Forgot to mention this. There's a neat program on Netflix called "The Midnight Gospel." It's animated, but the discussion is taken from interviews with interesting people with all sorts of esoteric beliefs. Clever, entertaining, and interesting. Very free-wheeling and funny, but respectful of unusual ideas.

But yes, I never argued that across time people have not also done (and still do) good things. — Tom Storm

I know you didn't, but sometimes I just want to say to people - "Stop with the hell in a handbasket/why, when I was a boy! The world is a wonderful place. We're lucky to be here."

I just mention that Plato and Newton were interested, and that remnants of the tradition are extant in Freemasonry, Theosophy, and such ubiquitous details as the number of days in a week. — unenlightened

I do read in the esoteric traditions, including theosophy and Hermeticism, alchemy, Rosucucianism and the ancient writers. I also try to keep sceptical and critical in the spirit of philosophical enquiry. — Jack Cummins

I must admit to skepticism about esoteric philosophical approaches. It seems like most phenomena can be explained based on human psychology. It's also true that many practitioners have been charlatans. Many others have developed their ideas without any disciplined process of study. I would be interested in discussing esotericism from a historical perspective. How did it develop? How does it fit with more traditional philosophies? It seems like there is a relationship between esotericism and eastern philosophies. I'd be interested in understanding that better.

It appears like you're describing knowledge in the context of a single individual. I would add that when it comes to collective problem solving, it's important to articulate thoughts promptly and succinctly. Knowing something well means being able to effectively explain it to others. It's also important to challenge others to help them solidify their own knowledge. — pfirefry

In my work, all of the activities described are typically performed by a project team of from three to 10 people. The process is specifically planned to use collective problem solving. One of the really good things about a well developed conceptual model is that it is very useful presenting a comprehensive vision of the problem to people who are not familiar with it, often including non-technical decision makers.

"Pragmatic Excellence" is one of the engineering values at the company where I work as a software engineer. I endorse pragmatism a lot. To me, being pragmatic means making decisions despite the lack of knowledge or sometimes even against what I know. Knowledge and pragmatism can conflict. This makes me wonder if it's safe to combine the terms "pragmatic" and "epistemology" together. — pfirefry

I don't know much about software engineering and how it compares with what I did for a living. If what you are saying is that sometimes you have to make decisions based on limited and uncertain knowledge, then I agree. If you mean something different than that, then I don't understand.

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:

• 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?

It's easy to arrive at a contradiction with "pragmatic epistemology". If we all adopt a pragmatic attitude towards knowledge, then we will stop pursuing the knowledge that is far removed from our everyday lives. However, if we look back at the past, we will see that our modern everyday world is grounded in the scientific projects that didn't offer any practical value at the time they were carried out. — pfirefry

I don't see how that is a contradiction of anything, but I do think it is a valid criticism. I addressed it in a fairly half-assed way in a previous post. I said that curiosity is a pragmatic drive that leads us to try to gain a wider understanding of the world so we can address changing conditions. That's true, but weak. Here's the important point for me - even when scientists and others are studying phenomena with no known practical use, they still use methods similar to those I've described. The goal of any research is to develop conceptual models of the conditions being studied. Quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, and relativity are all conceptual models.

Strikes me as simply good method. What is it that makes it specifically pragmatic? — Banno

I like this definition of "pragmatism," which is from Wikipedia:

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.

My example shows one way that knowledge can be used for "prediction, problem solving, and action." The most important issue here for me is the different definitions of "knowledge" required for the two approaches. When we talk about knowledge here on the forum, we usually talk about truth, with truth defined as something that applies to propositions, statements. The famous, maybe infamous, example of that is justified true belief. Again from Wikipedia:

The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

• P is true
• S believes that P is true, and
• S is justified in believing that P is true.
  

I've always found this view of knowledge unsatisfactory. It's misleading and doesn't reflect how people really use knowledge. The fact that the definition can be undermined by something as silly as the Gettier problems shows me how weak it is.

As I stated previously, the definition of knowledge I prefer is information incorporated into a conceptual model that reflects the phenomena of interest. I think you could argue that this is similar to a coherence theory of truth. I have no problem with that. The important difference is that a pragmatic theory of knowledge always focuses on the use knowledge will be put.

To summarize, again - Philosophers mostly talk about knowledge as a proposition that can be true or false. In a pragmatic view, knowledge is a conceptual model that can be accurate or less accurate.

It's not hard to understand - many artists do mainstream, compromised work for the money and exposure. This often annoys and frustrates because anything they might want to do with a richer imaginative vision is simply a risk and unlikely to sell. Audiences are frustrating and this often breeds contempt for the stuff which sells. — Tom Storm

And yet the world is full of wonderful, beautiful music, visual art, poetry, literature, architecture....

What did you engineer? — Raymond

My degree is in civil engineering. I worked for environmental engineering companies investigating and cleaning up contaminated properties.

So what you are describing in the method you set out presupposes that we already know stuff.

I assume the process is iterative? — Banno

At a contaminated site, we generally know stuff before we really start a formal investigation. We observe the site, look at historic maps and aerial photographs, and talk to people living or working at the site. We check government databases to see if there have been any reports of environmental issues on the property or nearby ones. That limited information can be used to prepare a preliminary SCM which gives us enough to get started in planning additional investigation activities.

So, yes, it is an iterative process.

I'm not sure that we do disagree. You presumably agree that modelling assumptions , which are ultimately causal or logical, aren't empirically verifiable, and that on the other hand, unless modelling assumptions are made, to speak of learning from data is meaningless. — sime

I'm not sure if I understand. A site conceptual model is just a description, image of the site which lays out all the information gathered during the investigations. To me, the most useful way of presenting a SCM is visually, using figures. Data tables are also needed. There will also be calculations e.g. groundwater flow direction and velocity, contaminant degradation rates, averages. On the figures, you can show the locations of the sources of the contamination and how it has moved and is presently distributed across the site. You can also show the expected distribution of contamination in the future based on groundwater and fate and transport modelling. You can also show the locations of existing and potential human and environmental receptors.

There are certainly assumptions that go into calculations and computer based modelling. Is that what you are talking about? There are also assumptions required by the fact that most of what is going on takes place underground and the number of data points we can provide is limited. Typical data points include boring logs; analytical results of soil, groundwater, and sediment samples; visual observation of site conditions; topographic and bathymetric surveys; geophysical surveys; and wetland surveys. Going deeper, there are assumptions associated with laboratory analytical methods. Which in particular are you talking about?

I am under the impression that epistemological pragmatism is being defined here in terms of the practicality of the problem pursued, rather than in terms of the method of inquiry — sime

The distinction that's important to me here is the one between one way of seeing knowledge and another. Typically, knowledge is defined based on the truth value of a proposition. Except in relatively simple situations, that type of knowledge isn't adequate to deal with practical problems. For that, information has to be incorporated into a comprehensive summary, what I called a site conceptual model. As I noted, SCMs aren't true or false, they are accurate or not.

which at every step hangs upon intuition regarding non-verifiable assumptions of causality. — sime

Please explain.

Ah I see. Sorry. Do you have a reference for a Site Conceptual Model? — fdrake

Here's a link to where you can see a copy of U.S.EPA's "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA." CERCLA is the law that created the Superfund program. This really is the source for all the work we did doing site cleanup. I always thought EPA did a good job with this guidance. States and other agencies often wrote their own guidances, but this provided the model for much of that. EPA called it Conceptual Site Model. I don't know why we always called it Site Conceptual Model.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/10001VGY.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986+Thru+1990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C86thru90%5CTxt%5C00000003%5C10001VGY.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL#

I don't think my list starts far back enough to be a general guideline. Most questions aren't even precise enough to get numbers associated with them! — fdrake

I didn't mean to imply the processes you and I described were the same. I was using it to show that the way I was presenting things was not limited to just one kind of knowledge.

And there seem lots of ways that philosophy is not transcribable as any kind of engineering. But that imo in no way disqualifies an engineering approach to philosophic matters. Expectations of utility have to be modified, to be sure. But salient is the command to think, think through, test and analyze, evaluate (& etc.), rinse and repeat until done. — tim wood

Engineering is nothing special. It's mostly just figuring stuff out and then deciding what to do. I'm using it here as a stand-in for all the regular stuff all people do every day. People need to know things in order to make decisions about what needs to be done. It bothers me that all the philosophical talk about knowledge and truth never gets around to the reason we need knowledge in the first place. We need it because we need to know things in order to do things. The knowledge we talk about here on the forum has very little to do with the knowledge I use, all of us use, on a day to day basis.

What this needs, imo, is the addition of the word "possible." Possible implications, world, experiences, people. Nor even impossible ruled out, but perhaps qualified in some way. And primary value but not exclusive value. And thus such philosophy instead of being not useful - which of course in a sense it isn't - is instead denominated not especially useful at this time. — tim wood

If what you're getting at is that the knowledge we gather that seems useless may have a use we don't know of yet, I agree. Curiosity is a very pragmatic drive. It helps us build an understanding of the world beyond our current needs. That context helps make what we know more robust and provides additional information for when conditions change.

One cannot justify the usefulness of a model of data without first making ontological commitments. The concept of usefulness only comes after committing to some notion of truth, that cannot be pragmatically determined on pain of circularity. — sime

I think it's clear from what I've written that I don't agree.

A lot of the above discussion came from another discussion I participated in about four years ago. In that discussion, fdrake responded with a post I thought was interesting. Different from my way of looking at things, but with characteristics in common. I hope you don't mind me reposting this here, fdrake:

Can describe the steps in doing a standard statistical analysis (hypothesis test on model parameters) of some data in a similar way:

(1) Describe data collection method and problem data is being used to study.
(2) Identify derivable statistics for problem and their distributions.
(3) Aggregate derived statistics into a statistical model appropriate for research question.
(4) Model fitting - instabilities? weirdness? go to (1) .
(5) Model checking - violated assumptions? go to (1)
(6) Fit checking - what purpose is the model to be given?
(7) Impact assessment - what does the model mean for the problem at hand?
(8) Interpretive conclusions? Ambiguities? Quantificational results? Improvements for further study?
(9) Return to (2) until all avoidable violations and weirdness have been removed or accounted for and fit is adequate. — fdrake

If you want to actually pay respect to artists and their descendants - pay them enough in advance when they live! You are so willing to invest in so many s**ts and you don't want a single cent of deficit from an artist? Most corrupted bs I ever know. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Here's a link to a circular from the U.S. Copyright Office describing the rules for copyright protection.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

It can be a bit complicated, but in general, copyright protection lasts for about 100 years. Is that reasonable? Well, when I die, my family gets to keep and use my assets. That's one of the reasons I've saved, so that there will be money for them after I die. Seems like artists should have the same ability. Is 100 years right? I don't know.

I think your; and I guess Robert Noonan's; understanding of history, society, and politics; is very naive and very inaccurate. It's a myth made up to promote a simplistic political cartoon. That doesn't mean things aren't unfair, just that that's not how it happened.

I'm saying “replicates <…> brain” because the fundamental mathematical model was influenced by how brain neurons work (each neuron receives multiple inputs and then emits own signal). — pfirefry

I don't doubt that the way the brain works has similarities to neural networks constructed by humans. I was questioning the specificity of your comment:

Personally, I think that this technology replicates the 'mindless' parts of the human brain. — pfirefry

Seems to me; and no, I don't have evidence; that it would model the whole brain. I can't tell if you say "mindless" because you want to leave a door open for consciousness to be something else.

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs. — jgill

Density of conceptual content is inversely proportional to required message length. Fine distinctions with caveats, more words. — fdrake

[joke] Even your two takes on the subject are just long, convoluted ways of saying tl;dr. [/joke]

The problem I see with all of it, old fogey that I am, is that it becomes impossible to distinguish image from reality. Reality is, apart from anything else, painful. It is bloody, it is treacherous, it changes continually, and the pain that accompanies it is real. Whereas in the VR and AI worlds, there is no possibility of real pain, only simulation, and the difference is fundamental, but apparently not discernable to a great many people. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure if this is the same thing you are talking about.

We've been talking in recent weeks about art in different threads. One thing that struck me is that a lot of art is expressed within tight constraints of the rules and technical difficulties of the discipline and tradition. Working within those constraints requires subtlety and awareness. It provides a frame and structure. Seems like something similar probably takes place in life in general. Life without constraints is something other than human, for better or worse. I'm retired and I know I have to be aware of the attractiveness of sitting around doing nothing but reading and participating in intellectual video games like the forum.

Personally, I think that this technology replicates the 'mindless' parts of the human brain. — pfirefry

Evidence?

Are most people not very philosophical in their thinking and talking? I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

Your post is a little unclear. Are you talking about members of the forum or the general public? If you're talking about the general public, I've almost never had any trouble getting into a conversation with just about anyone about serious issues relating to values and world views. Just look for common values and experience and show respect and interest for their views. Not hard. Oh, yes, and stay away from politics.

Good post.

Why should it be given? They should just take it. — Raymond

Yes...well...why didn't I think of that?

So you are on the side that owning the means of production is the only way to get this equality.. rather than being independent aspects of leftist goals. — schopenhauer1

I haven't provided any idea of how to give people the power they need to ensure a decent life. That's because....well, I don't know how it should be done.

For example, for a piano concerto, I would pick a seat in the front row right before the piano, so that I could focus on the piano best. Or I would collect and compare different interpretations of the same piece, and I would get a thrill out of watching out for how each interpretation handled a particular passage. — baker

I've never put much effort into art, even fiction, which is where I've spent my time. Now, I find myself working to deepen my experience in a way that sounds similar to how you talk about music here. So, I envy you your experience. I think that's why I've enjoyed the recent discussions of art so much.

I also put in a vote for Kindle and other electronic reading apps. While I'm reading, I can immediately find out the meaning of words I don't know, track down historic references, see examples of works of art, and using Google Earth to get a better idea of relevant geography.

Men are as vital to (pro)creation as women — Agent Smith

Men provide genetic material. Women provide that, plus nine months use of their bodies as a place to grow. One man is all that's needed, but you need one woman per child.

Also, unlikely that the holy spirit is into men.

Ok cool. So needs met is more important than power differentials (only a few owners own the means of production)? — schopenhauer1

The problem is that without power, people won't get what they need or, if they do, it can be taken away.

I appreciate the feedback, and did not mean to come across that way. I will be more careful of attitude going forward. — Philosophim

As I noted, it was a good post.

Frankly it seems to me this pride is a complete fabrication by the gun manufacturing lobby for two treason.

First, the fact that individuals even need lethal self defense at all is really an appalling comment on the quality of our police. Other nations do perfectly well without it. — ernest

I think you're wrong about the kind of attitudes we're talking about being a result of political action and public relations. The attitudes have always been there. The NRA and others just use it as a lever. I also don't think the gun problem of the quality of policing. I'm not sure it's a problem policing can fix.

Second, it seems an enormously displacement of conventional ethics to be proud of the ability to kill. I can't really find any philosophical basis for it at all.

So it seems to me, if people instead thought it to be something that reflects their own inadequacy, to need lethal rather than nonlethal self defense, then it would be an enormous improvement. — ernest

Telling gun rights supporters that you see them as people who are using guns to deal with their inadequacies is not a winning strategy. They already know what a lot of Americans think of them. You're not giving them any reason to find a middle way.

But it would be helpful if the general public regarded shooting other people more as a sad last resort, that we all would rather avoid, than to trumpet it in parades while shooting off rounds of bullets and waving the flag. — ernest

I think more people would think and act the way you'd like them to if they didn't think that any sign of conciliation was an opening for gun control activists to make inroads.

Would that I could be more nuanced to say it, but frankly, it just looks completely insane to someone raised in Great Britain. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying it, but sorry, that's how it looks. — ernest

Most Americans don't care how it looks to people in Europe, on our domestic issues in particular. Maybe we should, but we don't.

I call it as I see it. — Agent Smith

So, calling it as you see it excuses you from having to justify opinions that are ignorant and disrespectful.

Women, they were once, how shall I put it?, support staff. — Agent Smith

If I were a woman, I think your dismissive statement about women's role in religion would bother me. Hey, wait a minute... I'm not a woman and it bothers me. Your comment is, how should I put it? ignorant.

Sarcasm? — Agent Smith

Well, Mary was meant to be... I guess ironic, but the other two were serious.

What if everyone were magically making enough income to be middle class.. all retail workers, factory workers, construction workers, agricultural workers, etc.. Everyone was making a decent enough salary to live in a house, buy some entertainment goods, a car, had all their daily living met.. — schopenhauer1

I don't care if you call it "middle class," or something else. No society can call itself good if it doesn't provide access to a decent way of life to everyone. A decent way of life includes enough to eat; a safe and clean place to live; health care; a decent, humane job; education; the opportunity to have and raise children; and basic human freedoms. If that's what you're talking about then, yes, that would satisfy me.

This is a touchy subject because it has reference to sexist ideology. But I'm trying to present a problem that, perhaps, could shed light on the difference between a masculine morality and feminine morality. — L'éléphant

I haven't seen any response to @Possibility's comment about the source of your information. I am skeptical of the characterizations you have made. I'm even more skeptical about the rationales you have provided for the differences between men a women. Since you say you know this thread deals with a touch subject, it's hard to accept you making claims with no justification.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and, of course, the Virgin Mary.

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. — god must be atheist

You're assuming you haven't heard from any women.

This is a really good post. As I noted for Tim Wood's post above, it is reasonable, nuanced, and well-expressed. One objection - I think I did note a bit of the lack of respect for gun rights supporters that is the source of a lot of the political problems with this issue.

I think your post is very reasonable, nuanced, and well-expressed. I agree with what you've written.

Although I disagree with some of your post, I thought much of it was reasonable and nuanced. I appreciate that.

I generally support the position that what are called "gun rights," as described in the Second Amendment applied to private individuals are in fact protected by the U.S. Constitution. I have three primary reasons for this.

First, in historical context, the goals of the Second Amendment can and will not be achieved unless reasonable access to firearms is provided to private individuals. Those goals are clearly expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

"...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." means very little without that protection.

Second, like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in the manner.

Third, as you note "Public opinions have are suffering from bipolar disorder, either demanding guns be banned entirely or that all gun-control laws are a violation of constitutional rights." The controversy about this issue is incredibly politically divisive in a way I think may be more damaging to the country than gun violence itself. I'm a liberal Democrat. I think my party's rigid position on this issue makes consensus on other important, traditionally Democratic, issues; i.e. climate change and other environment, voting rights, health care, support for the working class, etc.; much more difficult. Support for onerous restrictions on gun rights also make it less likely that more limited controls will find enough support to be politically feasible.

For the record, I am, as I wrote, a liberal Democrat. I don't own guns, but did when I was younger, including a rifle and a shotgun. I come from a hunting family and I hunted myself. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use, as do many Americans who identify themselves as conservatives and who strongly support gun rights.

Here are some specific comments on your post.

An Ethical view of 2nd amendment rights — ernest

I think this title is misleading. Your post isn't really about gun rights or the Second Amendment, it's about killing for self-defense. Conflating those two issues increases the controversy unnecessarily. The Constitution says nothing about policies that allow that. I was pleased you recognized that access to and ownership of guns will continue and that the court ruling allows reasonable restrictions.

The post is also not really about ethics. It seems to be more about support gun control as a public health issue.

it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

I'm 70 years old and reasonably heathy, although I have some of the usual infirmities of my age group. What methods of self-defense which are not potentially lethal are available to me? Of course I'll lock my doors and call the police. In some areas that's a very weak defense.

a campaign to change the attitude to the right might be the best action. This is because I observe the highly deceptive marketing for John Lott's 'more guns less crime' has taken over. — ernest

It's an appalling state of affairs and Im not even sure even a few million dollars on promoting a more cogent view would really make much difference. — ernest

Campaigns to change attitudes have been used, with little in the way of political success. A lot of the reason for this is the contempt supporters of gun control show for gun rights supporters.

"A few million dollars" would be a completely inadequate amount.

I now have the trilogy on my kindle. — Amity

I loved "Titus Groan" but have been afraid to read "Gorhemgest." Yes, I know that's ridiculous. I started it once, but was daunted even though I knew what to expect. Maybe now I'll be inspired. You have me thinking about listening to it instead, although I usually would rather read.

Agree that the creative aspect of philosophy could be explored more. Encouraging to see an increase in interest. T — Amity

I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed it. I haven't paid attention to aesthetics as a serious philosophical subject before, but, if, as I believe, philosophy is about increasing self-awareness, understanding why we think things are beautiful is central to what makes us human.