792010-09-07T07:56:19.399-04:002010-09-07T07:56:19.399-04:00Poor Richard, Mel,
thanks for the appreciation, i...Poor Richard, Mel,<br /><br />thanks for the appreciation, it is much appreciated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76654229321227069242010-09-07T04:12:08.845-04:002010-09-07T04:12:08.845-04:00Poor Richard,
Like you, I'm retired, and I ap...Poor Richard,<br /><br />Like you, I'm retired, and I appreciate that Massimo probably doesn't have nearly as much time to spare for Internet discussion as you or I. But philosophy is difficult and requires more than cursory attention. I just can't see the point of Massimo responding to so many people if it means he can't pay sufficient attention even to his co-blogger, Julia, whose original argument he still hasn't addressed, or apparently even understood. If my carping will just sting him into going back and re-reading her OP more carefully, than perhaps it won't have been for nothing.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure I must be sounding like a scratched record by now. So I'll say no more.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4286796270497007392010-09-07T02:26:48.547-04:002010-09-07T02:26:48.547-04:00Massimo:
Just saw this, belatedly:
my analogy b...Massimo: <br /><br />Just saw this, belatedly:<br /><br /><i>my analogy between ethics and math is limited to show that there are enterprises where we can apply rigorous logical reasoning and come up with non-arbitrary conclusions, and yet these enterprises have no need of any empirical input. Period. This is in response to the scientistic group on this blog who seems to equate science with rationality, evidently forgetting (indeed, in some cases actively denying!) that math and logic are not sciences, though they are certainly useful to science. Similarly, philosophy is different from science, even though of course philosophical reasoning needs to be informed by the best science we have available. I keep being astounded at how apparently difficult these pretty obvious points seem to be for some people, and I attribute that not to stupidity but to a philosophical (!) pre-commitment to scientism.</i><br /><br />Most of this is not to be denied, of course, but I really wonder who you are talking about. As mentioned above, I remember one (in numbers: 1!) commenter a few months back who bragged that the humanities were being pushed back and had essentially been shown to be nothing but unfounded exchanges of personal ideologies. And I also remember pointing out how stupid that is, and that there are many interesting questions that you cannot answer with science no matter how many thermocyclers or electron microscopes you throw at them.<br /><br />But I would really like to see an eminent scientist or even only a regular visitor to your blog say that philosophy has no legitimacy as a form of rational inquiry, or that rationality is the same as science, but I doubt that will ever happen.<br /><br />No, the real difference between you and certain commenters that you have complained about is simply what types of <i>empirical</i> inquiry are considered science, with the opinions ranging from all to, apparently on your side, the idea that it is only science if you have an extremely narrow focus, use loads of statistics and complicated technical terms, and wear a lab coat, and of course you are only allowed to work with fully formulated hypotheses with proposed mechanisms of action. But you never say what, if not science, all the rest of science is. You are fond of saying "science is not just a collection of facts." Agreed! But if you look carefully at that sentence, it contains a "not just", indicating quite clearly and correctly that science is <i>also</i> a collection of facts, or let us say observations, which math and logic, as non-sciences, don't really use or even need, obviously without them therefore becoming obsolete.<br /><br />(I also like this blog very much and appreciate the effort you and your friends are putting into it, even if I may seem overly critical. But as you have observed yourself, one tends to comment particularly often where one disagrees, and it can probably be assumed that you yourself would not consider your blog particularly useful if all the comments could be reduced to "bravo!".)Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74417336299893975582010-09-06T22:30:22.538-04:002010-09-06T22:30:22.538-04:00Dr. Pigliucci,
I want to thank you for taking the...Dr. Pigliucci,<br /><br />I want to thank you for taking the time to maintain this blog and provide the thoughtful interaction you do. I have really appreciated it, and have found what you write to be very thought-provoking. I have come to understand science and philosophy better since I started reading. Given the attacks you incur by engaging in this sort of outreach, I just thought someone should express some gratitude. I would wager that most of those reading have a similar feeling, some commenters notwithstanding. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />MelUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038143823260179846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10443332806775018272010-09-06T22:22:49.552-04:002010-09-06T22:22:49.552-04:00czrpb,
So -- to channel Parmenides (though I am n...czrpb,<br /><br /><i>So -- to channel Parmenides (though I am not scholar) -- the atoms that make up things are not real (where "real" == "proven to be true"), therefore the cell(s) you see in the microscope is not real, therefore the body (yours) from which the cell came is not real! So are you an anti-realist? Do you doubt your own existence?</i><br /><br />I've tried to make it clear at the end that I don't think this is a big problem and that I have a high degree of confidence in our theories. Virtually none of our theories can be proven true in the strictest sense though some have been confirmed so often that it would be perverse to say we have any doubt except in this lofty, ivory tower philosophical sense. So no, I don't doubt that the cells we observe in the microscope are real and I don't doubt my existence. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.<br /><br />I'm just observing that our high degree of confidence has a shaky theoretical foundation even while it has outstanding pragmatic success. These are the facts, like it or not.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18685572436798702442010-09-06T21:04:35.110-04:002010-09-06T21:04:35.110-04:00The thing is, science is the only method of ration...The thing is, science is the only method of rational inquiry that deals with the existence of objects or processes in the world around us (OoPitWau). Take any other: math, logic, moral philosophy - can any of them actually demonstrate, even with years of effort, whether I currently have a key in my left pocket or not? Thought so; that is a scientific question, because the key is one of the OoPitWau. Now if you want to argue, as Michael and you do, that science has nothing to say on supernatural OoPitWau, you can reasonably do that in two ways: either there is another form of rational inquiry that deals with OoPitWau and is better suited to those of them that are supernatural, and we have just seen that there is none. Or, and that seems to be your modus operandi, you can redefine the word "science" in such a narrow way that makes you right by default, but unfortunately leaves 95% of all currently working scientists scratching their heads why they are not scientists, and notably you have never clarified what they would be instead. Which neatly brings us to the relevance of all that for Julia's essay: definitions.<br /><br /><i>What does Jerry have to do with it? He wasn't even mentioned in the post. Someone seems to have developed a fixation...</i><br /><br />I have no adequate words to reply to that, except perhaps: projection? Yes, I came back to the topic of the scope of scientific research, but I hope I have made clear in the previous paragraph why I consider the issue of definitions highly relevant there, and not only for moral philosophy. And now I am going to drop it for this thread, although it is very tempting to point and laugh at Crane's truly abysmal opinion piece in the thread under Michael's picks.<br /><br /><i>But I'm sure you have solid theological arguments to show enlighten us otherwise.</i><br /><br />Woe is me, I have no theological arguments! Just like I have none on unicorn physiology, and for precisely the same reasons. I have, however, once read a newspaper interview with two prominent German theologians in which the journalist was flabberghasted five sentences in to find that none of the two actually believed in the existence of god, which just goes to show.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50720167367131977342010-09-06T21:04:17.280-04:002010-09-06T21:04:17.280-04:00Sorry, did not have any time for two days.
Massim...Sorry, did not have any time for two days.<br /><br />Massimo:<br /><br /><i>it doesn't help to question people's motives unless one has actual evidence of nefarious ones.</i><br /><br />That was probably poorly phrased, as I did not mean to imply that you use conscious trickery; indeed you have been quite clear about your definitions in the debate about morals (while on the other side, for example, I find it excessively hard to nail down what your definition of supernatural is, but I assume no nefarious purpose). I simply do not understand what exactly you can disagree with in Julia's piece: no matter if there are one or ten types of definitions at play, it would still help to be open about what your definition is at the moment, and it is important not to carry over hidden connotations from one type to the next.<br /><br /><i>Do you actually have a substantial disagreement here? Do you disagree that foundational issues arise not just for ethics and philosophy but also for math, logic and science? Didn't think so. My point is simply that some people on this blog and elsewhere are the ones who wish to have their cake and eat it too. They keep dismissing philosophy and ethics on the ground of foundational issues, but seem to want to keep untouched math and especially science, which suffer from the same issues. Talk about sleight of hand.</i><br /><br />Okay, so I misunderstood part of your point against 'scientism' apparently - I thought you were arguing that science had foundational issues that other areas of inquiry don't have. Fine, I get it now. But you are severely mistaken if you think that any serious scientist is unaware of the foundational issues of his or her discipline, or that anybody except for that weird anti-humanities commenter you had a few months back is dismissing philosophy, or that you can fault the atheist scientist with pointing out how unsophisticatedly they rely on science in their inferences just because it works, and then turn around and say yourself that we should pragmatically rely on science because it works.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76807364136404485852010-09-06T18:39:49.178-04:002010-09-06T18:39:49.178-04:00Mr. Pigliucci,
Like RichardW, I think your respon...Mr. Pigliucci,<br /><br />Like RichardW, I think your responses to comments sometimes seem to indicate a pretty cursory reading.<br /><br />Unlike RichardW, I am surprised that you and Julia comment as much and as thoughtfully as you do considering the scope of your activities.<br /><br />Unlike you, I'm retired with plenty of time. <br /><br />The posts and the interaction of the moderators here and the quality of the comments generally exceed my expectations.<br /><br />In appreciation,<br /><br />Poor Richard<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74658592381161883172010-09-06T18:14:14.905-04:002010-09-06T18:14:14.905-04:00Hi! Tyro said: "And this is where we find a p...Hi! Tyro said: "And this is where we find a problem, because all we can do is keep making observations Y1...YN but this can never absolutely prove X because this is a logical fallacy. ... but we lack the ability to say that our theories are a fact." and earlier: "I know I feel pretty confident in cell theory and microscopes let us see real cells but all of this relies on theories of light, optics and chemistry which are themselves built on induction and so could, theoretically, be overthrown by new discoveries."<br /><br />I love this! And that is extremely clear. So -- to channel Parmenides (though I am not scholar) -- the atoms that make up things are not real (where "real" == "proven to be true"), therefore the cell(s) you see in the microscope is not real, therefore the body (yours) from which the cell came is not real! So are you an anti-realist? Do you doubt your own existence?<br /><br />If so, I doubt you (or anyone who says they are) really do. IMHO, if you really "owned" up to such a belief system you would be some sort of cross between Uli Kunkel (the nihilist) and Marvin (the robot)! wink!<br /><br />Finally, I think it is pretty thin gruel to reply with: "I act as if I am real and that is good enough." or "Why should it matter if I am real?" etc: Why would not you answer a child's (yours perhaps) question of "Why is the sky blue?" with "Sky? What sky? Oh that! Well, you know it just might not really exist." or "Some people think it is because . But no one really knows; anything really." (Fortunately, I do not consider this to be you since I do not believe you really are an anti-realist: A rock that comes flying at your head will cause you to duck no matter what! grin!)czrpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411515424273328980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18546457803894711752010-09-06T16:48:07.271-04:002010-09-06T16:48:07.271-04:00I'm finding some of the comments in this threa...I'm finding some of the comments in this thread obnoxious, like the last ones from Norwegian Shooter and RichardW. Shooter's "Argumentum Massimo" is not even an ingenious insult. And RichardW's suggestion that Massimo makes many philosophical mistakes because English is his second language...seriously, what the living fuck? Massimo doesn't make philosophical errors because he's an immigrant from Italy, he makes them because he doesn't spend enough time thinking the issues through deeply and rationally. Massimo's command of the English language is significantly better than than of most Americans. It is on par with my English professors here at UW. End of goddamn story.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2822268060136243362010-09-06T14:43:05.664-04:002010-09-06T14:43:05.664-04:00Massimo,
It's clear I'm not the only pers...Massimo,<br /><br />It's clear I'm not the only person here who has noticed that you're just not listening. Your inattention is most obvious when you echo back something someone has said, but with significant words switched. For example, at one point I specifically made a distinction between definitions and meanings, but you echoed back to me a version of what I was saying with "meanings" replaced by "definitions", making nonsense of what I was saying. In my last post, where I wrote "theorem", you echoed back "axioms", which completely changed my meaning. Other times, you focus on some superficial point while completely overlooking the substance of the argument, such as in your response to Clockbackward.<br /><br />Of course we all make such mistakes occasionally. I know I do. But those of us who are serious about rational discussion try hard to avoid it. You, on the other hand, are constantly making such mistakes, making it quite obvious that you're not paying anything like sufficient attention. (Maybe the fact that you are--I assume--not a native English speaker has something to do with it. If my assumption is correct I have great admiration for your command of English. But if you're less than 100% fluent that's all the more reason to pay extra attention.)<br /><br />Sorry to be so blunt, but I still have a naive faith in the possibility of rational persuasion, and I can't help feeling that some progress could be made if only you would start listening.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45629704740789842622010-09-06T14:30:50.529-04:002010-09-06T14:30:50.529-04:00czrpb,
I just thought of another, possibly easier...czrpb,<br /><br />I just thought of another, possibly easier way to think about the problem of induction. Do you know what affirming the consequent is? A valid logical argument might go:<br /><br />A: X implies Y<br />B: X<br />C: therefore Y<br /><br />Affirming the consequent, an invalid argument, goes:<br /><br />A: X implies Y<br />B: Y<br />C: therefore X<br /><br />What we do in science is we postulate a theory X, we make predictions Y1, Y2,... and then we make observations. If Y1 and Y2 hold, we say... Well, what do we say? We say that X hasn't been falsified because logically that's all we can say. We know that if X is true then Y1 must be true, so if Y1 isn't true, then X can't be true. But if Y1 is true, then X may or not be true. And this is where we find a problem, because all we can do is keep making observations Y1...YN but this can never absolutely prove X because this is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />What we have is a case where our theories X are very successful at making predictions, we rely on them for all sorts of practical applications but we lack the ability to say that our theories are a fact. At any point, theoretically, we may learn that our theory X is false and replace it with X', some new theory which explains all of the old observations plus the new ones.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24865982777927217492010-09-06T13:38:23.338-04:002010-09-06T13:38:23.338-04:00czrpb said... I guess I just do not get it: Billia...czrpb said... <em>I guess I just do not get it: Billiards is not a game of inference: I hit the ball at another ball at a particular velocity and I can deduce what will happen on that table: Where in the real world is it that is not like the billiard table?</em><br /><br />czrpb, I like your hard-headed pragmatism.<br /><br />What if we found an area where many philosophies/epistemologies (positivism, phenominalism, analytic philosophy, utilitarianism, natural science, etc.), overlapped?<br /><br />I might define that sweet spot as <strong>the area of high pragmatic utility</strong>.<br /><br />"By their fruits ye shall know them."<br /><br />Which reminds me, I've heard rumblings of an induction/deduction controversy with a thinly-veiled anti-science tone coming from the fundamentalist/creationist right for some time. <br /><br />I hope rational, secular progressives who may have maverick, contrarian urges don't get sucked into this black hole of nihilism.<br /><br />Poor Richard<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72306777452343450782010-09-06T12:58:21.759-04:002010-09-06T12:58:21.759-04:00Massimo Pigliucci said "...philosophy is diff...Massimo Pigliucci said <em>"...philosophy is different from science, even though of course philosophical reasoning needs to be informed by the best science we have available. I keep being astounded at how apparently difficult these pretty obvious points seem to be for some people, and I attribute that not to stupidity but to a philosophical (!) pre-commitment to scientism.</em><br /><br />I assume the difference between science and the pejorative "scientism" is that the scientismist (unlike the scientist?) denies the existence of the "uncharted territory". If so, I am not a good scientismist. I even lament the uncanny human navigation skills that sometimes get lost in the age of charts.<br /><br />However, I do think the scientific method and natural science are the pre-eminent framework and corpus of human knowledge; and that other paradigms of knowledge I have studied/practiced (such as shamanism, for example) are subordinate if not necessarily inferior in particular content.<br /><br />I do not consider this a philosophical judgment--simply a pragmatic one based on empirical evidence of utility. If I am lost in the Sonoran Desert, I'd still prefer a Yaqui guide to a scientist or philosopher.<br /><br />Mr. Pigliucci, Julia, or anyone: do you have a position on the merging or re-fusion of science and philosophy?<br /><br />What are the distinctions between the definitions of science and philosophy and which distinctions should be discarded or preserved? What would be gained or lost on either side?<br /><br />I am very interested in interdisciplinary work including both scientists and philosophers. Does anyone know of online sources?<br /><br />Poor Richard<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010"</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14031077117194945642010-09-06T12:49:20.633-04:002010-09-06T12:49:20.633-04:00czprb,
When you explain how we know certain thing...czprb,<br /><br />When you explain how we know certain things, try asking yourself "how do we know that" to the components of the answer. With a motorbike, we might see a spring that has come lose and is rubbing against some metal so that a bump causes a compression and a squeak. But how do we know that springs compress, and how do we know that two metals make noise? Better yet, how do we know the things in the past will continue to work like this into the future? <br /><br />The way induction works in mathematics is to establish f(n) holds where n = 0, then to show that if f(n) is true for n >= 0, then f(n+1) must also hold. With science, we're guessing at f(), we don't have a base case, and we don't know that f(n+1) necessarily follows from f(n), all we know is that when we keep testing for different n's, our results agree with f(). We don't *know* that this will continue, we don't know what (if any) boundary cases may exist, we don't know if our chosen f() is, like Newton's gravity, a specialized case or a generalized case.<br /><br />Take one more example: the boiling point of water. We know now that this varies with pressure but before testing under different pressures, we didn't have any way of knowing that. We could conduct any number of tests and see that the boiling point of water was 100C and feel very confident this wouldn't change, yet if we moved our lab to a new location at a different altitude, suddenly everything would change. We think we're keeping all variables the same but they never really are and in theory, the change could be significant.<br /><br />Then there are things like the uniformity of nature - principles which have, so far, been very successful but which could change in the future. I don't know how or why, I don't think they will, but because we can never know what all of the laws governing the universe really are, it *could* change.<br /><br />Again, I have to stress that this looks like a huge diversion. We have no reason to think this is a problem, our working theories are never wholly wrong but at worst become special cases and there are no examples of people trying to overthow science because of induction. It reminds me of the reaction to calculus and dividing by infinities - it sounds absurd, makes little sense and according to some theories it shouldn't work but damnit it does. OTOH, the definition shifting has been shown to be a real, present issue so I have no clue why Massimo brought it up, unless it's some sort of defence reaction - attack science whenever philosophers are criticized.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65867361286428044812010-09-06T12:23:57.071-04:002010-09-06T12:23:57.071-04:00"Either the tooth fairy is your mother, or it..."Either the tooth fairy is your mother, or it is a supernatural agent..."<br /><br />There is no tooth fairy (now I know I'm on a philosophy blog).<br /><br />TOOTH FAIRY<br />: a fairy believed by children to leave money while they sleep in exchange for a tooth that has come out<br /><br />FAIRY<br />1: a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers<br /><br />(from m-w.com)<br /><br />*MY* mother is not a mythical being of folklore.<br /><br />Calling mothers tooth fairies is at least potentially breaking the term by using it in an idiosyncratic way. Likewise, calling stamp collecting sprites "tooth fairies" is stretching the term. Calling elephants "tooth fairies" is much further out of bounds.<br /><br />"The metaphor of the tooth fairy doesn't suffer from elasticity problems, whatever that means."<br /><br />"Elasticity" as I used it means that a found fairy who trades money for teeth may conceivably be larger than usually imagined while still deserving the moniker. *Possibly*, there is flexibility with this term as to whether the tooth taker need be supernatural-you think there is. That's fine, it's simply a test case.<br /><br />This was a simple example, but we can ask what people mean by "moral" as well. I, I think among the others here, assert that to most people it by *definition* means, at minimum, something with the force of a higher ought/should than flourishing. You're telling us something a few strides short of: "The tooth fairy is really an elephant! It's really a he and not a she, he doesn't have magic, is quite large, doesn't want teeth or have money to buy them with, and is confined to a zoo enclosure. You can test that the elephant is there scientifically, see its giant pile of poop? Let's run some tests!" Well, thank you very much.<br /><br />Brian: "Is it merely Julia and a small self selected sample of respondents who unanimously disagree with you, or is it something more?"<br /><br />Massimo: "As for invoking a unanimity of judgment against my positions on this thread, surely you know that's a weak one. First off, this is obviously a self-selected sample."<br /><br />As I said.<br /><br />"Or perhaps we should expand the circle to professional philosophers, most of whom would find Julia's arguments ill informed? And since when arguments are settled by majority rule anyway?"<br /><br />(You mean narrow the circle.) I'm not advocating for a majority vote. I'm asking for clarification in general and in particular am wondering how widespread your definition of "moral" is, since no one else seems to share it. <br /><br />I'm wondering how much of your argument depends upon the listener importing meaning from the other uses of the terms you use. The conversation would have been different if you had said from the outset: <br /><br />""Morality" as you conceive of it (peasants!) can never be achieved since the best "should" available is as follows: that people often act towards flourishing, which is good for them (and other science/philosophy). I recognize that (in the poverty of your ignorance and the insufficiency of your definitions!) you had required a more compelling obligator than that in your definition of morality. It therefore makes sense to say, as Julia does, that we should be moral skeptics.<br /><br />"That being said, we can accomplish more than Julia thinks, which we can do with a combination of scientific and philosophical knowledge. As Sam Harris says...(begins choking on own vomit at the words. Continues speaking after being revived some time later)...we can describe the human condition, define human flourishing, and in theory tell people how they could be philosophically consistent with this goal they have generally already arbitrarily chosen. People's evil actions tend to come from misunderstanding of what most constitutes human flourishing, not a bare desire to do harm. Reason can potentially fill in these gaps for us."<br /><br />Is that what you meant?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958115795753496384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72737511236495443582010-09-06T12:13:07.187-04:002010-09-06T12:13:07.187-04:00Massimo—
It seems to me that conceptual definitio...Massimo—<br /><br />It seems to me that conceptual definitions serve as augmentations of linguistic definitions by describing them more precisely as the findings of a specific discipline would allow. This is at least the impression the Wikipedia page gives, and Wikipedia is—despite what some of its detractors claim—actually a very strong reference tool. The Wikipedia page says this about the conceptual definition of the meter in modern physics:<br /><br />“For example, a theoretical definition of the length of a metre is "the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second". This is based on the first postulate of special relativity theory that the speed of light in vacuum is the same to all inertial observers, i.e. is a constant.”<br /><br />Physics has consistently upheld special relativity, meaning that special relativity is quite strong science, meaning that this conceptual definition enhances our discourse. But, of course, if special relativity were not such strong science, the validity of the definition would disintegrate. A conceptual definition gets its strength from the strength of the findings that underpin the definition.<br /><br />In this way, conceptual definitions relate valid findings in specific disciplines to vernacular concepts. For example, the above definition of the meter strongly related to the vernacular concept of the meter.<br /><br />Although she has not phrased it in this way, I think that Julia could (and would) charge that your conceptual definition of “morality” as “the maximization of human flourishing” (or something similar) does not successfully relate the findings of a specific field, Philosophy, to the vernacular concept of morality. It’s certainly not the case that Philosophers have found the common concept of morality to really be referring to the maximization of human flourishing. Moral skepticism in meta-ethics is a seriously considered position with carefully-argued tracts in its favor.<br /><br />So it seems to me that in order for your use of a conceptual definition of morality to make sense, you would still have to show that the maximization of flourishing corresponds strongly to the general human notion of morality.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.com