New answers tagged

0

First, the concept of feeling is the result of a set of subjective experiences. Even if you agree about the meaning of pain with another human being, the concepts behind are completely different. Each one develops an idea of what it does mean and uses a set of symbols in order to communicate it to other humans (see Locke). Even if each one lives a radically ...


0

The question is focused especially after Popper essentially "removed" (though I don't know if successfully, tell me if not) the dialectic method at the core of those Idealists as pseudo-science. Well Joseph Brenner has written in Logic in Reality (2008): I thus claim that logic not only should but can be extended to reality, provided one takes into ...


1

I see the Private Language argument as the best way to dismiss solipsism, and to establish that truly private experiences are not coherent - though considering non-social adaptively intelligent animals seems to indicate limits to that. Through being raised as children and enculturated, we establish shared meanings founded in shared modes of life. These are ...


2

The octopus is probably quite a good model. It is included among the sentient creatures in the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that; “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and ...


0

Why is the explanation of the triboelectric effect or the electrostatic effect(indicative examples) not deductive? This is because the world is given to us but we are not given an axiomatic system. By finding the appropriate questions to ask and then understanding the how and the why we construct a theory of the world and then we can attempt to put it in ...


1

Here is J.N. Findlay. He may be overall closer to your position than anyone I can think of right off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Niemeyer_Findlay In external links at Wikipedia see his Gifford lectures. So you are dealing with Findlay late in his life. His Plato work. But also it is key that he was a good, well known Hegel scholar. So you are not ...


0

"All dogs are ants (False). All ants are mammals(False). So, all dogs are mammals (True). -- valid, How?" The Premise/Conclusion there is not valid. The last statement, "All dogs are mammals", is only true in and of itself, completely removed the first two statements. In other words, the last statement itself is what is valid, not the connection between ...


0

Solipsism is the position that all that exists is oneself. Skepticism in this context might be Cartesian doubt about the external world. The later does not necessarily imply the former. Personally I advocate Pyrrhonian skepticism. We ought to doubt our immediate beliefs and suspend judgment until we can investigate and come to a more informed opinion about ...


1

Kαλημέρα! What's left of the dwindling Greek community in Chicago sends its regards. The nature of your question really generalizes to a good philosophical question. How is an empirical explanation like that of electrostatics not deductive? The short answer is, it is to an extent. However, it is not primarily a deductive activity. There are many ways ...


0

My question is, how do you go about proving or disproving this statement? Assuming the statement makes any sense at all, and that the proof regarding its provability is correct, then you showed that the statement is not provable. Since supposedly the proof system you use does not allow for inference of false statements ( = is sound), and assuming ...


1

Have a look at Satya P. Mohanty’s Literary Theory and the Claims of History: Postmodernism, Objectivity, Multicultural Politics, in particular Chapter 6, entitled, "On Situating Objective Knowlwdge," where he discusses the de facto relationship between post modernist/post structuralist theoreticians' (eg Derrida) and the anglo post positive/anti empiricist-...


1

Economics is currently and usually defined as the social science studying the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth and of goods and services. It is a social science that uses mathematics and mathematical models, but its mathematical hypotheses and models are often not testable or verified experimentally. So it does not follow rigorously the ...


2

This is a very good question. Epistemic nihilism is a rational construct, and as such it can only come second in our determination as to what we should do next. Rationality is a tool we have available to us to achieve what we want, it does not decide what we want. Rationality is at the surface of our brain's activity. Most of what we understand about the ...


2

As I see it — and keeping in the Wittgensteinian vein — The difficulty we have here is that the term 'knowledge' is vaguely defined across a number of language games, and it's rarely clear which language game we're playing when we invoke it. That causes confusion. So allow me to go ahead and deconstruct this topic, to see where we end up. When we talk about ...


1

The classical definition of knowledge, going back to Plato, is "justified, true belief." Some of the typical attacks on this revolve around what is "justified", what is "true" and what is "belief." In this case, I think there may be some ambiguity as to what is meant by "necessarily true." Do we mean a "necessary truth," something which cannot be other ...


0

Maybe first we might apply a certain amount of charity in our interpretation of Ted’s statement? The binding of the “don’t necessarily” in your quote strikes me as looser than I think you’re taking it. A charitable reading would say that Ted is suggesting that “false beliefs fail to count as knowledge, and this might be the case of some things that would ...


-1

Knowledge is just information, so, not necessarily, just if the belief is false, then the "knowledge" is also false and if we process false knowledge, we will have false results If you have undoubtable proof then you have "true knowledge", you have truth, otherwise you might have "false knowledge", in case your knowledge is false, does not mean you do not ...


0

Probability measures the Hypothesis' chances to occur/repeat as predicted . Its a tool to validate or not the need (investment of time and resources) needed for a full "cycle" of the scientific method; that seeks the truth .(upgrading hypostesis into a theories as a result is the closest human knowledge gets to the truth in a given point in time) Of course ...


0

This is an excellent question gonzo, and it highlights a major problem in contemporary philosophy. Supporting Ted Wrigley, is the SEP entry on knowledge, which agrees with him: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#TrutCond 1.1 The Truth Condition Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot ...


0

If something is logically necessary, then it should be logically incoherent to question it. And theoretical physicists postulate all sorts of alternatives as to how our universe works, and effectively postulate what turn out to be alternate universes when (most of) their speculations end up not matching this one. This, in general, is how all science works -...


0

It is a self refuting claim. If you use that type of argumentation to state that nobody can know for sure. How can you know for sure the validity of the claim itself "that nobody can know for sure"?


0

Here is my approach to this problem. The "observations" that physics experimentalists make are for the most part not just observations but measurements of the system under study. The experimentalists are quantifying things like time, mass, length, charge, velocity and so on, and for them to have confidence in the reality of those measurements, they repeat ...


1

It is not that physical observations are mathematical, it is that mathematics is a direct consequence of the way the universe is, that is, broadly, regular. The regularity of nature was a condition for the development of neurobiological cognitive systems. The reason that neurological systems evolved is that cognition is a selective advantage. It is a ...


-1

Not to be too tongue-in-cheek about this, but you might as well be asking why a glove fits the human hand. I mean, walk into any department store anywhere in the world and buy a glove, and you'll get something that is basically hand-shaped. Weird! The world is what the world is, and we write the best formulas we can to describe it. If we write formulas that ...


0

Welcome. Efficient abstractions are key to navigating a world we find ourselves in [1] , reducing cognitive load through predictive heuristics[2]. We developed our cognitive capacities for primarily social reasons [3], unlike smarter birds and cephalopods which seem to have been driven more directly by problem solving. Possibly for this reason we tend to ...


1

Yes, looking for the "hand of a designer" is a legitimate activity, and could be applied by the inhabitants of a simulation. It is a key feature in anthropology, in the SETI program, and in the tests of a Creator God claim (tests for the Problem of Evil, the Problem of non-optimization, etc). The tests for a Creator god are the only ones that answer your ...


2

The notion of science as 'data driven' is misleading. Science is usually either goal driven or anomaly driven (which in the end amount to the same thing). Goal driven science means that someone wants to do something (or maybe just do something better), and they start trying different things as common sense or inspiration dictates. These efforts produce ...


0

Yes we can know 'something' about 'outside' world, if we live in a simulation. If Super Mario somehow figured out that his world is a simulation, what could he have judged about the world of its creators? He might have thought: Well, I can jump, probably my creators can jump, too. I can walk upstairs and downstairs, probably there are stairs in 'real' ...


0

The choice of the word "cognitivism" turns on the similarity between beliefs and cognitions as propositional. A finessed account could be the acceptance of why-questions for imperatives instead of just straight imperative doubt, i.e. "Why do this?" vs. "Do this?" The cognitivist believes in at least formal answers to the first question, whereas ...


0

'Cognitivism' here relates to knowledge (cf.'cognition'). If moral cognitivism holds, then there are at least some moral truths that can be and are known. Here's how the concept of moral cognitivism can be built up: Suppose one concedes that moral judgments may be true or false. Does it follow that he commits himself to moral cognitivism? No, for the ...


0

I too found 'cognitivism' a confusing term when I studied ethics. It does make you think of mental processes rather than truth and falsity. I think the point is that if you are thinking about something (also called intentionality) then you are considering if that state of affairs is true or not. Beliefs can be true and false. You can hold true or false ...


1

Preface Please consider reading this answer in the voice of a highly motivated and potentially slightly crazy University Professor which talks about the Topics he loves with great passion: https://images.app.goo.gl/bbcQeEtYZxBRrdew7 (That's not me, but it makes my point.) I will not link to external third party evidence that the contained thoughts are true....


Top 50 recent answers are included