Which metaphysical and epistemological problems need to be solved prior to understanding, or being able to use, logic? Tell me how you answer that question without using logic. — Harry Hindu
All of them or any of them, when applicable. To my knowledge, none of them contradict any other one, except maybe dialetheism, but I am beginning to think that that is just psuedo-logic (see my other thread).Which logical axioms should we accept? — 83nt0n
How so?I think that depends on what you mean by some element of truth. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but useful. — 83nt0n
I think that you are confusing a galaxy with a picture of a galaxy.Picturing an entire galaxy in your mind is impossible. — 83nt0n
Does a tree have a 'most important' branch? — A SeagullIt's trunk. — 180 Proof
To my knowledge, none of them contradict any other one, — Harry Hindu
So while we only have our experience to go by, the experience of billions using the same theories and getting the same results is something to be said about the method by which we've been able to achieve this - science and logic. — Harry Hindu
I think that you are confusing a galaxy with a picture of a galaxy. — Harry Hindu
Why?
The trunk cannot exist without the roots and leaves
The roots cannot exist without the trunk and leaves
The leaves cannot exist without the roots and trunk.
Philosophy has to be holistic or it is nothing. — A Seagull
Science has gone on since the first hominid began using tools. Looking under a rock is just as scientific as looking through a telescope. — Harry Hindu
Philosophy has been going on ever since humans created art and buried their dead. And logical and illogical thinking have occured since thinking began, just as tyrannosaurus rexes and triceratops existed before they were identified and given names as such. I never said logic equates to all thinking - just a certain type of thinking.
Ever since we started thinking we've known that there are errors in our thinking. Aristotle simply laid out the various ways we can avoid those errors. — Harry Hindu
No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.
No, this is completely wrong.
Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.
To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.
No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.
Looking under a rock CAN be science. It isn't always science and it isn't always not science. The scientific method wasn't codified until recently, but I don't think you can invent something without doing science. It might be really primitive science, but the essence will still be there: hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion. How would one develop, say a canoe, without doing all that? — RogueAI
To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion.
I don't see any reason to assume the homo sapiens of any given time period were any less intelligent than we are. I'm sure, at the very least, they had metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, religious discussions, and ethical dilemmas to sort out. — RogueAI
But again, to retroactively call tool-making and cave art "science" or animistic beliefs "religious discussion" is a just confusion.
Discussions of animistic beliefs aren't religious discussions? What an odd thing to claim. — RogueAI
Then apes do science. What's so absurd about that? Humans are apes. :nerd: Integrating observation and logic is what science is. Asserting something beyond what observation shows is religion. Hypothesizing and theorizing something beyond what observation shows is only the first step in science. You have to then perform experiments and have others perform the same experiments and get the same results. This is how apes gradually learned how to put sticks in termite holes to procure lunch.No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition. — Xtrix
The art depicted humans and their relationship with the world and that is the essence of philosophy.No, this is completely wrong.
Logic is a branch of philosophy, which is what the above poster is talking about. Philosophy has not been going on since humans "created art" -- that's as meaningless as to say science was going on. All we know with high likelihood is that there was creativity present, that these early people (say 100,000 years ago) had language, and that thinking was going on.
To say this equates to "philosophy, science, and logic" is pure confusion. — Xtrix
No, it isn't. Looking under a rock is not science. If we define that as "science," then apes do science as well. It's an absurd definition.
— Xtrix
Then apes do science. — Harry Hindu
I don't recognize any grounds for assuming the ethics needs "epistemological justification" because I approach philosophy as a noncognitive performative exercise for proposing rigorously coherent criteria for conjecturing and methods for conjecture-testing, and not a cognitive theoretical practice for explaining (with 'testable conjectures') how nature (or even culture) works.
I don't follow. What "psychological dependence"? You're seeing one where there isn't any.But this seems to fail to distinguish between ontological or epistemic dependency with a form of psychological dependence for a starting point. — Marty
Well I don't (if "position" = presupposed commitment), so I agree. I "start" with human facticity (i.e. embodiment (vide Arendt re: natality ... vide Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Zapffe, Nietzsche, Spinoza & Epicurus)). Philosophy, as I've pointed out previously, isIt always seem very strange to me to start with a non-cognitive position.
Any philosophical topic taken as a starting point, therefore, will be, in my understanding, noncognitive (i.e. consists in proposals (or meta-statements), not propositions (or object-statements)).a noncognitive performative exercise for proposing rigorously coherent criteria for conjecturing and methods for conjecture-testing, and NOT a cognitive theoretical practice for explaining (with 'testable conjectures') how nature (or even culture) works. — 180 Proof
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.