all the good stuff has already been thought of. — RogueAI
I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives. — RogueAI
all the foundational level work has been done — RogueAI
all the foundational level work has been done. — RogueAI
That is not true!
For example, defining knowledge as a justified true belief is clearly unsustainable.
Edmund Gettier famously breached the stalemate in 1963 with his counterexample cases. The entanglement phenomenon also decisively breaches the classical JTB definition. The problem is now completely up in the air, even on the empirical side of things.
Furthermore, only empirical knowledge could possibly ever be correspondence-theory "true" and therefore JTB knowledge. Axiomatic fields such as mathematics, which are never correspondence-theory "true", are not knowledge in that approach. So, what are they then?
I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives. — RogueAI
the least said, the soonest mended.
People generally know more about the Kardashians than a single philosopher living or dead. Are you sure you want to pin importance on what the average Joe thinks is interesting? — Artemis
What is important is if philosophy is meaningful to people. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are meaningful to a lot of people. We still quote them, thousands of years later. Gettier isn't. It doesn't matter except to a small group of people if knowledge is a true belief or justified true belief. It doesn't make a difference in their lives and it doesn't cause them to wonder about things. — RogueAI
For example, defining knowledge as a justified true belief is clearly unsustainable.
Edmund Gettier famously breached the stalemate in 1963 with his counterexample cases. The entanglement phenomenon also decisively breaches the classical JTB definition. The problem is now completely up in the air, even on the empirical side of things. — alcontali
25 years ago, I was prepared to go into philosophy graduate school. A philo of science professor talked me out of it. His argument was essentially: all the good stuff has already been thought of. You'll spend your days writing papers on meaningless trivialities until you get tenure.
I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives. — RogueAI
The contempt philosophy shows for average Joes is one if the reasons it is irrelevant. — T Clark
What in God's name difference does it make if JTB or TB is true? Who has ever cared about that other than a few people with too much time on their hands? Who cares how we define knowledge? This is probably what the professor in the OP was talking about - this is the kind of crap philosophers are forced to waste their time on. — T Clark
I keep getting irate remarks from fishfry in another thread because I refuse to read up on the nitty-gritty details of the cutting-edge research on the Continuum Hypothesis (in math). He seems to insinuate that my point of view -- I have to draw the line somwhere, don't I? -- is pure evil. — alcontali
I corrected some of your errors and you started making wild extrapolations of things you didn't understand. — fishfry
I will read up on the details when he does finally finish his work. — alcontali
Ok. happy now? — alcontali
LOL. One (you, me, anyone) would need a Ph.D. in set theory and several years of specialized postdoc work just to read what he's done so far. You keep making this laughable claim that you'll deign to read his work when he's done. You're embarrassing yourself. — fishfry
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.