The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. — DingoJones
The standards of reason arbitrate. — DingoJones
“I like cauliflower” is not an opinion, it is a persuasion, grounded in feelings, and cannot be false. — Mww
To the “mile” example, if someone or some persons invent the mile, then thats what it is. If someone else comes along and says “no, a mile is ten feet” then they are full of shit. — DingoJones
So the standard isn't established by any consensus. What's it established by?
(Note that I'm not arguing pro consensuses or anything like that. The aim here is to get folks to think more about just what they're claiming re how this stuff works.) — Terrapin Station
Well true, it is a claim anyone can make. Like being reasonable. There is a fact of the matter of whether or not its actually true in both cases.
You asked me “what now” at the end of your case example. The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. That doesnt require an address of where the standard comes from, not in the case of reason, because reason is our most basic function of making sense of things. If you do not accept it, if logical fallicies seem fine to you for example, then no sensible or worthwhile discussion can be had. Conversation over. (“You” is intended in a general sense here, not “you” as in Terrapin). — DingoJones
What you're doing isn't very clever, in my opinion. It's just like a child who keeps asking why. The standard is just the standard. If you act in accordance with it, then you're reasonable, and if you act in violation if it, then you're unreasonable. That's it. — S
lol at the idea that it has to remain a mystery and it's somehow off-limits to investigate it. — Terrapin Station
No, it's not that, it's a fundamental disagreement about appropriate lines of enquiry. I'm a foundationalist, and as such, I think that some lines of enquiry are misguided. This is one such case. — S
So you don't think that if there's a standard, it has to be something, it has to have become the standard through some particular means, etc.? It's just unanalyzably present? — Terrapin Station
I think they learn by observing that's how everything works. I think that's the basis of it. It's fundamental to reality and is observable. — DingoJones
I'll offer you an observation. You seem to require a formalism that others are not nearly as married to and it's a constant source of exasperation for you. It exhibits itself in your demands for proper grammar and spelling down to a wish that everyone be educated in every logical fallacy so that discussion can proceed in a certain orderly and predictable way. — Hanover
I'd submit that a good part of philosophical debate consists of making the many errors you point out and in debating the significance of those errors to the overall discussion, as opposed to making them the focus of the debate. — Hanover
I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light. — Hanover
Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. — S
The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. — S
Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form. — Hanover
While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there? — Hanover
As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." — Hanover
Is that to say there is nothing extra-mental to speak of? — Mww
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.