New answers tagged

1

When Kant tells us that in an analytic statement the predicate is contained in the subject, he intends a quite different sense of 'subject' from what you have in mind. 'A triangle has three sides and three internal angles' is analytic because having three sides and three internal angles - possessing these predicates - is inherent in the subject of the ...


0

This system claims that by following certain procedures faithfully, the knowledge resident in nature can be brought forth and 'captured' without any human intervention. How is this even remotely possible? It sounds like a form of superstition, like belief in an anthropomorphic god. You are sort of right. This view of science is, as one great ...


2

How? For starters, the characterization of the sciences you offer sounds like those of a true believer instead of a scientist or scientifically inclined theologian, say the Pope, who embraces science and evolution. But, I can offer a rational response, which you are welcome to decline and downvote in your efforts to proselytize. Given your references to your ...


0

In your first point where you say "everything came from nothing", we should be clear that what you're describing isn't really nothing. From the rest of your post, I think you understand this and meant something more like "nothing physical" but I just wanted to emphasize this. From nothing comes nothing. You talk about a "property of nothingness", but nothing ...


0

You speak of AI as if it requires human-level intelligence to raise epistemological questions when the current technology level of robots and machine learning has already raised them. Some philosophers have already embraced seeing the current state of technology as having epistemological implications. In their article Epistemology and artificial intelligence,...


0

As far as I understand the notion of knowledge in Kantian philosophy, we cannot speak of knowing something unless there is a relation between its concept and some object of intuition in experience.< This is WRONG : knowledge requires the union of concept and intuition, but not necessarily "in experience". Kant denies that all intuition is empirical. ...


3

Personally speaking, I would probably use nomological, since at least the word isn't a neologism (it's got a history, and is enough in the ballpark that people will understand what you mean). There isn't a particular word for what you're talking about. In the philosophy of science, people generally generally analyze theoretical structures in terms of the '...


3

One word answer, like metatheory? It might just be science. From Blackwell's Companion on the Philosophy of Science: Some decades ago, Fred Suppe...remarked that "it is only a slight exaggeration to claim that a philosophy of science is little more than analysis of theories and their roles in the scientific enterprise" (p. 515) If there's a single ...


1

A distinction between a statement which describes the essential properties of an object and one which describes only contingent properties is the key point. For instance, 'A triangle is a a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles', states all the definitional properties of a triangle - hence in this specific sense it captures everything (...


0

This is just a common logical fallacy: fallacy of composition, assuming that the whole is X because a part is X.


0

The data you provide are a mixed bag. so it's not quite clear what you are aiming at. The purpose-sentence is pragmatically quite odd, since the definite noun phrase pragmatically conveys that there's only one purpose. Equally, the lack of restricting modifiers of the adjective 'blue' indicates that all proper parts of the flag are blue. There may be ...


0

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. But seriously, the problem here is not so much one of logic but rather of clarity of intended meaning. "The" and "is" in your presented uses are at best ambiguous (at worst purposefully misleading and false). "The purpose" can be interpreted as "The [only/main] purpose" or better expressed as "A purpose". "is ...


0

Scientific Explanation and Intelligibility or Understanding. I believe the former is grounded in the Metaphysics of Causation while the latter is grounded in Epistemology. You have good intuitions, but it's a little more complicated than that. For instance, the sciences are certainly concerned with argumentation forms such as abduction, explanation, and ...


-1

It is not possible to falsify economics or science. You are conflating theories, methods, and disciplines. Good theories are falsifiable, disciplines are not. Like most disciplines, some aspects are falsifiable and others are not, and that a discipline has some aspects that are not falsifiable doesn't eliminate it as a science. A perfect example is astronomy ...


0

Hint Consider Henri Lefebvre, Dialectical Materialism (5th ed.1961, English transl. Minnesota UP, 1968) for an introduction to the "main characters" : Hegelian dialectic (aka: Hegel's Dialectical method); Marx and Engels' critique of it, that generated Historical materialism, a "new materialist method [in contrast] with the idealism that had ...


0

Welcome, Richard Falvey. The opening comment that dialectical materialism ('DM') is all three is plainly correct though whether its author would accept the grounds of my agreement I naturally have no idea. I don't see how we can have an epistemology without an ontology. What do we think we know or can know if we don't make some assumptions about the nature ...


3

You wrote, ... I made the argument that economics is not science, because it cannot undertake repeatable experiments. I'd like to take issue with the view that the ability to undertake repeatable experiments is either necessary or sufficient (or both?) for a discipline to qualify as a science. First off, if your view were tenable, then astronomy could ...


0

The paradox of the munchausseen trillema is that it is subject to the Munchausseen trillema. So where you use "belief" as a starting point, the trillema will regress (by it's own nature), to "assumption". Or it may regress to Agrippa's or Fries Fallacies (any look at a wiki page links them together) and we are left with a point of view. Considering the ...


1

To me, the lack of being able to predict (at least on a national level) tells me that economics cannot be a science (at least at that level). It might suggest things about consumer behavior but it can't predict basic things that most people things that economists should know. Ask an economist to predict ANYTHING that will happen 1 year out on a national ...


1

Humanities is art not science, but based on science. In humanities, which economics is the study of humans trading, there are many theories and no facts. Experience, exposure, practise, and training allows you to choose the most useful theory to the specific circumstances. That is the art. The goal is to integrate theory and self because as a human you ...


1

The skeptic's claim is not "We are certain that we could be brains in vats" - rather, it's "We are not certain that we are not brains in vats." This claim is fundamentally different. To defeat it, one would have to provide an airtight proof that the brains-in-vats scenario is impossible, and it's hard to see how to even get started here. In fact, this is ...


0

You don't have to be certain that it's possible to be a brain in a vat for the argument to work. You just have to not be certain that it's impossible to be one.


1

Welcome, Aleesha If economics is a science, we have I think to concede that it is does nor have the explanatory scope or depth of (say) particle physics. But this sort of damaging comparison, though common, is not what is needed. Biology is also a science which lacks the explanatory scope or depth of particle physics yet its status as science is secure. ...


3

I fear, there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of "scientific". An experiment is one method in a lot different methods as a scientific approach. (And there are a lot experiments in economics like in game theory.) Even a repeatable experiment is no guaranteed proof, that a theory is true. There might be edge cases in an experimental setting, which ...


3

Wikipedia says Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. It can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Social science is concerned with society and the relationships among ...


8

What is Science? The Popperian view of science is that a claim is "scientific" if it can be falsified. Science cannot prove that a hypothesis is true, only that it is manifestly false. If economics can make falsifiable claims, then I think it is justified to say such claims are "scientific", at least on some level (the degree of repeatability is certainly ...


0

Certainly some economics qualifies as science. Here is an example of "hard science" as used in economics. The Black-Scholes options pricing model is used by exchanges and traders to compute fair prices for options contracts traded on derivative instruments. The model combines statistical methods (used to compute a measure of underlying volatility) with ...


3

Economics is closely allied with political science, which is actually one part science and one part philosophy. Or, to be more precise, economics and political science can both be divided into science, philosophy and ideology, or propaganda. Of course, you can always make a distinction between "economic science" and "economic theory," but if you took a ...


19

Welcome to the demarcation problem of science. What is this thing called science? In lower levels of education, one is often given the impression that 'science', whatever that may be, exists as a monolithic entity. There is no sufficiency and necessity definition of what science is. It's better to say 'sciences' or 'scientific' when speculating as to this ...


-1

Gender has to do with what you know about yourself; different people are going to argue differently about what qualifies "knowing" about yourself. This is all I can say without inserting my own extremely liberal opinions on this issue (despite being a moderate). For example, you can look at Plato's JTB - the justification part can be valid or invalid ...


1

" Persue good" can be translated as " What is to be persued is the good". But what is " the good"? it is by definition " what is to be persued". So the original statement means " What is to be persued is what is to be persued". An analytic statement indeed, since the predicate is contained in the subject ( in fact, it is identical to the subject, which ...


0

Kant's entire theory revolves around solving the problem of "transcendental illusion." Hallucinations he says are differentiable from real perceptions via application of the principles of the understanding. Note that Kant does not think "the moon isn't there when no one is looking," as he directly expresses in the section of the first Critique on community ...


1

So, this seems to be a question of philosophy of language and epistemology since it is predicated about notions of the analytic-synthetic divide, questions regarding syntax and semantics, and is examining propositions in light of their linguistic modality. To wit: If imperatives don't have subjects, then how can we describe them as "analytically ...


3

EDIT: it may be worthwhile for those interested in answering this question to familiarize themselves with the OP's earlier posts throughout the stackexchange site - e.g. here (now deleted), here, or here - under this and related usernames. I did not check the username ahead of time, or I would not have answered; that said, I've decided to leave this answer ...


-1

There appear to be two differing types of answers that we receive when we ask ourselves in what does our certainty concerning our knowledge base consist. One wile we consciously query. This response appears to come to us as a series of sentences, paragraphs and phrases; like, I know that I was born, I understand logic to a certain degree, I am confident that ...


-1

Kabir is a medieval mystic poet, a rare exception of one revered and dear to Hindus and Muslims alike. I was hearing the great maestro Kumar Gandharva render this Kabir song. Sorry if too cross-cultural to be accessible — He sang with only one functioning lung!! Here's a poor translation Ud jayega hans akela Jag darshan ka mela ...


0

SHORT ANSWER Yes. LONG ANSWER The idea that knowledge or belief or learning has to be decomposable into sentence-sized gobbets is probably an illusion of anthropomorphism - Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking Chimpanzees who are very knowledgable about politics in their bands often switch allegiances when the political winds ...


1

A corker of a question ! Then to begin an answer ... Knowledge without words (1) - the math. example Nineteenth-century German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss used to joke that he could calculate before he could talk. Maybe it was no joke. Recent work casts doubt on the notion that language underlies mathematical ability and perhaps other ...


-1

Is there anything in one's personal experience which one can know for certain and about which one entertains no doubts as to its certainty, but which 'you' cannot express in words? The word 'knowledge' sometimes refers to the awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. When we express something in words, we usually compare ...


0

Before: doubt is related to truth. Not the absolute truth or a philosophical truth, but personal truth. A doubt exist when a concept can be related either with truth of falsehood. For example, my son has my keys can be true since he usually hides your keys, but can be false since he says he is not hiding them. So, doubt is the inability to relate a concept ...


1

... and the dictionary being just a set of self-references would be completely useless. You've just noticed that knowledge (not only regarding the term) is based on a set of tautologies. Kant already suggested that. In such case we can take it to the extreme: you are asking a useless question, since any answer would be based on facts you already know. But ...


0

Karl Popper is wrong. Falsifiability is not synonymous with testability or verifiability. Consider the following diagram: In this very simple table, we see that the true state of a claim is verifiable if the true state matches a condition which is determinable. It does not matter if a true claim has a proof that is unfalsifiable; a "false" outcome is ...


0

In every case, it is because they are holding on to a religion. It could be the standard model, it could be heliocentrism (which in fact has never been observed), it could be their belief that Jesus is GOD, affecting them. Whatever the case, the fact that you haven't seen this means that YOU also are a member of the religions in questions. Be a true ...


Top 50 recent answers are included