Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea? — Hillary

He might be such a genius, though I would have to know something about Einstein's biography and I really do not. I do know that at 22 he became a physics teacher. He formed club around him to read and discuss books and at 28 he became a teacher at university. Three years later he became an assistant professor and another 10 years later he received a nobel prize. Of course the man is a genius and he may well for all I know have been very independent. However he was also linked to academia. In how far this influenced him or not I have no idea. Of course geniuses do exist, those people who on their own provide a new perspective. However they are extremely rare and it seems in the current day and age, tied to academia or other prestigious research institutes, rarely at some mundane 9-17:00 job.

You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect). — Skalidris

No it is not perfect indeed... that is why I do understand. The scientists and engineers are not independent of each other. The ones leaving the horse drawn carriage and focussing on combustion and steam got better results...

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance? — Skalidris

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers?

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example. — Skalidris

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy. Human behaviour is discussed in sociology and psychology. A global vision of life seems theological, but might be philosophical, as it stands it is imprecise and space is only discussed in philosophy from a certain angle, but objects in space are subjects of physics or mathematics. What you seem to hope for is some sort of homo universalis, but indeed academic specialisation weeded them out. Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime.

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method. — Skalidris

Oftentimes they say they are doing philosophy and just aren't. They perform their own discipline and call it philosophy. But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training.

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays. — Skalidris

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand.

I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. — Hillary

At least you are honest, that is more than most. There are two options. One you are a genius and you have figured out something that other amateurs but also that prof did not see. Or two you are a well meaning amateur but your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously. The forums are populated to an overwhelming degree by the second kind. I do not exclude the first option, but given the odds it is unlikely. That is why you should write an article about it and see how well received it is by a community of knowledgeable people.

You may well be good at physics, I have no idea. I can also not judge it. That is why I asked for a publication because it is peer reviewed, so it is a marker that others who know about the subject think you should be taken seriously. That is handy in such discussions.

But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community. Why do you think academia is not a stimulating environment? I have never gotten paid to read high class work from actual philsophers and gotten paid for doing so until I landed an academic job.

No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here. — Hillary

What happened afterwards?

He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never. — Hillary

And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal? No geniuses can be wrong, also people with exceptional intellect can be wrong. Being a genius is not dependent on whether your theory survives empirical attempts at falsification. Indeed the research program it spawned may still be worthy of funding with 2000 k euro's.

What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle — Hillary

No we aren't. A genius is someone of superior intellect or creativity. We can't all be superior, so no we are not all geniuses.

It are the circumstances that make it flourish. — Hillary

As well as talent. Some people are just slow.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

Of course assembly line work is much more stimulating.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

I doubt you know it, since you have shown to have no idea how academia works.

Two million euros thrown away. — Hillary

Apparently a rigorously selected committee consisting of his peers and probably experts in other fields think it is not. They should have of course listened to a dude named Hilary from PF...

And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one... — Hillary

Full profs earn a nice salary and who cares whether he been awarded some of it for himself? You gave him as an example of an independent thinker (although you seem conflicted on that score) and I pointed out he works within a research community... Or did you give him as an example of a prof that got it wrong? Certainly profs get it wrong, that is also how science works. Promising theories get refuted... that is the way it goes, You can be and a genius and wrong...

Great and that proves what? I looked him up Erik Verlinde is a prof at the University of Amsterdam. The first publication is this one: "Brouwer, M. M., Oman, K. A., Valentijn, E. A., Bilicki, M., Heymans, C., Hoekstra, H., Napolitano, N. R., Roy, N., Tortora, C., Wright, A. H., Asgari, M., van den Busch, J. L., Dvornik, A., Erben, T., Giblin, B., Graham, A. W., Hildebrandt, H., Hopkins, A. M., Kannawadi, A., ... Visser, M. (2021). The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 650, [A113]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040108

It is written by many people, so many not even all the names are listed. The man is a genius of course, but not independent. Just a wonderful professor who probably works in the way I outlined to Skalidris. He was not drinking his cognac in front of his fireplace dreaming up he revolutionary theory but worked on it within a comunity of which he is probably the leading light.

Edit: why do you think he gets the 2000 K? Not to buy a villa in South of France... he gets it to set up a research community, so that his ideas can be expanded upon and refined because they are apparently promising.

He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life. — Hillary

Why do you think you are capable of making this judgment about others?

Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that. — Hillary

Not at all. Scientific progress is made in a community, by discussion with other scientists. Of course there are rare geniuses, but if science would depend on them no progress would be made. There are scores of under laborers, fine tuning ideas. Why would I be envious? I am part of such a community, unlike some others here.

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages? — Skalidris

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance.

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing... — Skalidris

Yes, I know you quite well. You pop up around the forum a lot. Legion your name is, for you are many.

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions. — Skalidris

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? International relations scholars might have a global vision, as o earth systems scholars, but in a different way. Do you mean a philosopher should combine all of those, or is there a specific bigger picture she should have? Theories are generally not counted as knowledge. What you describe is generally not considered knowledge, but seems more akin to worldview. That is no problem, I am not here to quibble about words but it is good to be precise in what we are talking about. I would still like to invite you to think about the question posed above, what kind of global vision should a philosopher aspire to?

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy? — Skalidris

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. Kant, a towering figure of Western thought, did not conceive of his thoughts all alone. He was employed at university, he got to read the metaphysics of Wolff and Leibniz, he was challenged especially by the works of Hume. Had it not been for all of those, Kant would never produce his works.

In a bit I am going to discuss a paper in a small group of researchers. I did before and asked the person working on a research grant a thorny question. Two weeks later he came to me knocked on my door and said "hey, good question, I addressed it in the research proposal!" I gave him a thumbs up. Now, when he gets that proposal he might have gotten it, partly due to addressing my question. Otherwise maybe a commission member would have asked it and he would have had no answer and he would not have gotten the grant. Perhaps. Or they would have been asked one of the 1000 other questions posed to him by others that he also addressed in the proposal, due to other seminars and lectures he participated in. Eventually the proposal might be granted giving him the opportunity to write a book. Maybe that will be a pathbreaking study, perhaps, emboldened by all the tiny inputs provided to him by those under laborers. A thousand ifs, but that is how science and philosophy work. Could you skip those steps? Perhaps if you are an exceedingly rare genius, if they exist. Otherwise, a simple 'no' is the answer.

Why should they believe in gods? If the eternal heavenly gods created the temporary material universe in their image, bats do enough to just live and please the bat gods. Like we live to entertain the people gids. — Hillary

Well than the bat gods be sound... (I do advice you to refrain from eating more mushrooms).

That doesn't apply to the night creatures on the planets. Why should gods have no form and be light? The bat-gods would disagree. — Hillary

Bats do not believe in God at least not as far as we know. We believe in God and so picture him in our own terms.

According to Hegel in the Zoroastrian vision God and light were the same. He speaks of 'Lichtwesen', a figure totally unarticulated, only present as light. (As a beginning point, this stage is crucial in Hegel, as everything tends to return there, but in more concrete form, that is another discussion though) I think you do not need any science to see why light is immediately appealing as a candidate for God-like status. In the dark we do not see anything. darkness is dangerous, light is good, it is warming, creating. However, the old German is right, pure light is pure nothingness because it does not bear any contrast within itself.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic). — Skalidris

How does one do the exploration without relying on stories or explanations from those who came before? Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former.

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... — Skalidris

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it.

Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom? — Skalidris

Why does 'having scientific grounds', whatever the convoluted phrase may mean, have to do with wisdom? It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you. What you are doing at best is criticizing philosophy professors for not being scientists... but they aren't they are philosophy profs. They keep to their discipline and do not try to piecemeal together what little knowledge they have of science. they are indeed wise, they know their limitations.

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

I do not know what reaching wisdom means. You seem to have some hermetic knowledge of that. I believe you say "having the most knowledge with the least contradiction", but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise.

Well from my sarcasm you can already deduce my answer to the question that is the title of the OP. No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. Unless he happens to be one of those exceedingly rare wandering geniuses, my hunch is the independent thinker just needs an excuse to feel good about himself because he senses the inferiority of his philosophical skills and resents the prof.

Just a thumbs up from me. A great threat and analysis and I would love to jump in, but I am unfortunately too short of time to focus on the really serious threats on this forum :chin: However, I applaud the analyis of our leading light.

Now we come to Richard M. Brickner M.D. description of Germany as paranoid. He defines this paranoia as excessive need to be superior and in control. And I want to mention here that with the change in education came a change in popular philosophers with Hegal and Nitsche replacing the Greek and Rome philosophers. Those philosophies may have remained harmless if it were not for the Prussian control of Germany and its superior bureaucracy and education for technology. What we call the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education began as Prussian management of Germany. — Athena

I do need to point out that the correct names are Hegel and Nietzsche... Those philosophers were never very popular in the US actually. Nietzsche bore a deep mistrust of nationalist Germans. Your vew is overly cultural deterministic. Every nation is prone to fascism. Italy was a fascist country despite its Roman heritage. The US was an inch away from electing a president with fascist sympathies before the war. There is no such thing as evil Europe and benign US. the question whether fascism takes root has to do with trust in institutions, resentment of the population towards foreigners , fear of the the loss of status and longing for times gone by during which everything was supposedly better... Whether one reads Hegel or Mill does not matter as both are not widely read anyways. Fascism creeps in through the mass media, through appeal to emotion rather then reason in times of economic crisis.

Texas really shocked me by making a law that encourages people to report on their family or neighbors, or anyone they think might be suspect of helping in an abortion. These things were the horror of fascist Germany. We seem to be blind to this insidious perversion of our democracy and liberty. — Athena

It is of course always good to remain watchful. Everywhere surveillance is being strengthened and that is a worrying development. So indeed be watchful of intrusions of privacy and of the massing of state power. No state is immune, I think that is a wise lesson. However, I do not share your cultural explanation.

This sounds so contradictory and even has no sense. Perfection needs to be connected to something that at least has existence because you can perceive it so accurately that you end up calling it "perfect" — javi2541997

So you agree that God needs to be perfect? The argument is flawed though because perfection is not connected to anything perceivable. Whether you can ascertain Go's perfection by perception does not matter one iota.

Only a fraction of all cases brought before the judiciary are criminal cases...

Ergo, the greatest anything's got to exist.

That means, in my humble opinion, since it is apparent that, taking just one example, the greatest man doesn't exist on earth, he must exist on another planet! — Agent Smith

Bollocks. It is not inherent in the definition of the greatest man to exist. It is on the definition of god. the reason being that the greatest man need not be perfect so does not need to embody existence, whereas God due to his perfection does need to exist. See the refutation to Gaunilo's objection.

1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time

From what I can tell, metaphysics is an attempt to get a handle on the conceptual schema that we utilize to comprehend reality.

Can you help me, preferably with an example or two, how the aforementioned 5 topics in metaphysics constitute a framework for making sense of whatever all this is? — Agent Smith

This looks about right to me... These five categories are all aspects of what a thing is, not just what it accidentally is, but what it essentially is (this itself is a pair of metaphysical concepts).

The first, ontology: what is a thing. Is a thing its properties, or is there some essential 'thingness'(quiddity) what determines the thing. Ex. A cube of sugar. is it just a combination of whiteness, sweet taste, and cubical shape, or is there more? If there is more, ho can it be because if you take away all properties nothing is left, if there are just properties how come they seem combined in that one cube of sugar?

Identity and change: similar. we know the cube of sugar changes its properties all the time, little grains of sugar fall from it, changing its shape a bit. It may become old and the sugar stale etc. However, it is till the same lump of sugar, but if it dissolves in tea it is not anymore. When diid the change occur and what is the measure that determines essential difference?

Causality, we say that the heat of the water has caused the lump to become different from what it is, but the only thing we have discovered is that the two events always coincide. What makes us say one causes the other? Is that an empirically given fact and if so when did it happen, when are we allowed to make the generalization? In other words, is change something observable in the physical world or are mental operations necessary to effectuate this conclusion?

necessity and possibility, similar. are there worlds thinkable without causality or is it a necessary feature of our world and our mind? Is sugar necessary sweet or might there be a substance with the same chemical properties, but not sweet. Do we till call it sugar? I other words, what defines the thing and is that a necessary definition or a possible one. (I have severe difficulty with this subject I must confess).

Space and time are necessary conditions under which we perceive anything however we do not perceive space and time in anything except something in space and in time However for there to be something recognizable as something it needs to occupy space and time. So the question becomes are these categories pertaining to the object or of our perceptual apparatus? The lump of sugar is only recognizable as such because it occupies a different space from the cup of tea.

All these subjects are determinations of the conditions under which we recognize a lump of sugar as such.

As far as I'm concerned metaphysics is just an assortment of unrelated ideas and a faithful translation of "metaphysics" should be "miscellaneous". — Agent Smith

It is not at all miscellaneous. There are different schools of thought with a different definition of the object. At the fringes there will be there will be disagreement, just like there is with all categorization. Other than that it is pretty straight forward what metaphysics is, the study of the question that Aristotle posed: what makes a thing the thing that it is. So indeed metaphysics is the investigation in the fundamental structures of reality and, no less important, the conditions of our access to knowing these structures. Is that an uncontested definition? Certainly not. However all quibbles take as a point of departure Aristotle and Plato's questions. If it seems muddled to you I recommend you to study more metaphysics.

↪Agent Smith Well it is simple because we can not include all the scenarios in a generalization. — Nickolasgaspar

Is that post directed to Mr. Smith or me?

I believe that we can both agree human imagination can produce amazing things, superpowers, aliens, creatures of horrors, con artists, scams, car design, Hollywood movies etc etc — Nickolasgaspar

You take an everyday definition of imagination. That is not what I am talking about. We do not need to imagine aliens to account for rules of evidence. This is the STEP definition: "To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one's own."

Now for any ability of forward looking, or assessing, one needs to know how things might be other than they are. Still the definition is too analytically minded for me. This article is already better: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/imagination/v-2

Imagination played a role in the history of philosophy and means something like: to imprint. We need that to order impressions we get from sense data and literally 'make sense' of them. We need it to form ourselves a world. You skip this whole conundrum between the rationalists and empiricists and just put your eggs in the empiricist basket.
We certainly need imagination when drafting criteria for what counts as evidence. Accepting something as evidence entails counter factual reasoning: given information that points to a situation being a situation of Y, can it still be a situation of X? Or does this information conclusively prove Y?

Sure If I didn't have the ability to imagine things I wouldn't be in the business, but a more important ability is to conform your imagination to the rules of reality. — Nickolasgaspar

There are no 'rules of reality'. there is not rulebook given from the sky to tell you what reality is or isn't. especially since reality itself is a purely abstract concept devoid of any material content.. Moreover, you are incoherent on your own terms because you define imagination contrary to reality. Secondly, your example seems incoherent as well. Without imagination you as an artist would be out of business as well, so they seem equally important. It does not make sense to prioritize one over the other. As Kant stated: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions (sense impressions TA) without concepts are blind."

I knew we weren't far off but its hard work to present a position accurately and even harder to overcome the other side's preconceptions ( i include my self too). — Nickolasgaspar

It is hard work to present a position accurately.

All these metaphysical ideas (Philosophical Naturalism, Physicalism, idealism,supernaturalism, occasionalism, solipsism etc etc) are part of our system of beliefs for ages. We have observed zero advances in their supportive facts or our arguments.
People should allow them to be part of the History of Philosophy but they need to stop dragging them in our Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Because you measure advance in metaphysics with the wrong yardstick. You want them to be displayed by evidence. However, metaphysics (epistemology) questions when evidence needs to be given, what can count as evidence, under what circumstances etc. Metaphysics informs our worldview and therefore questioning it from a certain worldview will lead to failure. You are asking the wrong question. As for "our Philosophy", I have no idea what you mean. Philosophy is not yours. Your division between history of philosophy and philosophy displays something else. An unhistorical view of philosophy, i.e., what is shown is your metaphysics. You think the history of a certain something is unimportant for the determination of that certain something, a claim I would contest.

This is the only reason why I point out to ↪Tobias that Objective Observation and Verification/Falsification is our foundations without underplaying the value of imagination in the construction of Hypothesis. Objectivity in our Observations is how we put in check our imagination (reality check) or reasoning our assumptions, how we evaluate different competing claims and how we recognize knowledge from arbitrary opinions. — Nickolasgaspar

We are not far off. The difference is one of nuance. I agree with everything here except that I think the last sentence paints a too simple picture. In many realms objective verification is not possible, for instance not in the field of law. I do hold onto the rationalist opinion that conceptual analysis matters too.

I am not arguing for a linear approach. I only argue for an order of importance of Objective verification in the process of justifying our Descriptions. Sure a theoretical quantity is always necessary.
This is why toddlers do not have the way to communicate concepts. They lack the theory but they also lack the observations that will allow the emergence of concepts.
Those depend on each other as you said, but your argument was not about the importance of theory, but on how fundamental imagination is.
We are off topic again. — Nickolasgaspar

I think we are actually not very far off. My original comment which you reacted to was that "we need fantasy and imagination too to establish our criteria for evidence". The reason is that ordering sense data needs more mental faculties that just perception. Imagination means 'forming an image' we need that because to make sense of our perception and establish something as 'fact' we need to isolate it from the rest of our perceptions. What we perceive is merely a whole bundle of impressions. The ordering is a mental activity, as we know from Kant.

Now in order to establish criteria for evidence, we need to be able to imagine a world other than we find it. We need to establish what counts as a marker for truth. In order to do that we need to think in scenario's and stories, what if we would not accept it, what if we would. That was my original remark. We were not talking about axioms and principles, but we can if you like.

Like all our principles and axioms, its an educated conclusion based on all available observations from the past and present and the success we get from our predictions. None of our faith based claims enjoys such epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar

No, they are not. In order to come to a 'conclusion' we need a process of reasoning. that process cannot itself come from observation because this process of reasoning consists i applying axioms and principles. According to you they are based on conclusions obtained from observation. That is circular. The solution can be found in the debates between Huma and Kant. Those forms of reasoning can only be a priori.

Your angle projects this quality on the facts "'Objective' means pertaining to the object"...but again facts are neutral. The facts are what we evaluate to render the value of a claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Facts are not neutral. They are isolated bits of information, taken out of the context of a relationship to all kinds of states of affairs to use more analytic language. This process of abstraction is mental and already laden with value judgments. They are the result of a process to establish 'what matters'.

If we understand that simple fact then we can look out which characteristics render a claim objective or not. — Nickolasgaspar

Here for instance. You think your description of terms is neutral, but it is not. It is the description used in analytic philosophy. However continental philosophy might hold a slightly different conception. So too for the concept of imagination. Analytics like to strictly define terms, which is great of course. Continentals never cease to point out the historic origins of terms, which can be enlightening too.

I am sure you didn't know the work I expect from induction but if you read my post...now you know — Nickolasgaspar

I have an inkling.... it is classical pre-Kantian empiricism and it does not work. It lead to skepticism in the end, for precisely the reasons I outlined. you bootstrap the fundamental role of empirical data to empirical data itself. However the data will never tell you how to interpret it.

Now that holds a fortiori for the rules of evidence, as you seem to have conceded yourself. That was what my remark to @universeness was about.

First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept. — Nickolasgaspar

No, because empirical observation does not come out of nowehere. One needs concepts and categories to give meaning to observation. Therefore, instead of your linear approach, from observation to conceptualization, I hold on to a circular, hermeneutic appproach.

-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not think your linear model points out 'the correct order of things'.

I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try. — Nickolasgaspar

To see if I can do it, or to explain it to you? The second is not necessary and the first is uncalled for. I do not need to prove anything to you. As for the second, read Hume and then Kant for the solution.

As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities. — Nickolasgaspar

thre you have it, the problem of induction. We can never verify if anything produces a result 'constantly'. 'Constantly' is obtained by a leap of faith, a generalization into the fuuture of past results. Next, one needs a kind of measure for credibility. The yardstick for credibility is never never free from authority, beliefs held in our current epoch etc.

"Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.." — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe.

Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohhh 'direct', now I get it... By magic they are directly transferred to our brain. Who believen in magic now?

I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world? — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed, but mostly because I have no idea what 'objective value' means. 'Objective' means pertaining to the object, so every claim about the world is in this sense objective. Most people use objective in a different way, pertaining to the world as it really really is. Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world.

So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right. — Nickolasgaspar

No, because I do not hold empirical observation to be foundational. It is necessary yes, for every claim and argument, but not a fundament in the sense of an absolute standpoint from which to judge.

I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not disputing that it is important, in fact I think it is crucial. I do not think however, it does the work you want it to do, oferring a fundament from which you can judge all claims to knowledge.

I am not interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume.

-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too.

You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from. — Nickolasgaspar

They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other.

Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown. — Nickolasgaspar

A strawman. I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one. Perception is not indepent of an perceiver. Impressions of the world land with a person already invested with preconceptions about how the world is, which will lead him or her to interpret data in particular ways. What I dispute is objective access to the outside world, that is access to the outside world as it really is and unclouded with our own presuppositions.

And that behavior can be conducted as well by looking at the stars and base it on the configurations of the stars. Maybe not as you like it, or as science likes it but that's up to the people themselves. — Hillary

Yes it is. And generally they value efficiency. One could try to determine enemy troop movements by looking at the entrails of caught deer, as used to be the custom. However satelite images prove to be more trutsworthy. They generally resort to that.

Science can offer a plead at most to conduct live on scientific base (and technological gadgets are very convincing!) but no more than that. — Hillary

The sciences do not make any normative claims, just descriptive ones.

It can't tell it's the way of conduct. — Hillary

Law and ethics are disciplines that try to cover that ground.

Which has brought the world on the brink of a "nuclear exchange", to put it mildly, and natural disasters. — Hillary

Most unfortunate. It is people's doing, not science. I do not see why you would mix normative an descriptive claims.

I can point you at non-prosperity as well. Every culture has prosperities. Im glad prof. Kirschemann ooat the VU gave stuff to read about Feyerabend! — Hillary

Hahah, one telling me to read Kahneman, the other read Feyerabend, nice! Every culture might prosper, but apparently many like the gadgets produced based on a scientific understanding of the world.

Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!! — Nickolasgaspar

Don't play with capitalizations and exclamation marks to make a point.

You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!! — Nickolasgaspar

Not at all, see my replies to Hillary. Of course we have empirical input, we are bodily creatures. I tried to google objective verification... did not yield much.

The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified. — Nickolasgaspar

This sentence is gibberish, objectively verified.

If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles. — Nickolasgaspar

No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds. A monkey that gets sprayed with cold water every time it touches a banana will stop touching the banana but not because it has formed an accurate picture of the world in its mind. God knows what the monkey thinks. Maybe it thinks bananas are wet.

-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

I am aware of the use of capitalization...

And on and on it goes. Can I sumarize your contribution by the imperative "Read Kahneman"? If so it is duly noted.

Sure, science has axioms, but those typically do not come from mythical lore. There is also a difference in dogma from law and from the natural science. Dogma in law is the reiterated doctrine of the authors, based on conceptual analysis. Dogma in science depends on laws of nature, perceived patterns of behaviour. When scientific dogma stops being an accurate description it will be replaced.

And how did that work out? Just take a look around you to see... — Hillary

I see a computer desk with a small notebook, thin and light. Next of me is a cup of brown liquid drawn from beans that originated somewhere in Africa or south America. I am communicating with someone possibly many miles away (or possibly my next door neighbour, since you understand Dutch and has a stint at the VU so I cannot be sure). I see a prosperity the world has not witnessed before and an abundance of what life has to offer... I know my generation will, if we are not wiped of this earth, live to become 80 years old... I know there are bad things too, but undeniably human life became a lot easier and pleasant with the scientific method.

No, of course it's not arbitrary. But why is scientific culture better than other cultures (of which many have been wiped away from the face of the world by science and western religion)? — Hillary

It is not necessarily better in any normative sense. Wiping out other cultures is a great atrocity. However now this is realized in any case in many parts of the world it is accepted as international law.

Every culture has a proven track record of obtaining results. — Hillary

Yes,, but those were generally less effective. One of my favourites, the Ottoman Empire had science and advance up to a par or better then Western Europe. However, Ottoman science stayed rooted in religious mysticism. Eventually its bureaucracy (great though it was in the 16th century) and milityary (equally great) could not keep up and were outpaced. Science based on mysticism simply did not get things done as effectively as the turn to empiricism in the 17th century did.

What I mean is that what we learn at school or universities is science. Math, physics, economy, chemistry, biology, etc. By law you have to go to school and learn about it. I don't care to learn, I was fascinated by physics and even voluntarily studied it at the VU (which you probably know). But why shouldn't, for example, astrology be learned by law? What's inherently better about science?

By law I mean that it's written in the law to go to school from young age already and learn about science. — Hillary

Of course I know the VU, been there lots of times. The reason why we teach chemmistry, physics, math etc and not astrology is cultural, but not arbitrary. It is cultural because in th Middle Ages one didd study astronomy (perhaps not astrology) but many forerunners of the scientific method were astrologers, such as John Dee. So it depends on the cultural one grows up in. It is not arbitrary though. Currently we are very interested in what works and less in written dogma. Therefore we teach the kids stuff that has a proven track record of obtaining results. things tht more accurately predic the behaviour of the natural and social world than astrology doesn. In regard to the natural world, physics an chemistry obtain more accurate results. The social world is more problematic, but also there sociology and psychology tend to offer more in terms of results than voodoo or the Kabbalah.

I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle. — Nickolasgaspar

Circularity. You cannot empirically verify the value of empirical verification... One has to have had the idea that that is a pausible way to go beforehand. We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically.

((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) — Nickolasgaspar

We cannot verify them emprically, they are a-priori truths. We can for instance not devise a test to falsify these axioms. Let's try to find a door that can be open and closed at the same time...

- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense). — Nickolasgaspar

I have nothing but respect for professor Kahneman. His book 'thinking fast and slow' was the text book from which we taught (my institution, not me) first tear students the introductory course on psychology. It is just that it seems so eminently quotable. Someone says something and drops the name Kahneman. Especially those that dabble in psychology from other disciplines. That might not include you, but just an explanation for my reaction. It is like someone on this forum citing Bertrand Russel. Nothing but respect, but it seems the first go to source or something. An yes, the capital O exacerbated the the situation ;) I am sure though you are knowledgable so nothing bad meant there.

-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol — Nickolasgaspar

We might well be in agreement. It happens often on the forum. However your 'only' seems to imply it is a secondary category, something only applicable when we think 'out of the box'. I hold that also in the box (the average everyday paradogm) we need imagination cobbling together insights from literature arguments that stand the test of logic plausibility and possiblly but by no means always, empirical data. So while we may well agree, there is a difference of nuance.

No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar

verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation.

(Defuse thinking or Fast thinking (Daniel Kahneman).
At the end of the day we will need to Objectively evaluate every thought we make so imagination and fantasy are not necessary or sufficient or credible ways for the progress of our epistemology and philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

Ahh Kahneman... Objectively with a capital O... It does not impress me much. Of course imagination and fantasy are not credible. No one will state that her hypothesis is a product of pure imagination. It also is not. Hypotheses are the product of informed imagination, the knowledge of current debate, the knowledge of the literature and knowledge of current empirical findings. However, they are organized and considered in a certain way. One cannot do that without imagination, the forward looking assessment of states of the world.

The old god is the one in power before the enlightenment. The new god is the impersonal, so-called absolute, objective god of scientific thinking. Just look at all the tasks to be completed, the problems to be "solved" in the learning books, especially the math or "exact" ones. Which is all nice, I love them! But why, for example, should astrology not be learned by law? — Hillary

What do you mean by learning astrology 'by law'? Should apply a legal perspective to astrology, or an astrological perspective to law? I really do not understand, it is not meant sarcastically or anything.

Evidence-based is the only way to progress. Fantasy is only for entertainment. — universeness

Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see... ;)

It caught my eye when reading through a short discussion about the morality of bearing a child and it threw me off because my initial reaction was to question how it could even be possible to make such an argument. — ratgambling

It is not possible to state this argument because it is impossile to value non existence.

@Hillary who is this new God you talk of and what slaves do I drive? Which system benefits from me? Why would you deny to teach math? Who is the old God?

Whether God exists... I had a lovely altercation with a student from the Christian students association just the other day. He came up to me because I was clad in black I suppose. He stated he was performing an inquiry and wanted to know what I thought about reality and if I had any questions. I had lots of questions you see... His companion pulled him away after some 30 minutes and gave me a death stare.

That seemed to be Isaac's problem, too. In his case it has to do with the notion of modelling used in neuroscience. And @Tobias is caught in a form of conceptual relativism perhaps resulting from a diet of legal mumbo. — Banno

I do not think I am a conceptual relativist. Some concepts work better than others. There might be better arguments for some distinctions than for others. I do think that the dstinction between brute facts an institutional facts is not easy to maintain. Every fact depends on some form of institutionalization to be aaccepted as such. The distinctions we accept as meaningful depends on the way we interact with the world.

And I could ask: am I ruled by some stupid rule if law allowing incasso to raise my debt by almost 1000 euro? — Hillary

Yes of course you could. The fact that a law is applied and even upheld in court, does not mean it is a good law. So by all means, campaign against the rule, mobilize citizens, make sure it appears on the political agenda. However a court of law is not a political arena. Granted, it does become more and more of a political arena, but there are severe problems associated with that. I rather ddo not see the politicization of the courts.

True, I didn't reacted to repeated pressure of the insurance company. But suppose they said, 1000 euro extra, for doing nothing (except sending a woman to court). What then? — Hillary

Then you would not have to pay. However they will not do so because they will have to give their reasons for such a verdict and these reasons have to have their base in the law (including principles of law). If they do not, because legally it cannot be defended, we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands. People would legitmately ask: are we ruled by the chosen legislator, or by the supreme court? We have a legal principle in the Netherlands arguing for judiicial restraint because the judge does not have democratic legitimacy.

And who made the law? Mainly the possessing class. Als de rechter linkser was (of linker) had ze aan mijn kant kunnen komen staat! — Hillary

I would like to ask to ask you to write in English, though I applaud your comment of Dutch. You are mistaken though. Also a left wing judge would rule against you. She is a judge not a political activist. She might agree with you in terms of content, but the role of the judge is not to be a political activist and misuse her power to force through social change. That is simply not her role in the legal system. Even if she would have found for you, the juddgment would be overturned by a higher court and with reason because it would be against the law. There are extreme cases of course and sometimes a judge has to go contra-legem, but that is very rare and only in case of overt violation of other legal principles. That is not the case here as far as I can see.

And who made the law? Mainly the possessing class. — Hillary

I am not so sure Hilary. Most people in the Netherlands, including the least well off, voted for right wing political parties with a law and order agenda. I would not be against fines that are dependent on the income of the person fined. In some countries such a system exists. However, in NL we do not have it. There is also no movement for it, no one asking for it and like I said, most people vote right...

I had to pay 580 euro. Which I didn't in time. The incasso raised the amount to 1300. I took it to the judge because I didn't agree. But, nonewithstanding my financial situation, the law is such and such. That's the way the money system works. If you don't pay in time, you have to pay almost 1000 euro extra. Dus, de rechter is niet recht maar krom. Ze is een krommer, geen rechter. — Hillary

Just to translate your last line, which actually doesn't translate well in English, but you state the judge is crooked not straight. (Using a pun on the word straight in Dutch which in dutch also means judge). Why do you think that? You did not agree with the fine, because you had a rough financial situation. The judge found for the state because the law is the way it is... I do not see something crooked there. The judiciary does not have the power to say, 'ohh, no matter what the law is, I find such and such fair and therefore the outcome is such and such!' If that was possible the juddges would de facto rule the country. They do not. The legislature does. Content wise I might be on your side, the judge might also be, but that is the point of procedure I dealt with above. If such outcomes are considered unfair, the law should be changed. The judge does not have the power to do so as she lacks democratic legitimacy. Materially the outcome might feel wrong for you, but legally the outcome does not seem wrong per se. That does not imply law is built on custom, it means law is a binding, authoritative rule.

Yes, I can taste the sweet candy you offer here, but I have experienced a lot of times that the musings of de rechter are based on custom and pre-established norms of conduct. De rechter kan behoorlijk krom zijn! Ook al zegt zuj rechter te zijn dan recht (supposing you are Dutch). — Hillary

I am Dutch... but I do not understand what you mean. You man that somehow judges judge wrongly because of custom? Every practice of course has its 'habitus' as Bourdieu would put it. I do not see so much legal wrongheadedness. Usually, if there is a judicial error it depends on faulty fact finding, but not faulty legal deliberation.

They are different because we decide the difference merits the distinction. Ipso facto there is a difference for which we might make that distinction. — Banno

For me that whole question is so odd to comprehend. Ipso facto there will be a difference between the bread you eat in the morning and that I do, even if it would so happen that we eat the same kind of bread, Yet yours will have slightly different ingredients than mine, more sugar, more grain, baked harder or what have you. Still we would say, "hey, what a coincidence, we eat the same kind of bread". The reason is we do not notice any difference, which might, ipso facto still be there. That would mean all our distinctions are not dependent on the matter in re, but on our finding some sort of importance in articulating it. Whether the bread is really really different or the same is a question of metaphysics that I think is pointless.

We make the words fit the world, and we also make the world fit the words. We know what wood is by cutting, carving, burning and talking about, wood. We know what lead is by melting, folding, feeling, and talking about lead. We cannot melt, fold, or feel wood. — Banno

Indeed, but that is the problem here no? The distinctions come to the fore in our practices. They are therefore institutionalized facts, not very different from say law. We also 'find law' by artculating it, drafting it, codifying it and applying it.

Well, I asked if modern day law is not based on habit and custom just as well. You replied it's based on case law, codyfied law, treatise, and legal principles. So law is based on codified law? Isn't that circular? — Hillary

No, because the word law in English is used in a dual connotation. It denotes the whole body of law, the legal institution, but it also denotes a certain codified piece of text, a certain law. In Dutch and German the distinction is much clearer. They make a difference between 'Gesetz' (Gr) or 'wet' (NL) and 'Recht' (NL GR), the latter denotes the legal institution, the former a particular written text with binding legal force.

Texts issued according to the proper legal procedures count as a source of law because they creates binding rights and duties an aspire to legitimacy, that is, they are meant for legal professionals and the populace to adhere to, often under threat of some penalty.

I think what you mean is whether ultimately the sources of law depend on custom and habit. I would say partly. They also depend on power. Not all law is an articulation of a prior habit. Some laws (texts) also mandate a certain behaviour to create such a habit. For instance the obligation to wear seat belts, or to drive on the right hand or left hand lane.

So the law accepts objective measures of moral, independent of human interest? — Hillary

que?