Not necessarily wrong. It just means he has the onus of proof. Absurd, common sense, reasonable, status quo, all these are terms which serve to establish who has the onus of proof. Once the onus of proof is fulfilled, then the claim stands, even if it is absurd.You could as well have said "Hume says this, but clearly it is absurd, therefore he is wrong". — Echarmion
I don't set the status quo. I discover it by experience. If you want to be formal about it, you could survey what most people believe about hallucination and the normal. My money is that hallucinations are not seen as normal.Oh that's clever. So you get to set the status quo and then get to ask everyone for proof? — Echarmion
Practical limitation does not entail that a thing is theoretically unobservable; unlike spirits for example.the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. — Echarmion
My discussion, my rules. By objectivity, I mean "external reality" as per the dictionary, and that's how it will be used in this thread. :cool:Dictionary definitions are not arguments. That's how the term is generally used. Hume essentially questioned whether that use was actually correct. — Echarmion
Unfortunately, if you don't make metaphysical claims, then philosophy is impossible: Metaphysics is the science of what is real. If no knowledge of reality, then no truth (defined as conformance to reality), then no philosophy (defined as search for truth).I don't think that those are the two only options. When discussing metaphysics a "true agnostic" position exists, i.e. there are simply things we can't make reasoned statements about one way or another. — Echarmion
So you claim that when we perceive an object, it is never the object in reality. And why would that be? If it looks, sounds, and feels like a duck, is it not reasonable to believe it is in fact a duck, until given a reason to believe otherwise? — Samuel Lacrampe
Well I am genuinely impressed. Nevertheless, this lack of trust, of assuming dishonesty until proven otherwise, is unreasonable. It fails the Presumption of Innocence. And I still maintain that most scientific demonstrations cannot be replicated by most people. If a cancer expert diagnosed you with cancer, would you spend the time to replicate the test yourself prior to going for treatment?YES. [...] — unenlightened
This also applies to some scientific tests such as testing new painkillers. Anyways, I'll do you a solid. Let's add the condition that the PUP is valid as long as the subjects are honest.It comes to the same thing. Subjects can only know they perceive the same thing by communicating. — unenlightened
This demonstration presupposes that the sun is far away from the earth. Flat Earthers would disagree. :razz:Here's one you can do yourself on your next holiday. [...] — unenlightened
Well I thought that since you were defending Hume's position, you agreed with him. My bad for assuming. Bonus, I didn't know about this Principle of Charity. That's a good one.Given the context of my last post, it should be pretty clear that I'm explicating Hume's views, not mine own. You should abide by the principle of charity instead of cherry picking and coming back with this kind of response. — Wolfman
I'm not sure I understand your point. Let me try to summarize where I think we are.
Problem 1: Either some perceptions are true, or else all could be an illusion.
Solution 1: Appealing to Principle of Parsimony, the former is more reasonable than the latter. It thus becomes the Prima Facie.
Problem 2: Some perceptions are true, but we know some are not (e.g sometimes my eyes fail me when I've been drinking). How to validate the perceptions?
Solution 2: Appeal to the Principle of Universal Perceptions. If the perceptions pass the PUP, then the belief that the perceived object is real becomes the Prima Facie.
Is there a problem still pending? — Samuel Lacrampe
Not necessarily wrong. It just means he has the onus of proof. Absurd, common sense, reasonable, status quo, all these are terms which serve to establish who has the onus of proof. Once the onus of proof is fulfilled, then the claim stands, even if it is absurd. — Samuel Lacrampe
I don't set the status quo. I discover it by experience. If you want to be formal about it, you could survey what most people believe about hallucination and the normal. My money is that hallucinations are not seen as normal. — Samuel Lacrampe
Practical limitation does not entail that a thing is theoretically unobservable; unlike spirits for example. — Samuel Lacrampe
My discussion, my rules. By objectivity, I mean "external reality" as per the dictionary, and that's how it will be used in this thread. :cool: — Samuel Lacrampe
Unfortunately, if you don't make metaphysical claims, then philosophy is impossible: Metaphysics is the science of what is real. If no knowledge of reality, then no truth (defined as conformance to reality), then no philosophy (defined as search for truth). — Samuel Lacrampe
And actually... I just realized that the Principle of Parsimony is nothing but Abductive Reasoning, which is a fundamental law of thoughts. — Samuel Lacrampe
This demonstration presupposes — Samuel Lacrampe
Wait why is the illusion the simpler explanation? In both cases, true or false perception, some sort of universe must exist for us to have a perception of it. But in the illusion case, we must posit the state of having an illusion on top of having a universe. Then to be picky, we must also posit an explanation for why the illusion is so structured and consistent (as opposed to continuously changing). With that, I would say the actual universe is the simplest explanation.Which would be easier or, if you prefer, more parsimonious: an illusion of a universe or an actual universe? The answer to that question is, according to none other than the Principle of Parsimony: an illusion of a universe is simpler than an actual universe. — TheMadFool
But the point of (sincere) debate is to find truth. Proper rules of reasoning and debate (which includes burden of proof) is part of epistemology. You might as well say that the objective world does not care about epistemology as such, which is true, but would miss the point that the function of epistemology is to know the objective world.I am not a fan of "burden of proof" type arguments outside of a legal context. While I think the general rule that the one who advances a claim is obligated to provide justification is a fine one, it's a rule of debate, not a law of (meta-)physics. I am repeating myself here, but there is no reason to suppose that the world cares about the burden of proof. — Echarmion
That's fine. Instead of "hallucination" let's called it "false perception", for which "false" means "not in conformance with reality".A Hallucination is a specific way in which one persons perception differs from the perception in others in defined, pathologic ways. Hume's scepticism goes deeper than that. It's not about individual mistakes but about whether humans are at all equipped, sensory or otherwise, to gain knowledge about metaphysical reality — Echarmion
We (at least I) may have lost track of what the original point was here. If that's okay, we can leave this tangent as is.For any given ability to observe, one can make up teapots that fall just outside of it. — Echarmion
I don't believe so. There are only 2 categories of being in that sense: real and imaginary. E.g. a horse is real, a unicorn is imaginary. By "internal reality", I am guessing you actually mean "imaginary" which is the alternative to being real.Sure, but then your statement "reality implies objectivity" reads "reality implies external reality", which is wrong, as there are obviously internal realities. — Echarmion
I still challenge this claim. Ethic is only properly speaking a science if it is objective; which means that goodness exists in reality. But if no goodness in reality, then no ethics. Similarly, there is no such thing as "physical reality" if we can know nothing about reality. Even if the physical is the result of a false but universal and consistent perception, we are then still claiming that this false perception exists in reality.[...] So even if metaphysics would be impossible, there'd still be truth. [...] — Echarmion
Of course not. But true thoughts are thoughts which content conforms to reality. And true thoughts are possible only if they follow the laws of thoughts.Which is good, if you think that thoughts construct reality. Do you? — Echarmion
Wait why is the illusion the simpler explanation? In both cases, true or false perception, some sort of universe must exist for us to have a perception of it. But in the illusion case, we must posit the state of having an illusion on top of having a universe. Then to be picky, we must also posit an explanation for why the illusion is so structured and consistent (as opposed to continuously changing). With that, I would say the actual universe is the simplest explanation. — Samuel Lacrampe
Well I thought that since you were defending Hume's position, you agreed with him. My bad for assuming. Bonus, I didn't know about this Principle of Charity. That's a good one. — Samuel Lacrampe
The Principle of Universal Perception (PUP) states that if a large majority of subjects perceives the same object, then it is reasonable to conclude that the object perceived is objectively real. It links the metaphysical with perceptions. [Note that even though I came up with the name, this principle has been used implicitly before by philosophers like by C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft. — Samuel Lacrampe
Both. The witness testimony uses the PUP to determine the most reasonable story about the case. And that same rationale is used to determine the most reasonable claim about metaphysics.It seems to me this statement can be viewed in one of two ways. (1) You are either making a claim about how we already do things (i.e. using witness testimony to corroborate facts), or (2) or you are concluding from your argument that philosophical realism holds. — Wolfman
External objects must exist for us to have true or false perceptions of them. Also I am fairly sure Hume did not question the existence of external objects; and was only skeptical about their true nature.Your premise already assumes that external objects exist; it's just that whether something is objectively real or not depends on the number of people who saw it. But you haven't even established that external objects exist in the first place — Wolfman
Unless all those debaters used that similar line of circular reasoning. :wink:This debate would have been over hundreds of years ago if it were that easy. — Wolfman
But the point of (sincere) debate is to find truth. Proper rules of reasoning and debate (which includes burden of proof) is part of epistemology. You might as well say that the objective world does not care about epistemology as such, which is true, but would miss the point that the function of epistemology is to know the objective world. — Samuel Lacrampe
That's fine. Instead of "hallucination" let's called it "false perception", for which "false" means "not in conformance with reality". — Samuel Lacrampe
I don't believe so. There are only 2 categories of being in that sense: real and imaginary. E.g. a horse is real, a unicorn is imaginary. By "internal reality", I am guessing you actually mean "imaginary" which is the alternative to being real. — Samuel Lacrampe
I still challenge this claim. Ethic is only properly speaking a science if it is objective; which means that goodness exists in reality. But if no goodness in reality, then no ethics. — Samuel Lacrampe
Similarly, there is no such thing as "physical reality" if we can know nothing about reality. Even if the physical is the result of a false but universal and consistent perception, we are then still claiming that this false perception exists in reality. — Samuel Lacrampe
Of course not. But true thoughts are thoughts which content conforms to reality. And true thoughts are possible only if they follow the laws of thoughts. — Samuel Lacrampe
Let's call the two hypotheses as so: (1) for world as we perceive it; and (2) for brain in a vat.
One formulation of Occam's Razor is: Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.
In hypothesis (1), the entities are: A real world which we perceive.
In hypothesis (2), the entities are: A real world which we don't perceive + an illusion created by a machine in that real world.
Hypothesis (1) is composed of fewer entities, and is therefore simpler.
Now you argue that it is easier in (2) to create the illusory world, than in (1) to create a real world. But this omits the fact that in (2), a real world also exists, which includes the machine that creates the illusory world. And appealing to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, an effect necessitates a sufficient cause. The machine containing the information for the illusory world must exist in a world that is at least as rich in information. — Samuel Lacrampe
Sure. Aside from mathematics and pure logic, we never reach certainty for any other sciences. In all other sciences (metaphysics and others), the accepted position about a topic is the one that has not yet been refuted. We say that the position stands, that it becomes the prima facie, and that the onus of proof is on the other side. It is a good alternative to remaining agnostic about everything merely on the grounds that we do not reach certainty. Maybe we can afford to remain agnostic on some topics, but not all. See next paragraph as an example.So if you want to establish burden of proof as an epistemological principle for metaphysical questions, you'll have to justify the connection between the rule and metaphysical reality. — Echarmion
This topic of whether all perceptions are false or some are true, is a good example where we cannot afford to remain agnostic on the grounds that both hypothesis remain possible. We gotta live. We gotta pick a side. Enters the Prima Facie approach as per above.The problem is that this false perception may very well be normal, even unavoidable, for humans, and therefore your previous arguments do not work. — Echarmion
Hmmm.... That's a tough one. It's almost worthy of its own discussion. For now, I say real; as we cannot conceive something we have not experienced in the past. E.g. a blind man born blind cannot conceive the colour red.So what about the colour red? Is it real or imaginary? — Echarmion
The objective basis to ethics is values, ie that some things are good or bad in reality. E.g. I should do this because it is objectively good.How would that be possible? Do you imagine there to be some actual rulebook hidden somewhere that is the "object" you could base morality on? The question of morality is "what should I do". How is that in any way connected to objects? — Echarmion
Siding with Aristotle, the foundations of epistemology are first principles called the laws of thoughts. These laws are Deductive Reasoning (aka logic), Inductive Reasoning (aka stats), and Abductive Reasoning (aka Parsimony). As first principles, they are not founded on any other premises.Another one would actually be epistemology itself. Because if epistemology is about discovering the "objective nature" of the universe, then the truth criterion for that cannot be "accordance with objective nature". That'd be circular. — Echarmion
It does. Let me try again another way. We perceive a physical object. Either that object is real or not. If real, then we made a claim about metaphysics. If not real, then the explanation is the existence of a false perception. Then we still made a claim about metaphysics, namely that this false perception is real.Whether or not you prefer to reserve the term "reality" for "objective" or "metaphysical reality" doesn't change whether or not the latter is connected to physics. — Echarmion
Good point. Let me try again: Knowledge is achieved when the thoughts are true and justified, and correct justification must follow the laws of thoughts.if you have a collection of random thoughts, some of those could just happen to conform. — Echarmion
Sure. Aside from mathematics and pure logic, we never reach certainty for any other sciences. In all other sciences (metaphysics and others), the accepted position about a topic is the one that has not yet been refuted. We say that the position stands, that it becomes the prima facie, and that the onus of proof is on the other side. It is a good alternative to remaining agnostic about everything merely on the grounds that we do not reach certainty. Maybe we can afford to remain agnostic on some topics, but not all. See next paragraph as an example. — Samuel Lacrampe
This topic of whether all perceptions are false or some are true, is a good example where we cannot afford to remain agnostic on the grounds that both hypothesis remain possible. We gotta live. We gotta pick a side. Enters the Prima Facie approach as per above. — Samuel Lacrampe
Hmmm.... That's a tough one. It's almost worthy of its own discussion. For now, I say real; as we cannot conceive something we have not experienced in the past. E.g. a blind man born blind cannot conceive the colour red. — Samuel Lacrampe
The objective basis to ethics is values, ie that some things are good or bad in reality. E.g. I should do this because it is objectively good. — Samuel Lacrampe
Siding with Aristotle, the foundations of epistemology are first principles called the laws of thoughts. These laws are Deductive Reasoning (aka logic), Inductive Reasoning (aka stats), and Abductive Reasoning (aka Parsimony). As first principles, they are not founded on any other premises. — Samuel Lacrampe
It does. Let me try again another way. We perceive a physical object. Either that object is real or not. If real, then we made a claim about metaphysics. If not real, then the explanation is the existence of a false perception. Then we still made a claim about metaphysics, namely that this false perception is real. — Samuel Lacrampe
Good point. Let me try again: Knowledge is achieved when the thoughts are true and justified, and correct justification must follow the laws of thoughts. — Samuel Lacrampe
Yeah I think I get what you are saying too, that in terms of total content that is existing in the real world and displayed in the illusory world at one time, (3) can have less total content than (2). But I don't think that "less content in the objects of explanation" translates to "lesser complexity of the explanation". I illustrate with an example.
I observe a house from the front side. Then I circle around to check that all 4 sides are fully built. I observe that no wall is missing. Kinda like this. I can draw 2 explanations.
(1) There are really only 2 walls existing, and a swift house builder just moves the 2 walls around as I circle around, to make it look like there are 4 walls.
(2) There are 4 walls.
One could argue that explanation (1) has less content in the objects of explanation (ie 2 walls + 1 builder as opposed to 4 walls). Yet clearly explanation (2) is the simplest in terms of explanation. — Samuel Lacrampe
Are these frequent? Maybe just because some hypotheses haven't been refuted yet, doesn't mean they cannot be refuted. [Side note, I didn't think the theism-atheism problem was too hard; but that could be a conversation for another time].But what do we do if there a bunch of conflicting hypotheses, neither of which can be refuted (in the sense of a falsification). Take the classic theism - atheism debate. Refutation really doesn't seem like a good fit for a host of problems. — Echarmion
That still depends on the metaphysical topic. Is it important to know that the perceived physical rock is metaphysically real? Indeed probably not. But moral values? Quite so. The answer should influence the behaviour of most people.But we only need working physics to live. We don't really need metaphysics. That is, we don't technically need to understand what it is we are predicting and explaining, only that our predictions are good enough. — Echarmion
Occam's Razor. Boom. :wink:[...] And to make matters worse, there seems to be no way to confirm anyone else sees red the way you or I see it. — Echarmion
If you are asking what is objective goodness, it means that some things are good as a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. If you are asking for the definition of objective goodness, then skipping straight to the answer of Aristotle without explanation (as it would be a long one), it is "a potentiality being actualized. And as actuality and potentiality are objective states of things, goodness in that sense is objective.What is "objective goodness" even supposed to mean? A catalogue of good deeds? A definition? A divine judge? — Echarmion
Truth being defined as "conformance to reality", calling these principles true means that applying them will give conclusions that conform to reality.Right, so would you call these principles "true" or something else? — Echarmion
Right; saying "I don't know" is indeed not a metaphysical claim. But my point was that if saying "the perception is a false one", that is implicitly making the metaphysical claim that "a false perception exists in reality".[...] The latter would, at most, be a claim about epistemology. — Echarmion
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.