Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2017, 08:52 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 08:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 06:30 PM)Banjo Wrote:  For Nails.

[Image: giphy.gif]

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

Oh fish? I hadn't noticed. Wink

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, 09:06 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 09:09 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
We have immediate barriers to certainty:

How do we know we're not dreaming?
How do we know we're not hallucinating?
How do we know reality is what it appears to be, and not something else entirely?

We don't. We can't. It's impossible, as far as I can see. This is the impenetrable barrier of solipsism. We can appeal to other observers for clarification, but we already have to assume we're not somehow deluded, and that these observers are actually independent and not just aspects of our delusion.

We can just arrogantly/mindlessly state we have certainty anyway, but it's pointless to do so. Coming up with a single sentence that I can be certain of is extremely hard.

"There is some sort of experience going on."

That's the closest I can get. And it's still so vague as to be useless. As soon as I insert a sense of "self" into the mix, it gets vaguer still. I can't be certain that "I" am what I appear to be, or that I'm anything at all.

This is just about intellectual honesty. Reality feeds us information. It's a one way process. All we can do is try and use the information we've had before to try and predict what is coming next. At no point do we get to tell reality what is coming next. This is why science is necessary, and philosophy alone cannot do the job. Science says, "Forget certainty. Let's make practical models, as best we can. Let's test them and improve them, until they are so good that they have extremely accurate predictive powers." Then you get results. With just philosophy, you get pointless statements like "There is a first cause", and that's after a load of garbage assumptions and logical fallacies.

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
12-02-2017, 11:00 AM
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?
Yeah, my stepson the philosopher, while far humbler and balanced (usually) that N., does cause me to look forward to the day when someone fucks some sense into him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
12-02-2017, 11:09 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(11-02-2017 09:06 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Reality feeds us information. It's a one way process.

Ah, but which direction?

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
12-02-2017, 11:23 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Down...? No, up! Argh Gasp

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
12-02-2017, 11:32 AM
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?

Maybe when he gets to university, on the bright side he'll never have to roofie a girl she will either facepalm herself unconscious or fall into a coma through boredom. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
12-02-2017, 01:32 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?

So you're wildly optimistic then.

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
12-02-2017, 02:59 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?

In every case where you linked an explanation, it's just you either misunderstanding what I'm saying or repeating what you're saying now. And the link to me insulting anyone shows that I didn't insult anyone.

"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
12-02-2017, 03:17 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(12-02-2017 02:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  In every case where you linked an explanation, it's just you either misunderstanding what I'm saying

Exactly wrong. You are the one who has failed, consistently and absolutely, to understand what is being said to you throughout the thread.

Whenever this is shown to be true, you ignore it and run off to another topic instead, hoping that no one will notice.

Just as you did in the very post I'm responding to, in fact, where you still fail to address the masses of issues with your arguments.

(12-02-2017 02:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  or repeating what you're saying now.

Because it was correct then as well, yes.

(12-02-2017 02:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  And the link to me insulting anyone shows that I didn't insult anyone.

Oh, get off it.

(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. So I guess you have no problem with someone saying they assume God exists? It works. Of course it only works if you already accept God so it's begging the question to say "it works" as a justification, but let's not mention that.

Yes, Naielis, it is insulting for someone who doesn't understand the arguments in play or the positions he is attempting to refute adopt a condescending attitude and tell you "well, it seems like you all just like being wrong".

And the thing is that it's growing increasingly obvious that you aren't actually here to learn philosophy, because you think that you already know everything, despite all evidence to the contrary. And while there is an infinite supply of people here willing to correct your posts no matter how persistent you are in being wrong, and how unwilling you are to learn, the quality of responses is going to go downhill pretty rapidly.

Before, people engaged with you as someone who was potentially capable of learning and understanding.

Now, it's obvious that you're just another preacher.

And we don't care to be preached at.

"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
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
12-02-2017, 03:19 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 10:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Now I'm starting to see that assuming that no one here has any problem with assumptions as long as you can use them to beg the question later on.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: