Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2017, 04:42 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:04 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Neuro-scientists never say that. Who are you even talking about ?
More unsupported ASSertions.

That was a quote from IEP. I'm ignoring you from now on.

Your "individualized education program".
I thought you were "special needs".

He's *ignoring me*. Oh NOOOOO. Not that.
*As if* he had even one interesting, substantive thing to contribute.
Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 04:47 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 05:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No material means it exists in the physical world. It means it is made of matter or energy. There are things that exist, but are not physical. They are not made of matter or energy. What is content/ meaning made of? What is ontological truth made of? What is logic made of? These are irreducible immaterial objects.

They are absolutely not.
They are the PHYSICAL (learned) content of a human brain.
They do not exist without functioning human brains.
With no human brains there would be no such thing.

You really ought to take a class or something.

ob·ject
noun
ˈäbjekt/
1.
a material thing that can be seen and touched.
"he was dragging a large object"
synonyms: thing, article, item, device, gadget, entity; More
2.
a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
"disease became the object of investigation"
synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
"he spent five years as the object of a frenzied manhunt"
verb

"immaterial object" is an oxymoron.
Somewhat akin to you, Nelly, (without the "oxy".)

Adding "irreducible" (which he never defines) just makes the idiocy worse.
WTAF is an "immaterial irreducible object" ?

Just because someone has no viable explanation for something, and NO EDUCATION in Neuro-science,
it doesn't justify slapping woo names on, and making up woo-shit explanations for what one has no other explanation for.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-02-2017, 06:09 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 04:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:04 PM)Naielis Wrote:  That was a quote from IEP. I'm ignoring you from now on.

Your "individualized education program".
I thought you were "special needs".

He's *ignoring me*. Oh NOOOOO. Not that.
*As if* he had even one interesting, substantive thing to contribute.
Laugh out load

Naughty boy Bucky,bad boy. Tongue:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 06:35 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 06:45 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:48 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The only thing I am sure of is that I see no evidence at all for dualism.

Evidence hell, I'd be happy just to hear a plausible mechanism of action. Has anyone checked that pineal gland yet? I hear there's a soul hiding in there somewhere.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 06:51 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 12:15 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Oh yeah, I've come across this before. As far as I aware, "material" just means "literally exists", as opposed to "existing" as an abstract concept. As usual, scientists please correct me if I'm wrong.

So to say something is immaterial but literally exists is just a contradiction. I think some people assume "material" means "currently detectable and understood by science", making it a dirty word for woo peddlers.

No material means it exists in the physical world. It means it is made of matter or energy. There are things that exist, but are not physical.

Unsupported claim.

Quote:They are not made of matter or energy.

What are they made of?

Quote:What is content/ meaning made of?

It exists as patterns in brains.

Quote:What is ontological truth made of?

It exists as patterns in brains.

Quote:What is logic made of?

It exists as patterns in brains.

Quote:These are irreducible immaterial objects.

No, they exist as patterns in brains.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2017, 07:13 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:02 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Sources: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/

Pragmatism holds that whatever works is what is true. But the skeptic can show how this view reduces to subjectivism. The skeptic can ask questions like "how do you know what works". They can ask how you are able to falsify anything if you can't verify anything. If the pragmatists answer to these questions is simply that their system works, then they have begged the question. They have assumed they can use their senses to show that something is true about reality external to themselves. But that is the exact claim in question. How does the pragmatist know their senses are reliable? To say that their senses are reliable because we know they work is to appeal to information gained through the senses in order to verify their reliability. This question-begging attempt at a solution shows that the pragmatist is ultimately arguing that reality is subservient to their subjective view. Under pragmatism, a proposition is true if it appeals to the subjects senses. This opens the door for skepticism. If you cannot verify your own or anything's physical existence, then you can't even begin to argue about the physical.

I would say that pragmatism is about "doing what works". I don't need to claim or assume anything is true with certainty; just that experience and logic seem to suggest that a certain action will probably produce a certain outcome. Personally, I make no claims of certainty about anything at all. I make pragmatic assumptions, such as, "Things seem to pretty much work the same way as they previously have." It doesn't matter if this is really true or not, as long as it works. It doesn't matter what this reality really is; my assumptions seem to work within the context of this reality. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what it is. It's all the same to me.

Pragmatism can use scepticism to develop useful beliefs and to avoid seemingly bad ones, to make the decisions which appear to have the most usefulness. Again, certainty is not a useful concept here. In the above example, the pragmatic assumption is based on evidence. All the experience of my life is positive evidence for this. Gravity seems to have worked the same for every day I've been alive, and so on. As soon as the evidence suggests something else might be going on and the approach no longer works, it will be time to reconsider.

Pragmatism has a wobbly foundation. There's no problem with being uncertain of certain things. But when every level of an epistemology is based on assumption, you have a weakened it. Pragmatism can use a skeptical attitude, but true skepticism is only achieved by skeptics. Pyrrho was an example of an ancient skeptic. Descartes is an Enlightenment skeptic. The question in skepticism is how you know anything you know. Also you mention gravity has worked every day you've been alive. How do you know this? You trust your memory. Is it reliable? And even if you can trust your memory, what about gravity existing today means it won't stop tomorrow? What about it existing on earth means it exists everywhere else? We have to solve the problem of induction. We have to form an argument that concludes uniformity exists.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 07:24 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Unsupported claim.

I supported it in other posts.

Quote:What are they made of?

Well I'm not sure if I still subscribe to substance dualism because the Mind Body Porblem seems difficult with this explanation. So I'm not sure of the exact ontology of every immaterial thing.

Quote:It exists as patterns in brains.

Meaning exists as patterns in brains? You know this how? And if there's no content external to brains, how did content arise? Something with no content/ meaning entered the brain and became meaningful? This is equivalent to saying a hard drive carries no stored information unless you have a CPU. This isn't true. It carries information at all times with potential for interpretation.

Quote:It exists as patterns in brains.

This is incoherent. Ontological truth is not epistemological truth. We're referring to an external truth, something innate to every entity. For example, the content of the statement 2+2=4 is true ontologically. The truth in our minds is a mere concept. Unless you're arguing your mind is the author of truth, then I think you have a problem here.

Quote:It exists as patterns in brains.

Again, we're talking about ontological properties of reality. If you say logic only exists in brains, you're saying things were contradicting each other before brains existed. Logic here doesn't refer to the laws we author, but their meaning. The ontological truths they describe about reality. Those were true before you existed in the sense that they corresponded to reality.

Quote:No, they exist as patterns in brains.

Well how do you know this? Can you prove this?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 07:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 07:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 12:02 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I would say that pragmatism is about "doing what works". I don't need to claim or assume anything is true with certainty; just that experience and logic seem to suggest that a certain action will probably produce a certain outcome. Personally, I make no claims of certainty about anything at all. I make pragmatic assumptions, such as, "Things seem to pretty much work the same way as they previously have." It doesn't matter if this is really true or not, as long as it works. It doesn't matter what this reality really is; my assumptions seem to work within the context of this reality. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what it is. It's all the same to me.

Pragmatism can use scepticism to develop useful beliefs and to avoid seemingly bad ones, to make the decisions which appear to have the most usefulness. Again, certainty is not a useful concept here. In the above example, the pragmatic assumption is based on evidence. All the experience of my life is positive evidence for this. Gravity seems to have worked the same for every day I've been alive, and so on. As soon as the evidence suggests something else might be going on and the approach no longer works, it will be time to reconsider.

Pragmatism has a wobbly foundation. There's no problem with being uncertain of certain things. But when every level of an epistemology is based on assumption, you have a weakened it. Pragmatism can use a skeptical attitude, but true skepticism is only achieved by skeptics. Pyrrho was an example of an ancient skeptic. Descartes is an Enlightenment skeptic. The question in skepticism is how you know anything you know. Also you mention gravity has worked every day you've been alive. How do you know this? You trust your memory. Is it reliable? And even if you can trust your memory, what about gravity existing today means it won't stop tomorrow? What about it existing on earth means it exists everywhere else? We have to solve the problem of induction. We have to form an argument that concludes uniformity exists.

Restating a debunked pile of garbage makes it no more true than the first time it it was posted.
How do you know gravity has worked ? LMFAO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-02-2017, 07:27 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:57 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  They are abstract concepts. They exist conceptually. They are not "made of" anything. They are just ideas we come up with that help us understand things. Ultimately, they are only represented in reality by the configurations of our brains.

There is no evidence to suggest that abstract concepts can have any effect on reality. So if they do exist independently somewhere, it is irrelevant that they do.

What do you mean they are "objects"?

Concepts aren't made of anything? Then how do they exist? Are the laws of logic (referring to the truth they describe) abstract concepts having an effect on reality? They have no physical mass. And yet they are true of everything. They're true of existence itself. They're necessary truths. For existence to be coherent, they must be valid.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 02:11 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I have a video about this. We prescribe abstract concepts. We "create" them; they can be said to be objects within an abstract system.

We describe reality. We use abstract concepts to help us do that. It doesn't guarantee that any concept, however seemingly useful, actually corresponds to anything "real".




I think forming an abstract system could be helpful here. But I don't think it necessarily means they don't correspond to reality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: