Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 07:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok so what physical difference is there between the two different kinds of music? Well there's different sound waves. But is that what is causing the release of oxytocin? Or is it that your brain interprets the sound waves and gets the content (music) which then causes a physical reaction?

That, yes.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:02 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 09:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Right I agree. But she was saying she used skepticism which I don't think is possible to do unless you are a skeptic. To be skeptical of a claim is not to use skepticism.

You can define skepticism that way if you like, but you can't force everyone else to do so. The English language is not mathematics. Words can have several meanings, or ambiguous meanings. I would say that being skeptical of individual claims is "using skepticism". You don't get to dictate how everyone else uses language.

I generally think it's best to ascribe single definitions to a single word for any give conversation. Otherwise you can easily get confused. And language can be like mathematics.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:13 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:11 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 07:12 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok so what physical difference is there between the two different kinds of music? Well there's different sound waves. But is that what is causing the release of oxytocin? Or is it that your brain interprets the sound waves and gets the content (music) which then causes a physical reaction?

That, yes.

Ok good. So we agree that it isn't a physical attribute of the sound waves themselves that causes the release of oxytocin, but instead it's the brain's understanding or interpretation of the sound waves? This would imply dualism. Some aspects of the sound waves are not material.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:15 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 09:49 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I understand science very well. Read Thomas Kuhn please.

Do you think you understand science as well as someone who has been a practicing scientist or engineer for more than twice your lifespan? 'Cause that'd be cool. There are at least a dozen or so here. Maybe you can cover on sick days.

No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 07:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And science doesn't operate on self-correction for new data.

Yes, it does. Kuhn does not challenge this. He simply offers an alternative characterization of the way in which this functions.

(09-02-2017 07:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it's great that you don't care about reality but some of us do. Solipsism is a waste of time. We're not talking about solipsism. We're talking about skepticism.

Well, no. You're talking about solipsism, or something close enough to it as to make no difference. You are merely calling it skepticism, because you have not actually defined your terms properly and don't understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the nature of the universe.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:18 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  So we agree that it isn't a physical attribute of the sound waves themselves that causes the release of oxytocin, but instead it's the brain's understanding or interpretation of the sound waves?

Yes.

(09-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This would imply dualism.

No, it wouldn't. Not even a little.

(09-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Some aspects of the sound waves are not material.

Flatly false.

"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
09-02-2017, 10:25 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 09:49 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Do you think you understand science as well as someone who has been a practicing scientist or engineer for more than twice your lifespan? 'Cause that'd be cool. There are at least a dozen or so here. Maybe you can cover on sick days.

No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

I would be willing to bet that there are people here who have studied Kuhn (and Popper and other philosophers of science) in more depth than you have, and who understand him at least as well as you do, if not better. And, as Girly already pointed out, there are real live working scientists here, and probably a few real live philosophers too. You're talking down to the wrong people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
09-02-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 09:49 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Do you think you understand science as well as someone who has been a practicing scientist or engineer for more than twice your lifespan? 'Cause that'd be cool. There are at least a dozen or so here. Maybe you can cover on sick days.

No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

No scientist would ever claim they "know science very well". A PhD is barely enough to start to understand it at all, let alone "very well". You're an arrogant little fuck ain't ya. Now back to your studies before the atheists get blamed for you failing out.

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
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-02-2017, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2017 10:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 09:49 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Do you think you understand science as well as someone who has been a practicing scientist or engineer for more than twice your lifespan? 'Cause that'd be cool. There are at least a dozen or so here. Maybe you can cover on sick days.

No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

Not revolutionary at all.
His concerns about subjectivity ARE EXACTLY the same as our concerns concerning the premises in Nelly's cosmological thingys.

"Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Quote:I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does.

Wishful thinking. The advances in science in the last 20 years makes that a totally preposterous notion.
Thanks for demonstrating you know next to nothing about science, Nelly.
Someone who says science doesn't update itself knows nothing about science. At. ALL.
Cancer isn't treated today the way it was 5 years ago, and in some cases 2 years ago.
Same for heart disease. Same for stroke. Did they know the universe was expanding 100 years ago ? Nope. Did they know about galaxies 150 years ago ? Nope.

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
09-02-2017, 11:00 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

Not revolutionary at all.
His concerns about subjectivity ARE EXACTLY the same as our concerns concerning the premises in Nelly's cosmological thingys.

"Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Quote:I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does.

Wishful thinking. The advances in science in the last 20 years makes that a totally preposterous notion.
Thanks for demonstrating you know next to nothing about science, Nelly.

Are you joking? Kuhn's development of science is held by practically all scientists, historians of science, and philosophers of science. This is the prevailing understanding of how science operates today. Do your research instead of rushing to Wikipedia so you can try to negate everything I say. For someone who uses the term ignoramus so much, you really don't seem to like doing research before you form beliefs.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-S-Kuhn
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kuhn-ts/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...fic-truth/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kuhn/

"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: