SCM is a fairy tale. — Cornwell1

No. The SCM is a procedure. A method.

This philosophy is a realism about a metaphysical universe guiding and pulling through our observations and actions. We get to know this reality bit by bit, and it gets modified every time we investigate. We converge on reality by recursive relation (last chapters of your fairy tale, as you, unwillingly, admitted it to be). It's naive realism. An exciting fairy tale! — Cornwell1

You've clearly put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate it. All in all, it's not a bad summary of the process, with forgiveness granted for the erotic imagery. Most sites I've worked on are much more complex than this. This would probably be handled as an emergency response rather than a remediation.

In this case, the first step would probably be to just go out and dig the stuff up, put it in a drum or dumpster, and then collect samples of the excavated material and the soil remaining in the hole for lab analysis. The contaminant is unlikely to have migrated far in the short time since the stain was found. Then we would decide if we needed more information to close things out. In a larger site there would be another step between SCM development and cleanup - design.

As for realism vs. pragmatism - I think I could argue about the differences between the two approaches, but I don't think it would get us anywhere. You can be both a pragmatist and a realist. All at once or sequentially. They are not mutually exclusive. They are both tools to solve problems. Which is a very pragmatic approach to philosophical differences.

How does that answer my question? Seems to me that your level of conviction woukd indicate that you'd be able to easily come up with an example instead of becoming defensive. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't being defensive, I was being dismissive.

As if we could know anything at all without information-acquiring behavior first. — Bitter Crank

I can use valid data to generate knowledge even if the data was not collected in a pragmatic way.

The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. — Bitter Crank

People who have had the portions of their brain strongly involved in emotion damaged sometimes have trouble making decisions, even very simple ones. My point is, emotion is not an adjunct to thinking, it is a fundamental part of it.

the pleasure we experience in figuring out how the gadget works, or how the squirrel builds its nest, or how a chemical reaction takes place, is colored by pleasure--positive experience is attached to the fact. — Bitter Crank

As I sometimes say, I am a recreational thinker. Just the act of using my mind is a pleasure.

Maybe not, but my guess is that you agree with my take on emotion. We want to direct our lives by relying on reliable knowledge, clear perception, logical thinking, and settled emotions. In order to achieve this happy result, we have to take the volatile aspects of our brains into account. — Bitter Crank

I'm a big fan of emotion, but I guess you know that. We can't think or make decisions without emotions. It is an inextricable part of how we think. As I've said quite a few times, this thread is not about behavior, it's about knowledge. How we know things.

but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. — pfirefry

This is a pretty good summary of what I think this thread is about. People work in different disciplines with different problems and different language, but we all need to use and manage knowledge.

↪universeness To be fair, the original comment was even more more arrogant than T Clark's response. — pfirefry

Yes. And that's why I slapped him down. Should I have? Of course not. Would I do it again.... Maybe. By which I mean yes.

Perhaps you can just decide to improve your level of politeness when debating others. — universeness

@cornwell1 was a snotty little twerp and I slapped him down.

In one stream, you posit that pragmatic epistemology is not just a valid strategy for dealing with the experience of living a human life. You are suggesting, it seems to me, that it is the best strategy for living a good human life, as an individual, and it is also the best method of assisting other humans in their lives. I disagree and I propose that mere pragmatism is an insufficient epistemology to achieve such goals. — universeness

No. It's the path I've taken. I find it's useful. I present it here. Pragmatism is a metaphysical position. It's not true or false, it's just more or less useful in a particular situation. Which is a very pragmatic definition of metaphysics. You disagree? I have no problem with that.

As for pragmatic epistemology being a strategy, it's not, at least not as I've laid it out here. It's a philosophy, a way of seeing reality, the whole shebang. Ontology, epistemology, yadda yadda yadda. It has all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy.

I wish to ask why a state cannot operate two sets of laws in order to cater for significant minorities eg India has a Muslim minority of around 14% (it is the largest group of Muslims found within the boundaries of a nation state where Muslims are not a majority). Why could India not run two legal codes, Hindu/Secular and Shariah, with individuals being registered at birth for one or the other based on parental affiliation. — usefulidiot

I have heard of programs run by mosques in the US where civil disputes can be addressed following Muslim religious law. Both sides have to agree to handle things that way, just like they would with any other arbitrator.

Yes, I know that's not exactly what you are talking about, but I thought you might be interested.

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact? — Cornwell1

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics. Try "An Essay on Metaphysics" by RG Collingwood.

'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. — universeness

This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
— universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?
— T Clark

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase? — universeness

It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it.

As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings.
— T Clark

Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion? — Cornwell1

It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact.

Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.

You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning? — Cornwell1

I'll let @universeness respond to my post and see where we go from there.

Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. — universeness

William James, pragmatism, and I don't care which mechanism is used to obtain the information.

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase? — universeness

I don't know what this means.

what do you mean by useful? — karl stone

Here's what I wrote in the OP.

As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. — T Clark

As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism — karl stone

I said this in an earlier post in this thread:

One thing I haven't discussed is how the information we incorporate into the conceptual model is evaluated, justified. Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:
— T Clark

• Does the information we have provide adequate support?
• Can we identify and document the source of that information?
• What are the uncertainties in our knowledge?
• What are the consequences of us being wrong?

I would ask these questions about whatever information I am using. The relevant ones here are the last two. How uncertain am I of the information I am using? What happens if I'm wrong. Those considerations would determine whether any assumption is reasonable or not.

Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel. — universeness

Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge? — universeness

Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters.

doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? — karl stone

Here is a description of William James' definition of truth from an article I found on his book "Pragmatism.

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”

So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism.

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right. — baker

I want to step in here to defend @Tom Storm. He is not a bully.

Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful? — Harry Hindu

I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read?

You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel. — universeness

I never said that.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved. — universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?

'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'

Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.

You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in. — universeness

I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism?

I don't disagree with everything said in this thread, but I feel that I start losing the track of what it means to be pragmatic vs not pragmatic. Could you give some examples of non-pragmatic behaviors or philosophies? It seems like it's the human nature to act pragmatically. Even the people who subscribe to seemingly nonsense philosophies have their reason to do so, and such people act pragmatically in their own ways. — pfirefry

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." I gave what I consider a good example of such an approach in the OP. Several other people have provided additional examples.

In opposition to that, I described the justified true belief approach to knowledge, which focuses on the truth of individual propositions rather than development of conceptual models.

My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority... I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority — universeness

I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences.

Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit! — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences.

When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology — Tom Storm

I've never understood - How can you turn something as simple as my own experience of the world into something so complicated and convoluted. Whenever I start to read something about phenomenology I say "No! No! How does it feel?"

For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky

There's a pretty good chance you're going to be banned just based on what you've written so far. I suggest you PM a moderator if you want to clarify what you're saying before they do.

Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are? — universeness

It's not unpragmatic, insensible, or illogical, but I don't know if being more self-aware makes it more likely you will be pragmatic.

I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on. — universeness

Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism.

Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic. I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over — universeness

Reacting to a highly emotional fight or flight response without thinking is understandable, but it's not likely to lead to the best outcome. That's the pragmatic standard.

Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave? — universeness

Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about.

It was hatred that was the motor behind one of the most effective decision making in history: "Der Endlösung" at the Wannsee Konferenz. — HKpinsky

I've flagged your post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision."

I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness? — Tom Storm

Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that?

Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. — universeness

In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses, depending on the specific situation? Pragmatically, if the guy is 350 pounds and has a knife, I run. If I can't get away, I fight. I think strong emotion is more likely to lead you to making the wrong decision about what to do than clear thinking.

Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making.

I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight. — Tom Storm

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one?

I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism. — Tom Storm

If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. As this thread shows, I also claim to be a pragmatist. I'd like to say the more self-aware you are, the more likely you are to be a pragmatist, but that's just my vanity speaking. I'm not sure they're related.

If one was to prove the existence of good wouldn't all other incentives need to be removed? We always seem to have many drives for practicality. We don't like over simplicity. But wouldn't we need to bare it if we are to truely be good without self or group serving incentives for evolutionary reasons? — TiredThinker

I don't understand. The reasons I gave were personal, emotional reasons, although I think they are based in human nature. They have nothing to do with trying to be good. Or looking good.

I was trying to respond to comments on my post, but it has been removed. Do you know why it was removed? — Ree Zen

Suggest you contact one or two of the moderators in a private message. There's a list of moderators under "Members" at the top of the page. Pick a couple who are currently online. Also, sometimes they incorporate threads into other existing ones if the subjects are similar.

Moderators are usually not very considerate about letting people know why their stuff has been removed. Pisses me off too.

Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything. — Ciceronianus

You make it hard to respond, since I agree with everything you say. Philosophy's fascination with Decartes and doubt are one of the things that set me off. I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. — Ciceronianus

It always does.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say). — Ciceronianus

Yes, "It doesn't make any difference" is my favorite philosophical proposition.

I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. — universeness

Sure, but to me, much of what calls itself epistemology is not useful at all. Exhibit A - justified true belief. Exhibit B - the Gettier problems.

I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. — universeness

I try to hedge my bets on that. As you can see in the opening post, I said "I call myself a pragmatist." I don't like labels, but I don't want to look like I'm afraid to take the rap.

but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments. — universeness

I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day. — universeness

I'm not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, and I'm not really sure what he was trying to say. A death camp guard loving their work seems like a really bad example. Pragmatists can be horrified and terrified. It's not how they feel that's different, it's what they think you should do about it.

Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. — Tom Storm

Engineers tend to be pragmatists, both because it's required for the job and because engineering tends to attract people with a predisposition. That being said, I don't think pragmatism's reach is in any way limited to such technical issues. I used an engineering example because it is something concrete I am very familiar with.

I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined... I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why? — Tom Storm

As you know, I have a strong interest in Taoism, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about the ineffable. I don't see that, or any other presupposition, as being in conflict with a pragmatic way of seeing things.

World view vs. philosophy? I'm not sure I know the difference. I think pragmatism is as much a full-fledged philosophy as anything thought up by Kant, Plato, or any of those other old guys. I admit, when you get into some of the more esoteric subjects, the pragmatic response might be "who cares?" But it's a very philosophical "who cares." If a pragmatic way of thinking tends to avoid "deep dives," maybe that says something about the value of diving that deep.

What is the irony in mentioning Mary? — Bitter Crank

As you say:

In a way, I'm not sure one can say Jesus was the founder of Christianity, let alone his mother....If we are looking for a founder, Paul comes much closer. — Bitter Crank

My answer was ironic because Mary didn't found the Christian church in the same way Paul, Mohammad, or Mary Baker Eddy did theirs. All she did was give birth to God.

To impress those we like that they may stay in our lives? — TiredThinker

I didn't say there were no other reasons to help people, only that we don't need any more.

But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? Is morality driven by punishment? Any exception if that were largely true? — TiredThinker

We like each other. We care about each other. We have empathy for each other. We live with each other. What more reasons do we need to help people?

But the point remains that we interpret Eastern thought through a Western lens, i.e. your description of Taoism as "meat and potatoes philosophy". — Noble Dust

Don't make me come down to NY and lay some Tao upside your head.

Welfare isn’t a one-to-one ratio with socialism, but I agree. — NOS4A2

Well...yes.... I was being ironic.