Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2017, 03:54 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 06:13 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I'm done now, but thanks for the polite debate Smile

I feel I'd only be repeating myself now.

Thanks for the discussion. Your patience is appreciated.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
11-02-2017, 03:58 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
[Image: giphy.gif]

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
11-02-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 05:40 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 03:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The foundation of science is skepticism.

You do not understand skepticism.

Yes I do.

No, you don't.

Your continuous mischaracterizations of it are proof of this, in the same way that your failure to grasp that "materialism" and "supervenience physicalism" are the same thing was proof that you don't actually understand materialism, and your assertion that pragmatism merely assumes uniformity of nature when your own definition states that it would be concluded to be true was proof that you didn't understand that, either.

And you don't understand the corrections being supplied to you, either. Case in point:

(11-02-2017 05:40 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

We're talking about the same thing. You are simply wrong, because your knowledge of skepticism stops at the phrase "doubt everything". You have no knowledge of how or why this works, or what conclusions it allows us to draw, and which conclusions it does not allow us to draw. You do not understand its scope or its applicability.

Thus your continued efforts to try to apply it to things like "well how do you know the universe exists?", when this is not a matter of skepticism, but of semantics. You completely fail to understand the difference between the two, or how they relate to one another.

Because you do not understand skepticism.

(11-02-2017 05:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I've given you links and quotes

Which contradict you.

(11-02-2017 05:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I was a Pyrrhonist for a while.

I guarantee that you did not, and still do not, actually understand what that entails.

(11-02-2017 05:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Do your research before you continue to waste time asserting I don't know the field.

Said the seventeen-year-old in a room full of people who actually do study this.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-02-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
[Image: giphy.gif]

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
11-02-2017, 06:12 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
I suspect he'll be a much more tolerable person once he gets laid for the first time.

So...come back in ten years, eh?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
11-02-2017, 06:19 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
To recap the thread thus far:

(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Naielis brings up a form of pragmatism that no one uses (that what produces working results is true), then mischaracterizes both of these, as well as subjectivism, due to his failure to grasp the meanings of the terms in play.

Pragmatism, as Naielis defines it, is the position that whatever produces workable results is true. According, again, to Naielis, skepticism forces us to ask "how do you know that you are actually perceiving reality?" - but the pragmatist's answer to that is not, in fact, to just say "because I am". It is to bop him over the head and point him back to semantics, because solipsism and its variant positions are semantically incoherent.

This is explained.

Naielis asks for clarification.

Clarification is given, and a sub-discussion is formed when Naielis goes off on a tear against his mischaracterized version of materialism, saying that it cannot account for the existence of minds. The conversation now consists of two simultaneous running discussions, one of the semantic nature of ontology and one of materialism's ability to account for the existence of minds. The original "point" regarding skepticism and pragmatism is essentially forgotten. Naielis continues to mischaracterize skepticism throughout the rest of the thread, and whenever his failure to understand semantics or its bearing on the discussion in hand is mentioned, he ignores it.

He also claims, later, that skepticism is incoherent. When it is pointed out to him that skepticism is entirely coherent, he ignores it.

It is explained that there is no issue with minds in materialism. Naielis continues to assert that this is an issue, as well as stating that there exists some "immaterial aspect" to sound waves which conveys meaning. "Immaterial aspect" is never coherently defined, and the issue is dodged repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread. Even when someone directly asks for a definition, he ignores it.

Meanwhile, Naielis has also asserted that the scientific view of a topic does not change when new data is received. When pressed on this issue, he points the rest of the readers to the works of Thomas Kuhn, which do not support his position; Kuhn expounded on the way that science changes according to new data, and never stated that it didn't. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

Naielis says that there is a difference between materialism, physicalism, and supervenience physicalism. His own quoted source contradicts him. The three positions are, in fact, equivalent. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

Naielis continues to ask incoherent questions. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

It is pointed out that Naielis does not actually understand any of the positions he is attempting to discuss, whether he is arguing for or against them. Because this is a direct attack on his ego, it is not ignored, but the response fails to go beyond "nuh-uh" and addresses exactly none of the points raised about what he has demonstrably misunderstood. Instead, he thinks that name-dropping Pyrrhonism will scare people away from pursuing this line of discussion.

Naielis then raises the issue of the problem of induction as an attack on the validity of science. It is explained, multiple times, by multiple people, that since science does not deal in absolute certainty, the problem of induction is irrelevant. He then insults those who are attempting to help him to reach understanding.

And that's about where we are, folks.

I'm about done here. Anyone for pizza?

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-02-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 06:12 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I suspect he'll be a much more tolerable person once he gets laid for the first time.

So...come back in ten years, eh?

For Nails.

[Image: giphy.gif]

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
11-02-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Omg Drooling The puppies are definitely in da house. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
11-02-2017, 08:39 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 06:30 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 06:12 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I suspect he'll be a much more tolerable person once he gets laid for the first time.

So...come back in ten years, eh?

For Nails.

[Image: giphy.gif]

I know where that is, that’s in the hotel Atlantis, Nassau Bahamas. Great fish aquarium. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
11-02-2017, 08:42 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 06:19 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  To recap the thread thus far:

(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Naielis brings up a form of pragmatism that no one uses (that what produces working results is true), then mischaracterizes both of these, as well as subjectivism, due to his failure to grasp the meanings of the terms in play.

Pragmatism, as Naielis defines it, is the position that whatever produces workable results is true. According, again, to Naielis, skepticism forces us to ask "how do you know that you are actually perceiving reality?" - but the pragmatist's answer to that is not, in fact, to just say "because I am". It is to bop him over the head and point him back to semantics, because solipsism and its variant positions are semantically incoherent.

This is explained.

Naielis asks for clarification.

Clarification is given, and a sub-discussion is formed when Naielis goes off on a tear against his mischaracterized version of materialism, saying that it cannot account for the existence of minds. The conversation now consists of two simultaneous running discussions, one of the semantic nature of ontology and one of materialism's ability to account for the existence of minds. The original "point" regarding skepticism and pragmatism is essentially forgotten. Naielis continues to mischaracterize skepticism throughout the rest of the thread, and whenever his failure to understand semantics or its bearing on the discussion in hand is mentioned, he ignores it.

He also claims, later, that skepticism is incoherent. When it is pointed out to him that skepticism is entirely coherent, he ignores it.

It is explained that there is no issue with minds in materialism. Naielis continues to assert that this is an issue, as well as stating that there exists some "immaterial aspect" to sound waves which conveys meaning. "Immaterial aspect" is never coherently defined, and the issue is dodged repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread. Even when someone directly asks for a definition, he ignores it.

Meanwhile, Naielis has also asserted that the scientific view of a topic does not change when new data is received. When pressed on this issue, he points the rest of the readers to the works of Thomas Kuhn, which do not support his position; Kuhn expounded on the way that science changes according to new data, and never stated that it didn't. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

Naielis says that there is a difference between materialism, physicalism, and supervenience physicalism. His own quoted source contradicts him. The three positions are, in fact, equivalent. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

Naielis continues to ask incoherent questions. When this is pointed out, he ignores it.

It is pointed out that Naielis does not actually understand any of the positions he is attempting to discuss, whether he is arguing for or against them. Because this is a direct attack on his ego, it is not ignored, but the response fails to go beyond "nuh-uh" and addresses exactly none of the points raised about what he has demonstrably misunderstood. Instead, he thinks that name-dropping Pyrrhonism will scare people away from pursuing this line of discussion.

Naielis then raises the issue of the problem of induction as an attack on the validity of science. It is explained, multiple times, by multiple people, that since science does not deal in absolute certainty, the problem of induction is irrelevant. He then insults those who are attempting to help him to reach understanding.

And that's about where we are, folks.

I'm about done here. Anyone for pizza?

How do we know for certain pizza exists?



Big Grin


Nice summation by the way.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: