4

Indeed, as jobermark noted, you started backward (implicitly) from the assumption that God does not exist and then proceeded to make your point. As a rule of thumb, you can say any type of question on StackOverflow about arguments to "demonstrate" the existence or non-existence of God is likely to be a fallacy. The reason is very simple: questions such as "...


4

There are some features where he is hard to understand, but I don't think they are primarily translation-related. For instance, the symmetry with the categories leads to some pretty strained groupings at times. Also, there are some places where his arguments seem to most Kant scholars just plain wrong or where there are big gaps (in modern work we would say "...


4

It says a great deal. Take for instance Platos criticism of writing in the Phaedrus: If men learn this it will implant forgetfulness in the soul because they will rely on that which is written calling things to remembrence that which no longer lies within themselves, but by means of external marks. This goes even more so today when the Net & social ...


3

There is no universally accepted reason to believe that our level represents, or is close to, a hard upper limit on "intelligence" (a notoriously difficult concept to give an uncontroversial definition of, by the way). Furthermore, it's trivially true that we don't know what we don't know --meaning that we cannot define the limits of our ignorance. There's ...


3

I highly recommend taking philosophy courses --I entered college planning on majoring in engineering, and left as a philosophy major. Please be aware, however, that philosophy courses vary widely based on the teacher and the school (because there is no universal consensus on which philosophical approaches are correct and important). With that in mind, you ...


3

I found it. It was Clark paraphrasing him, in (at least) two articles: Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation (1998): http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/pubs/magic.pdf Linguistic Anchors in the Sea of Thought (1996): http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/pubs/linguist.pdf As Rex Kerr suggested, it was indeed from Consciousness ...


2

It is generally accepted that (as you say) Kant was a horrible writer. I have heard of native German speakers reading Kant in English translation for clarity. I think you have hit upon something that is not merely a problem of translation but a fundamental weakness of Kant -- just what is it that he's talking about? I would approach this as a fundamental ...


2

Mostly, I'm not convinced there is a category of "non-representational routines." Any of the above could be highly symbolic and loaded with meaning. E.g., I cook an egg for you seems quite representational. Or I go on a bike ride and in doing so break the promise that I had made to you to only ride my bike with you. There's two reasons to think the ...


2

I wouldn't say that the concept of ontology is necessarily different between philosophy and computer science, only that the latter have developed more sophisticated and explicit domain models in order to drive applications. Philosophers have often wanted to focus on the "top level". Aristotle's categories were an early attempt to classify everything in the ...


2

There is a very large difference between "cannot productively argue" and "refuse to believe." It is absolutely reasonable to state that an individual can believe in something and be unable to argue it conclusively. In fact, one might even argue that its good to be able to do so in many fields. As an arbitrary mathematical example, many assert the Riemann ...


2

Welcome, Iva I think the best help will come from texts on critical thinking. I suggest any of the following: Colin Swatridge, Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (Oxford Guides). ISBN 10: 0199671729 / ISBN 13: 9780199671724. Kemp, Gary, Bowell, Tracey, Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Published by Routledge, 2005. ISBN 10: ...


2

First, allow me to point out that critical thinking is not so much learned as it is developed. There's an analogy here to the physical body. Newborn infants have (more-or-less) the same muscular and skeletal components as full-grown adults, but the muscles and skeletons of adults have changed over time in response to all sorts of factors — diet, hormones, ...


2

it depends on what you mean by "Logical". Do you mean whether the laws hold regardless of any changes in circumstances such as Newton's Law of Gravitation? OR that the laws are derived via logical means? Philosophers sometimes differ on their conception of meaning and there have been arguments in the Philosophy of Logic about how much logic there ...


2

"no one can know what is a chair — one can only have an idea of what a chair is" You seem to take an unexamined idealist stance. Isn't chair defined by use, and you ignore the fuzzy boundaries of how we define to say there is a 'secret essence'. I would argue that communication is fundamentally founded in intersubjectivity, which results from ...


1

Welcome, Iva. Thinking critically is no easy task, and there are plenty of resources out there to help you along. What anyone needs to do is develop some strategies for inculcating a set of skills, because critical thinking is a skill, and it is somewhat independent of IQ. There are also impediments to critical thought such as bias, deception, fallacy, ...


1

Our direct perception of reality through our senses is entirely dictated by our biology. Take for example the fact that we can see colours and hear sounds. Our brains represent different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation as colours, but the wavelengths themselves do not have "colour". Similar, our brains represent different wavelengths of vibration ...


1

'Not all knowledge is wisdom' ▻ WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE ARE CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT By this I mean that, as I understand 'wisdom' and as I think it is generally understood, wisdom is a synthesis or combination of intelligence and sound judgement. There is no direct link with knowledge. I'd accept that sound judgement depends to some extent on knowledge; you ...


1

When I explain things, I try to put myself in the listener's situation. It is important to know the background of the listeners, their level of understanding the subject. Try to identify their misunderstandings. I think there is not a better way of understanding than confronting your own misconceptions. A good explanation is an explanation that is ...


1

If you stick with the classical JTB definition of knowledge, then ideas cannot be justified in a clear sense- so ideas cannot be knowledge. Moreover, ideas in general do not have to be true. For example, you may have the 'idea' that people want a triangular iphone, which is obviously false. More importantly, including ideas in the definition of knowledge ...


1

All three of your questions make the implicit assumption that those positions which can be argued using logic and reasoning are arrived at by this method. Most Cognitive scientists and a good proportion of social psychology experiments would indicate that this is unlikely to be the case for most people (see any of the Dual-Process models of cognition, ...


1

As Price acknowledges in Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism, "expression" and "expressivism" are misnomers, simply used to label (multiple) alternatives to representationalism, "the assumption that the linguistic items in question 'stand for' or 'represent' something non-linguistic". This requires some sort of unmediated propositional access to ...


1

Knowledge representation is a model of a certain domain of the real world. These models are composed from objecttypes (entity, surrogate) and the relations between objecttypes. Such models are named "ontologies" and can be formalized as "Entity-relationship-models". Ontologies are used e.g., in business-administration to model a certain business domain....


1

Here is an excellent article on the subject. It points out how the writing should be structured and gives some very useful examples. It summarizes with the following points: Writing and the Scientific Process We began this article by arguing that complex thoughts expressed in impenetrable prose can be rendered accessible and clear without minimizing ...


1

Both state and process are important in science: Isn't evolution a process? Big-Bang cosmology is paradigmatically a process; especially when considered against Hoyles steady-state universe. Quantum Mechanics is theorised as Quantum States and an Equation of Evolution. Category Theory focuses on process (morphisms) against the state (sets)


1

I recommend looking at the SEP article on "Knowledge How" here. It gives a great overview of the distinction between the three kinds of knowledge you are asking about. As a followup, the bibliography at the end has several excellent papers on the subject. Lastly, you might want to look at the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism here. It turns out that the ...


1

There is quite a tradition in philosophy concerning the setting aside of various beliefs about the world, with the aim of getting a better understanding. It stretches back at least as far as ancient Greece, and continues today. However, the idea of setting aside certain beliefs about the world is not in conflict with having knowledge. In fact, without ...


1

Not exactly. I recall reading Dennett advocating or at least open to the idea that language structures the brain's other workings to a significant extent, though. One example is posted here. I do not recall reading anything by Churchland that was paraphrasing this, and I haven't read enough Fodor or Clark to know if they would have.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible