Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2017, 09:27 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:08 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not successfully.


All of the evidence of neuroscience supports this.
Scientific knowledge is provisional - I don't share your childish need of absolute certainty.

I don't need certainty in every belief. The claims of science can be viewed as probabilistic assessments based on repitition of experiments where the probability of a hypothesis being false approaches zero as the amount of experiments that fail to falsify it approaches infinity. But the foundation of the scientific method needs to be certain.

No, it doesn't. It works.

Quote:If it isn't, then the whole things falls apart.

No, it doesn't. It works.

Quote:Also, could you linke some of the neuroscience you're referring to?

No, Google® is your friend.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2017, 09:47 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well there's no need to poke holes in skepticism. It pokes holes in itself.

You have not established this.

(10-02-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm trying to show that the questions skeptics ask pose a problem for pragmatists.

Nor have you established this. Your proposed "problems" are incoherent, and amount to nothing more than an expression of your own poor grasp of semantics.

(10-02-2017 08:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Self-evident truths are not circular arguments. They are true by their nature and are understood as true by the intellect immediately.

Nothing is true "by its nature". "Self-evident truths", in practice, fall into one of two categories: bullshit or tautological and trivial, usually because of - say it with me - semantics.

The rules of logic are the latter. You simply do not possess sufficient understanding of logic or semantics to recognize this, so you attempt to ask why - but the question you ask ends up incoherent because of the same lack, and your attempted answer is even weaker and less well-defined. In the end, all you can do is wave your hands and say "because it just is, okay?".

You're trying to swing above your weight class here, Naielis, and it really shows.

(10-02-2017 09:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Yes. I'm trying to persuade scientists and atheists to step away from pragmatism. It weakens the scientific method.

You do not have a sufficient understanding of any of the positions involved to argue for that.

(10-02-2017 09:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  We're using skepticism differently here. I'm referring to philosophical skepticism.

So are they.

You simply do not understand skepticism.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 09:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Yes. I'm trying to persuade scientists and atheists to step away from pragmatism. It weakens the scientific method.

You live too much in an all-or-nothing world. Skepticism vs pragmatism isn't a problem unless you foolishly commit yourself to one or the other at all costs. They are both valuable ways to look at the world and the key is to know when to favor one over the other.

Philosophical arguments about any conflicts between them are fine but out here in the real world you need to integrate them in order to get by. Yes, that means you have to be pragmatic about when to be skeptical but it's only a contradiction when you insist on maintaining a "pure" philosophy.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
10-02-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
You want scientists to abandon pragmatism?

What do you suggest they use instead?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 10:30 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 09:20 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 08:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It cannot because you say so, again. You have no way of demonstrating this is actually true. By saying its "self evident" you've begged the question. We assume reality can't contradict itself, so we can analyze it.

If it contradicted itself, we couldn't have this conversation? Why not? Because you can't imagine how it could work?

You already said we can't know anything for sure. I agree. So how do you know this is certainly true?

All we have are models. We cannot access reality directly. It always goes through at least one filter.

It's a rabbit hole with Naeilis. Initially I had hope for him (or her - didn't check, don't really care) but the whole talking-in-circles thing tested my patience one too many times.

Feel free to go down it if you wish, but the cycle won't end: obfuscation, moving goalposts, incoherent arguments that sound suspiciously like something from WLC... it's a no-win, even when you're correct.

Yeah I'm getting that feeling. I'm close to giving up already.

I've noticed that the only people who try to claim certainty, and to try to prescribe reality, are those who have beliefs which have no evidence. The rest of us are happy with pragmatism.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:30 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I've noticed that the only people who try to claim certainty, and to try to prescribe reality, are those who have beliefs which have no evidence. The rest of us are happy with pragmatism.

Part of it is being 17... that's no slight against Naielis as he's obviously pretty bright but I remember everything seeming so obvious at that age. Black/white and right/wrong were very clear. Things have gotten a lot grayer over the years and I don't just mean hair.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
10-02-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Ah okay, I didn't know he was so young.

What's his particular flavour of woo? He seems reluctant to tie any of this into any point.

I don't even know what "scientists abandoning pragmatism" means. Every action anyone ever takes is based on pragmatism. Unless they are crazy, I suppose. But they're still trying to be pragmatic even then. They're just out of kilter.

The scientific method is pure pragmatism. What is its replacement? Making shit up? Using your emotions?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:39 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Ah okay, I didn't know he was so young.

What's his particular flavour of woo? He seems reluctant to tie any of this into any point.

There's another thread about the "first cause" and "necessary being" that caused the universe. That thread led to this one. Lots of dualism claims but no evidence.

Quote:The scientific method is pure pragmatism. What is its replacement? Making shit up? Using your emotions?

I wouldn't say it is pure pragmatism; if it was we'd give up once we found something that was reliable without digging deeper into it to understand why it is reliable. At some point though you have to go with what you have because no more answers are forthcoming. That doesn't mean stopping the investigation or not being willing to go back and revise, but you can't not accept things are true (enough) because you don't have absolutely certainty.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
10-02-2017, 10:54 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Skepticism vs pragmatism isn't a problem unless you foolishly commit yourself to one or the other at all costs.

It isn't even a problem then.

The thing is that Naielis does not actually understand what either position entails beyond a one-sentence sound bite. Really, that's his understanding of all the philosophies that he's roped into this mess of a thread - one sentence, and oftentimes not even the right sentence.

And that's it. That's the extent of it. Which wouldn't be so bad if he actually recognized that his view is limited and introductory, but he doesn't. Instead, he assumes that this one-sentence summary is the entire extent of the philosophy. More than that, he assumes that each one is entirely sterile, and that no actual conclusions or growth from that starting position are possible.

This is why he keeps going back to the whole "skepticism versus pragmatism" thing. In reality, there is no conflict, but Naielis' knowledge of skepticism is limited to the catch-phrase sound bite "question everything" - which, in his mind, implies solipsism, and thusly attacks pragmatism, on the grounds that we cannot verify that reality exists.

In actuality, there is no conflict, because skepticism is not summed up by "question everything". At the very least, you would have to add "until it has been established as true", because skepticism is not just denying and doubting everything no matter what. It is the position that one should only accept as true what can be shown to be true - and it can be shown that the universe exists, and so on. For an explanation of how, look at my earlier posts in the thread; it comes down to semantics.

Everything does, in the end. Naielis is not good at defining terms or asking coherent questions, and without that, you're not going to get anywhere in a hurry.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 10:58 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 10:39 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Ah okay, I didn't know he was so young.

What's his particular flavour of woo? He seems reluctant to tie any of this into any point.

There's another thread about the "first cause" and "necessary being" that caused the universe. That thread led to this one. Lots of dualism claims but no evidence.

Quote:The scientific method is pure pragmatism. What is its replacement? Making shit up? Using your emotions?

I wouldn't say it is pure pragmatism; if it was we'd give up once we found something that was reliable without digging deeper into it to understand why it is reliable. At some point though you have to go with what you have because no more answers are forthcoming. That doesn't mean stopping the investigation or not being willing to go back and revise, but you can't not accept things are true (enough) because you don't have absolutely certainty.

So now you're being pragmatic about being pragmatic Tongue

Yeah, fair point. Not good phrasing. It's heavily based on pragmatism.

I agree, this guy doesn't seem to know what either position actually is. Nor that he adopts both almost all the time. Life would be a clusterfuck otherwise.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: