I would rather say that there is a rational discourse that might reasonably be called induction, a rational discourse that is valid because it can always be framed in deductive form. — Janus
Odd, also, that from what I understand Apo rejects the body of modern logic. But perhaps I misunderstand him, since that seems so absurd. — Banno
deflection. Again. — Banno
But your spoken truths always rely on unspoken ambiguities.
Are we talking about adult black swans or their fluffy white goslings? Are we talking about "swans" as being generically Cygnus atratus, or Cygnus olor and Cygnus cygnus? Are we talking about black swans that include albino Cygnus atratus?
So we can resolve some of these ambiguities with more careful speech. We can say that is a member of the genus Cygnus. It is black.
Yet ambiguity is in principle irreducible in speech acts. We can only hope to constrain it. Which is where pragmatism comes in as it then only make sense to put so much effort into constraining the semantics of our utterances. The truths we tell turn out to have as least as much to do with our intentions as they do with "the facts of the world". — apokrisis
well the basic logical issue in you argument is that it’s structure is that of a transcendental. Argument; that there is only one solution, pragmtism. — Banno
So even if one entertains your view of ambiguity, pragmatism is one possibility among many. — Banno
There is here a failure on your part to commit. Do you have a partner? Is your affection for them only probable? Is your respect for rationality based on certainty or just what suits your purpose? Do you have hands or are you only partially confident In hand utility? — Banno
Do you say that the condition is unknowable to the agent themselves? — Perplexed
What role do you play in determining them? — Perplexed
we just feel hunger and that informs our motivation to seek food. — charleton
What about phenomenology or process philosophy? Have they nothing at all to offer to increase our overall understanding of human life and the world in your view? I tend to think that all possible avenues of intellectual enquiry and speculation should be explored; if possible without prejudice. — Janus
True; a good philosopher is able to understand a novel philosophical approach at a gut level, and yet still step away from it so that they can criticise it. — Banno
For me the private language argument shows the limits of phenomenology, and process philosophy has not yet shown its potential. At the moment I have become more interested in exploring belief and its variations, — Banno
Belief, conviction, certainty and so on are best understood as decisions rather than the forced result of some algorithmic scientific process. — Banno
It's true that we can never have certainty that our private experiences are more or less the same, but why should they not be if we share the same culture and biology; the same public expressions? — Janus
This thread has served to reinforce my rejection of induction as a rational process, recognising the ad lib nature of scientific enquiry. Belief, conviction, certainty and so on are best understood as decisions rather than the forced result of some algorithmic scientific process. — Banno
I'd be interested to see you come clean about things like your inability to state a truth or give an accurate measurement and your rejection of logic and the concealed scientism that underpins your views. — Banno
Truth is what we believe in the long run following a process of reasoned inquiry. — apokrisis
Acts of measurement are informal and so always reflect the embeddness, the intentionality, of the person(s) seeking the answers. Accuracy is a pragmatic thing, not an absolute one. — apokrisis
I don’t reject predicate logic or deductive syntax. I place them within a more holistic view of logic that is triadic. — apokrisis
You confuse truth and belief. Yep, I've pointed that out before. You do not have a theory of truth, you have a theory of belief. — Banno
So, then, what is the height of the Eiffel tower? Is it 324 metres? When I ask you questions like this you seem to need to add some sort of explanation when a simple yes or no would suffice. Why the added complexity? — Banno
An oddly eccentric view of logic - since it has been shown here that induction and abduction are invalid. — Banno
What is semantic leakage? Will it stain?If you have a syntax closed in a way that prevents any possible semantic leakage, then sure, it is "truth preserving" in its grammar. — apokrisis
So we are agreed that you are not offering a theory of truth. — Banno
I'm not too sure what objective truth is. Are there subjective truths, to oppose them? And if so, are they amenable to the same pragmatic analysis? Or are there subjective truths but no objective truths? — Banno
You again didn't directly address the question of the height of the Eiffel Tower. Is it 324 metres, give or take a bit? — Banno
"P" is true IFF P.
That's as close as can be got, and I have said it to the point of tedium. — Banno
I don't accept that there are two types of truth - subjective and objective. — Banno
I think it best to take the notion of truth as unanalysable, as fundamental. — Banno
Let's go over validity and induction again, and let me know if we agree. — Banno
I'm increasingly drawn to externalism with regard to knowledge, belief, and other aspects of mind. Remove private mental language and it becomes evident that they are somehow things in the world. That's badly expressed, but that is the area in which I am reading at present. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.