Actually, I didn't. I was willing to entertain the debate until it came to the point where he confessed he didn't actually believe in this nonsense, and then continued to argue for it. — Garrett Travers

As long as you were ok with the tangent, that's fine. Given that, I thought @Joshs's argument was a reasonable one. I had made a similar point earlier in the thread. We can leave it at that.

Especially when all you're doing is repeating a tired and defeated defense of a pseudoscientific concept that you don't even believe in. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's been here is to derail the discussion and nothing more. — Garrett Travers

I doubt that he's trying to derail the discussion. Philosophers and sort-of-philosophers get tunnel vision. Also - it's your responsibility to keep the discussion moving in the direction indicated in the OP.

I'm only saying all this because you're fairly new and I didn't know if you knew the mighty power of the OP.

You won't address the topic of discussion — Garrett Travers

@Joshs

GT - it is reasonable for you, as the original poster, to ask other posters to keep to the subject as laid out in the original post. Moderators will generally back you up if needed.

Mathematical platonism isn’t supposed to be science. It’s metaphysics. You may not agree with this particular kind of metaphysical position, but the nature of metaphysics is that such that it stands as the ground and condition of possibility of scientific thought. Therefore it is not amenable to validation or falsification through empirical investigation, but only through philosophical argument. — Joshs

A good description of the relationship between science and metaphysics.

The trouble is that "esteem" isn't something that can be taught as part of the curriculum. On this matter, the schools are well intentioned and the conservatives are hung up.

People do not (and should not) need to be bubbling over with high self esteem all the time. — Bitter Crank

In my experience, self-esteem comes from taking responsibility for your own life and actions. There's no shortcut.

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs does all that? Maslow's aim was to demonstrate that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others. — Bitter Crank

I haven't read any Maslow since I was a psych major 50 years ago. All that anyone remembers is the pyramid, which is a cartoon. It's the kind of thing that leads to everyone getting a trophy at the soccer tournament. "Esteem." Just the sound of it sends shivers up my spine.

Shirley, you don't deny that there are higher needs for love, esteem, and self-actualization? — Bitter Crank

As you note in your post, children need to learn early that the world is something they can trust. That it can provide security. That they are welcome in the world. I think that once that's set, people have the resources they need to make their own lives what they want. And no, I'm not going to take a swing at your ham-handed set up shot.

Harry Harlow, UW-Madison, was Maslow's PhD advisor. Harlow experimented with rhesus monkeys to show that maternal warmth (or even a crude substitute) was critical for primate development. Without it, the infant monkeys failed to thrive. Human infants have similar (but more complex, extensive) requirements. — Bitter Crank

I have used this study here in the forum as an illustration of what is called "good enough parenting." You don't have to be John or Olivia Walton, just do the best you can.

It's "engineering" because humans are more alike than we are different. — Bitter Crank

I call it "engineering" because it's used as part of a standardized system used to get people to do what you want without necessarily having to know or understand them.

They have an app for that: Industrial Psychology. — Paine

Just another way for the Man to subjugate the slack-jawed troglodytes.

My main issue in life is an inability to accept my mortality. — Yvonne

Welcome to the forum.

First I want to ask how old you are. I'm 70. I've found that the older I get, the less I worry about death. Part of that is because I've pretty much done the things that needed to be done. I grew up, went to school, worked as an engineer, got married, had kids, got older, joined the forum, retired. This is the pretty much the life I had always expected for myself, with some side tracks along the way. Now, here I am. Looking back I'm pretty satisfied with my life. Probably the most important thing is that my children are grown and I know they can take care of themselves without me.

For me, it's a relief that I can put aside hopes, plans, expectations. I think a lot of older people are like that. I'm having a good time. I go to the YMCA to exercise and swim. I kick dumb philosopher ass here on the forum. I read. I go out to lunch. I'm never bored. I'm not ready to die, but the idea doesn't bother me much. I don't think I would want to live forever.

That probably won't help much, but I thought some perspective from the other end of life might help.

I left this out - It's a method for use managing personnel, employees, human resources, human capital. It's for HR managers. It's not psychology.

How accurate is the idea of a hierarchy of needs to the human condition? Is it fluff, baseless, and too folksy to be a sound theory, or is there a correlation with a hierarchy of needs to human "happiness", "eudaimonia", or otherwise? — schopenhauer1

Maslow's pyramid represents what I call human engineering. It uses rational methods to label and characterize human feelings and behavior. Another such method that comes to mind is the Myers-Briggs personality test. IQ testing probably falls into that category too. These sorts of methods wash out any human variability and treat people like standardized parts. As you can tell from what I've said, I don't like them and I think they can be misleading. Many people disagree with me.

As for the Maslow pyramid itself, sure, there's some truth in it, at least at lower levels. As you move higher it gets a bit new agey for me. Mostly, I think it's trivial. I don't think it has much use. Human reality is more complicated than that.

The pragmatical approach to knowledge doesn't see things as true or false. In order to provide an example of a falsehood, it is necessary to make a judgement about trueness. This would defeat the point the OP. — pfirefry

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true". — Harry Hindu

An example - I go to work on a property where surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations. A previous investigation collected and analyzed three samples from the effected area. I create a SCM showing the area where soil is contaminated based on that data. Looking at the distribution and the number of samples, I decide that I don't have enough data. I find historic maps and aerial photographs that show where lead was used on site. Based on that, I revise the SCM and decide that 10 additional samples should be collected. I collect and analyze the samples and then revise the SCM again.

In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. Based on additional data, I revise it. The final SCM is more accurate than the original one. The original SCM wasn't false. The new one isn't true. One is more accurate than the other.

Thanks GT and TC, that was interesting to read. — Tom Storm

[joke]Now the question is whether or not my argument was a pragmatic one.[/joke]

his IS your rational justification. — Garrett Travers

You seem to be defining "rational" differently than I do. Reason is not involved. There aren't any words. I put it into words now so we can discuss it. There even aren't any reasons for it. No objectives. Just feelings. I know right from wrong.

Is any of this important to your argument:

Questions of existence, objectivity, or subjectivity do not apply to conceptual frameworks. It doesn't make any sense to bother oneself with that line of inquiry. Observing that conceptual systems are formulated in the brain is not me claiming something is subjective and it wouldn't matter to the practice if I were. Ethics, the tool we use to determine the morality of a given action, takes place exclusively within our heads. The relevant question is by what standards do we conclude an act is either moral, or immoral. — Garrett Travers

I agree that the standards we use to determine whether an act is right or wrong is a good subject for discussion. That doesn't mean that discussion of where those standards come from is misguided.

I think maybe we've taken this discussion as far as we're going to get. From now on, I think we'll just start repeating ourselves. Good discussion.

Ethics is the practice of rationally formulating that code, — Garrett Travers

But I didn't rationally formulate it. It comes from my heart. What I know is right. I don't feel any need to rationally justify it. I like people and I don't want to hurt them.

"Yeah, the argument is contained in his book and it isn't accepted as much in the way of anything special. In fact, he makes literally the same arguments I've made on this subject here this thread, but simply jumps to the conclusion that the universe is made of math. But, hey, at least I got one guy on the roster. — Garrett Travers

The vast majority do not claim that the universe is made of math. In fact, the specifically say that the universe is composed of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta, all arrayed in patterns made possible by the laws of nature. — Garrett Travers

Do you really want to take this any further? It is not directly related to your primary point, which is about ethics, not math.

Right, my contention is: who cares if it is? What matters more is, have you developed a method by which to reliably conclude the rightness, or wrongness of a given action. It wouldn't matter if it were written in our code, generated by a human mind, or disemminated by god. — Garrett Travers

Yes, I have, but it is not like you describe here:

That being, that ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, — Garrett Travers

It's the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It's Kant's categorical imperative - Treat people as people, not as means to an end. It's putting myself in the other person's position and trying to understand how they feel, trying not to hurt them.

I'm going to start here by saying: find me one and show me his arguments. — Garrett Travers

Here's a link to an article.

https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

I haven't read it and I'm not really interested in the subject. The arguments don't really matter. I was just responding to your statement that it is self-evident that mathematics is not objective.

Numbers are symbols humans created to represnt values, and mathematics is a system that humans created to map those values onto reality. — Garrett Travers

I agree with you, but many people, scientists and mathematicians, don't.

The ethics of murder is not written into the code of reality. — Garrett Travers

This is where I get lost. You say that asking whether ethics is objective or subjective is not the right question, then here you say it is not objective. There are people, a lot of people, who believe that right and wrong is written into the code of reality. I think you've begged the question - It seems you're saying talking about whether ethics is objective or subjective is wrongheaded because it is obviously subjective.

It is my understanding that this is not true. There are scientists that claim that the universe is comprised of mathematics. Or are you making a distinction between numbers and mathematics?

no scientist claims that the universe is comprised of numbers, or that the conceptual framework known as mathematics is an objective element of universal composition. — Garrett Travers

If that were the case, then you'd be onto something. However, there is no evidence suggesting the existence of God, let alone that he told you what was good and how to enact it, let alone that he told you the truth. In other words, when we can establish that such an entity exists, then we'll cross that bridge. — Garrett Travers

You say it's not appropriate to judge whether the methodologies of ethics are objective or subjective, yet here you are stating that they aren't objective because there is not God.

Deciding what is ethical is an individual deliberation that occurs only in your mind, which would be subjective. — Garrett Travers

Now I'm confused. You previously wrote that ethics is the process by which we develop an understanding of what is right and wrong, but here you say that ethical decisions are subjective.

If I intentionally kill an innocent person with no justification, is that wrong? If it is, is it wrong objectively or subjectively. Are the standards by which we decide whether it is wrong or not objective or subjective.

I'm sure some people may debate it, but it's self-evident that numbers don't exist in reality, even if things are arranged in a mathematically consistent manner in the universe. — Garrett Travers

As @Tom Storm explained, serious physicists take the idealist view that reality may consist of mathematics. It clearly isn't "self-evident" that they're wrong.

It skips over what ethics is, which is a methdology developed by which we derive from certain values what can reasonably be regarded as either ethical, or unethical behavior. — Garrett Travers

ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, — Garrett Travers

If the Christian God exists, and if he tells me what behaviors are right and wrong, seems to me that the methodology is objectively true. For me, the basis of our judgements of right and wrong, the methodology if you will, come from the fact that we are social animals and we are emotionally and empathically connected to our fellow humans. That could be reasonably interpreted as a subjective methodology.

It's not the behavior that's objective, subjective, useful, universal, it's the way we decide what is ethical that is.

One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? — Garrett Travers

People do argue the objectivity of math. There are people who believe the ground of being, fundamental reality, is math.

Often one hears arguments regarding the objectivity of ethics, the subjectivity of ethics, the nonexistence of ethics, the divine source of ethics and so on... questions of the objectivity, subjectivity, absence of, or divine dissemination of ethics is the improper mode viewing the subject. — Garrett Travers

ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, stoic resilience, independence, liberty, and religiosity. — Garrett Travers

These statements seem contradictory to me.

Then you weren't accurate when telling me that you had already addressed the question I asked. — Harry Hindu

I don't remember writing that I had already addressed your question. Please remind me.

But not according to any method, so certainly not to the fairy tale propagated here. I'm not bound to any method. I don't mind that someone wants to gather knowledge methodologically sound, why should I? We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality.

To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe... — Cornwell1

You certainly are welcome to keep posting here, but I suggest you start your own thread. That's a serious suggestion. You'll get more people to engage with your ideas.

2+2=4 regardless of how one feels about it. — Bitter Crank

This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper called "The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage." I haven't read the article, but the abstract summarizes my understanding of emotion's role in cognitive processes.

Most theories of choice assume that decisions derive from an assessment of the future outcomes of various options and alternatives through some type of cost-benefit analyses. The influence of emotions on decision-making is largely ignored. The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. Lesions of the ventromedial (which includes the orbitofrontal) sector of the prefrontal cortex interfere with the normal processing of "somatic" or emotional signals, while sparing most basic cognitive functions. Such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life.

The question is really what sort of game is it? If its feet touch no ground anywhere, then what are the criteria in argument? You cannot tell anyone what they can, or should, or cannot or should not believe. There is inner consistency, but true believers worry not about that. And the conclusions drawn, whether supported with adequate premises, or no premises at all, notwithstanding. So players get to play. But the question why anyone should care, stands. But I am invited out, and accept, unless someone replies. — tim wood

Well, I have no authority to invite you out. But it's simple courtesy to address the question on the terms the original poster sets.

The debate, then? Pffft, who cares? Or, why should anyone care? — tim wood

Come on Tim. Go play cards with 180 Proof in his cage. Leave these nice people alone.

↪Dermot Griffin Whether "classical" or "personalist", IME, theism is not true :point: ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Yes, we know your opinion on this. You don't belong in this discussion. It's not about the existence of God. Go back in your cage and don't disrupt people who are trying to work on this.

A method is a dogma. You have introduced a method, a dogma. You might not be dogmatic about it, but it's still a dogma. The dogma of scientific method. It's no promoter of knowledge but an inhibitor. — Cornwell1

You and I see things differently.

The dogma of the scientific method — Cornwell1

And so?

Which proceeds according the SCM. An approach following a method seems pretty dogmatic to me. — Cornwell1

We see things differently.

the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action."

But that is likely to be accepted as true by many non-pragmatists. — T Clark

I don't think that's true. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what you call yourself. People who call themselves realists who subscribe to my statement have got some pragmatism in them.

Am I right in suspecting that what you are actually protesting about is the artificial distinction between theory and practice that classical philosophy has been prone to insinuating?

Of course, not only philosophers but mathematicians, scientists and engineers are prone to thinking dogmatically in holding certain propositions, models or techniques to be infallible, lending to occasional calamities such as financial crises. — sime

I'm not protesting at all. I'm presenting a philosophical position that I endorse. It's not about dogmatism, it's about how you approach questions about the nature of truth and knowledge.

different communities in different subjects get to decide their own criteria of truth. — sime

That's a very pragmatic approach, which I endorse. I never said that pragmatism is the only valid way of knowing the world.

Pragmatism can encourage the identification of truth with what is expedient to believe, in line with post-modern cultural relativism, which I'm pretty sure you don't agree with. Something far from being an ally of the enlightenment values embodied by modern engineering. — sime

I'm not sure what to say about this... Well, I will say this - I don't see engineers as allies of enlightenment at all.

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.