Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2017, 02:48 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
It's true! I am but a figment of an imagination.

But that of whom??? Sad

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-02-2017, 02:55 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 02:59 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 02:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 01:09 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You're going to talk about induction, aren't you. I covered that in the rest of the paragraph you started quoting.

Why are you more concerned with the foundation than the results? Science is about results. If we can accurately predict, we understand. We can use.

What foundation are you proposing to use instead? You've been vague but not specific.

The results are meaningless if the foundation is flawed. Remember the skyscraper.

I'm sorry, what? The results are meaningless?

You're currently using a piece of technology which wouldn't exist if not for the results of science. That's meaningless? Almost every aspect of your life has been improved by science. Meaningless? Am I wrong? Did all these things not happen?

You're not living in reality. You'd rather have some system which makes statements of certainty which are of no practical use because reality can always surprise you, rather than produce fantastic, practical results.

If you're not interested in reality, but only in surrounding yourself with artificial philosophical representations of reality which behave like you want them to, then you have fun with that. It's a total waste of time.

If I'm wrong, name one practical, usable, demonstrable result you have produced.

If you're going to say "this is the philosophy forum", then fine. If you're not interested in philosophy as it relates to reality, then I'm not interested in continuing the discussion.

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
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
11-02-2017, 03:02 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 02:48 AM)Banjo Wrote:  It's true! I am but a figment of an imagination.

But that of whom??? Sad

Yourself, of course! You create reality by perceiving it. Your reality is really just a virtual reality created by your brain.

We can never escape it! It's called... phenomenological, I think.

Also, your brain is a figment of my imagination by the same reasoning. And I'm a figment of yours.

Who wins, ultimately? Me! I win.

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
11-02-2017, 03:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 03:46 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Actually I do know the Problem of Induction very well. The way your framed it was completely wrong.

Naielis, you do not know the subjects that you are attempting to discuss "very well". You barely know them at all.

Do not presume to try and educate others on this.

(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It doesn't simply get at uncertainty. It gets at the very ability to do induction at all.

Because induction is necessarily uncertain, yes. There is no logical necessity for the conclusion of an inductive argument to be true. That is what induction means.

(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Why logical reason is there to suppose that because 500 ducks you have seen are yellow, all ducks or yellow?

An actual answer to this would get into what skepticism, as a philosophy, actually has to say about induction - but since you meant the question rhetorically, and also because it is 4:30 in the morning, I do not care to get into that here.

(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It isn't unless you have established Uniformity of Nature. This is never established by Pragmatists. Instead it's assumed.

Even going from the definition of pragmatism that you supplied - which is still not at all equivalent to pragmatism as it is actually practiced - this is wrong. A "formal" pragmatist, according to your definition, would conclude that nature is uniform, because "formal" pragmatism is the position that what works is true, and the uniformity of nature works.

(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Now I'm starting to see that no one here has any problem with assumptions as long as you can use them to beg the question later on.

Oh, shut up.

I have been very, very patient with you throughout this entire thread, but I'm about through with this soapbox routine of yours.

You don't understand the positions you are arguing for, let alone the ones you are arguing against. You repeatedly fail to understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion, as well as models and the things they model. You don't understand semantics. You assert that meaning, or some other "immaterial aspect" that you have yet to coherently define, exists as an intrinsic part of sound waves. You think that repeating a bare assertion, or referencing another argument that makes the same bare assertion, counts as supporting it. And on and on and on and on.

You do not possess the understanding necessary to point out fallacies in others' reasoning. What you have is an overinflated ego and a collection of flash cards.

If you're interested in philosophy, shut up and learn something. If you're not, and instead are simply here to masturbate to thoughts of your own ersatz intellectual superiority, just shut up.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-02-2017, 03:45 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 12:14 AM)Naielis Wrote:  To even make and test models you have to assume certain things to be true. We aren't talking about the results of science here. We're talking about the foundation of science.

The foundation of science is skepticism.

You 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
11-02-2017, 03:52 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
If you're going to simply ignore the results of science, you're these guys:





I'm amazed at people who think they can single handedly top science. But I never see any results. Just posturing.

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
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
11-02-2017, 05:35 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 02:55 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You're currently using a piece of technology which wouldn't exist if not for the results of science.

You're begging the question. I said remember the skyscraper. And claiming I'm not living in reality is meaningless if you admit you don't know what reality is with epistemic certainty.

"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
11-02-2017, 05:40 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 03:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 12:14 AM)Naielis Wrote:  To even make and test models you have to assume certain things to be true. We aren't talking about the results of science here. We're talking about the foundation of science.

The foundation of science is skepticism.

You do not understand skepticism.

Yes I do. At this point it seems dishonest of you to keep saying that when I've posted links multiple times to definitions and explanation of Skepticism. You keep misusing the word. You're referring to this: "a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something." I'm talking about this: "In contrast, philosophical skepticism attempts to render doubtful every member of some class of propositions that we think falls within our ken. One member of the class is not pitted against another. The grounds for either withholding assent to the claim that we can have such knowledge or denying that we can have such knowledge are such that there is no possible way either to answer them or to neutralize them by appealing to another member of the class because the same doubt applies to each and every member of the class."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skept...keVsOrdInc

"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
11-02-2017, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 05:49 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 03:43 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Naielis, you do not know the subjects that you are attempting to discuss "very well". You barely know them at all.

You can claim this all you want, but it's just wrong. I've given you links and quotes and yet you still refuse to admit that I know even a little more about the subject than you give me credit for. I was a Pyrrhonist for a while. I know what Skepticism is. Do your research before you continue to waste time asserting I don't know the field.

"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
11-02-2017, 05:52 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 03:52 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  If you're going to simply ignore the results of science, you're these guys:





I'm amazed at people who think they can single handedly top science. But I never see any results. Just posturing.

What results of science am I ignoring?

"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: