I simply look at the type of people who are believing it. If they happen to be critical, it is a well constructed lie ( a little lie ). If they happen to be simple minded, it is a big lie.

"Dear, they do it with smoke and mirrors."

:lol: :lol: :grin:

Seems to me that the entire field of philosophy of mind is in dire need of a paradigm shift. Does that make me guilty of having less than worthy or admirable critical thinking skills?

Can Hempel help out here? Is there such a thing as philosophy/theory of mind that can meet Hempel's criteria of adequacy?

Yes. The only way the shift will take place is that we abandon philosophy. If no one asks a question, there won't be any answers to find. Everything will be neat and tidy.

Yes. The only way the shift will take place is that we abandon philosophy — Wittgenstein

Are you agreeing that we are in dire need of an acceptable theory of mind(thought and belief on my view)?

Are you also claiming that logical empiricism has the only acceptable criterion for what counts as an adequate theory/explanation of human thought and belief(mind)?

That's seems quite odd to me at first blush. Are all notions of mind incapable of meeting Hempel's criteria?

I'm just happening upon Hempel... so...

An acceptable theory of mind is beyond the scope the philosophy and even science in my opinion. Logical empiricism has it's own faults too.

Are you suggesting fait accompli? As if it is impossible to acquire?

:worry:

I hope my toxic defeatist attitude leaves your beautiful creative soul alone and alive.

No worries. Curious to see it argued for though.

Please also be careful you read the passages in the book that are about critical thinking, not about merely critical rationalism. I wish you to avoid building an argument on a strawman. — god must be atheist

Indeed, I am paying more attention to the focus applied to the critical component since joining the thread. Certainly overall it is the use of critical thinking in validating scientific knowledge in general which is the heart of the matter. However he does comment, compare, contrast various types of criticality.

Honestly, per my comment on metacognition, I think it is trivially evident that one can critically evaluate one's own critical thought processes. Why would you not be able to? It is simply a tool, like any other?

Expansive means "can be expanded". So it can be shrinked. Because whatever is expansive, is elastic.

So Popper's expansive theories can be reduced and disregarded, if one shrinks them, instead of expands them. — god must be atheist

I have to say, I get a lot of 'word-games' feeling coming from your general direction. This comment really has no substantive merit other than polemic. Expansive primarily means extensive in scope, at least, that's my experience with the word.

And the word you are looking for is "shrunk".

An acceptable theory of mind is beyond the scope the philosophy and even science in my opinion. — Wittgenstein

A workable, acceptable, or even just merely descriptive theory of mind is beyond the human mind to construct.

We are stuck in this together. We would need to invent an apparatus or mechanism or process whereby we can pull our own selves out of the quagmire by our own hairs.

Somebody, don't have the reference or the author's name, said that philosophy should not seek to have its questions answered; instead, it should seek a cure to treat itself.

You're right on both counts.

Damit, I admit: guilty as charged.

Why would you not be able to? It is simply a tool, like any other? — Pantagruel

Well, the thesis was that the tool (critical thinking) is useless, or even undefined, non-existent without an application, without a piece of material that it can work on.

If, and only if, that is true, then my earlier conundrum stands.

(about John Gill) Assuming you were 20 year old back then, you are approximately 77 right now. You are probably the oldest user here then — Wittgenstein

I've been guessed to be hugely different in age from the real one on one philosophy internet forum. Forgot which of the four I was active on at the time. It pleased me to no end.

What's my age ?? :wink:

What's my age ?? :wink: — Wittgenstein

I'd say, five or six... but a very precocious five or six. A child genius. A prodigy. A pedagogical miracle.

Assuming you were 20 year old back then, you are approximately 77 right now. You are probably the oldest user here then — Wittgenstein

I'm 82. Oh, for the days of youth (77)! :cool:

(Is there a chance that you may be dyslexic? transposing digits and characters in your writing? And your age is 28?

In months.)

Oh. I mixed you up, @John Gill, with @Wittgenstein.

My mind is going. It is horrible to have early-onset Alzheimers at such a young age that i'm at. (Mommy just brought me home from the hospital, I still have some raw umbilical cords hanging off of my belly.)

Honestly, per my comment on metacognition, I think it is trivially evident that one can critically evaluate one's own critical thought processes. Why would you not be able to? It is simply a tool, like any other? — Pantagruel

In different words... I agree with this sentiment.

I'm always confounded at what seems to be a rather broad-based general consensus across the philosophical spectrum that we cannot take proper account of our own thought and belief.

Upon what basis does this consensus rest?

A workable, acceptable, or even just merely descriptive theory of mind is beyond the human mind to construct. — god must be atheist

Do you have an argument and/or reasoning process... some intelligible coherent line of thought that has led you to such a conclusion?

An acceptable theory of mind is beyond the scope the philosophy and even science in my opinion. — Wittgenstein

Could you explain why and/or better yet how an acceptable theory of mind is beyond the scope of both science and philosophy?

If you google supertopo forum and go to "what is mind" you will find 25K posts that circle around this question.

Here's a case in point, then.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362707

Notice that Devans does not look to the previous work done in mathematics, but straight away applies his own understanding of division in order to find a solution.

My reply:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362716
I, on the other hand, went to a reliable source, trusting that others with far more mathematical expertise than I had already considered the issue. I went there because I had previously read sufficient mathematics to understand that the answer was not undefined, but uncountable; but insufficient recall as to why this was so.

Devans erred in dividing by zero. Now it seems to me that this should have been an end to the discussion. But instead, Devans says

...so the mathematical definition of a point is 'against the rules' ... of maths. — Devans99

It leaves one nonplussed. Devans is not stupid; but then again...

Can you elaborate on what you think this broad consensus is? I think most people would agree you can take some sort of self account of thoughts and beliefs...so Im curious what you mean.

It leaves one nonplussed. Devans is not stupid; but then again... — Banno

The full explanation of the point I was making is given in this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362723

See?

What is going on here? Why can't Devan's see that division by zero is an illegitimate act?

Can you elaborate on what you think this broad consensus is? — DingoJones

That we cannot take proper account of our own thought and belief. That we cannot know what thought and belief is. Broad-based belief of that 'nature'(for lack of a better term).

Why can't Devan's see that division by zero is an illegitimate act? — Banno

I know it is illegitimate; that is why I say it equates to UNDEFINED.

But the definition of a point, as having zero extents, is also equivalent to division by zero:

- You want to divide a line segment length 1 into 0.25 length chunks: 1/0.25=4
- You want to divide a line segment length 1 into 0 length chunks: 1/0=UNDEFINED

So I hope you can see the problem - the definition of a point as having zero extents enshrines into maths that division by zero can produce a defined result (∞).

What I am proposing in this thread is a possible explanation for the sort of posts that we so often see here, where acceptable physics and mathematics is criticised poorly, yet repeatedly.

I'd previously put this down to mere psycoceramics, but that's not I now think sufficient.

Rather, the Cult of the Maverick provides an incentive for folk to critique without first doing the work of understanding the topic.

Simply explaining to the Maverick were they have gone wrong is insufficient; their purpose is not to find out the truth, but to smash it in order to demonstrate just how clever they are.