Laugh and ironise all you want; it is your own refusal to engage in arguments that may lead one to conclude that you don't care about them. — Pierre-Normand
If you say a similar argument can be made against naturalism, I am happy to concede. — Frederick KOH
I have been explicitly arguing that naturalism and reductionism are not aligned positions. — Pierre-Normand
They don't have to be aligned and I am not saying they are. I am saying analogous arguments can be made against naturalism. — Frederick KOH
It is not a sound criticism of a sound argument that merely "similar" arguments can be made to support a false position. — Pierre-Normand
If this is the case, then you had better attend to the difference, rather than the similarity, in order to properly diagnose the subtle flaw in the second argument. — Pierre-Normand
As I keep saying, they have the same flaws, subtle or not. — Frederick KOH
You haven't stated what the flaws in my argument were. — Pierre-Normand
You haven't offered any specific counter-argument. You merely complained that if they weren't assumed to be flawed in some way or other then some dogmatic "naturalists" might sh*t their pants. — Pierre-Normand
"They" referred to naturalism and reductionism. How did my "they" turn into your "my"? — Frederick KOH
You are now arguing, again, that it matters not at all if Weinberg's arguments in favor of reductionism are afflicted by little or large flaws. (And this after straddling me with the burden of criticizing his allegedly very strong arguments). — Pierre-Normand
In a way, you argued with yourself. You were challenged on you naturalism and you position shifted noticeably. I even juxtaposed/quoted the change some of my comments. — Frederick KOH
You are now arguing that the flaws in his pro-reductionism arguments must be ignored since, if they were acknowleged, then similar (albeit unspecified) flaws in pro-naturalism arguments could make some naturalists worried. — Pierre-Normand
a defensible naturalism that wouldn't share the flaws that afflict reductionism. — Pierre-Normand
Since you assumed naturalism to be roughly equivalent to reductionism, you misconstrued what my acknowledgement of naturalism (which I defined as the mere denial of super-naturalism, or of mysterious emergent laws that defy all explanation) entailed. — Pierre-Normand
The arguments against naturalism are respectable philosophical arguments. If we accept naturalism anyway, does it mean that it matters not at all that arguments against it are afflicted by little or large flaws? — Frederick KOH
You position shifted rather more dramatically from an acknowledgement of the burden to defend Weinberg's pro-reductionism arguments against my criticism to a claim of indifference towards the flaws, small or large, that they may present. — Pierre-Normand
If we endorse naturalism then we thereby straddle ourselves with the burden of showing that anti-naturalism arguments are flawed. — Pierre-Normand
When you deny the "super" of something, how do you avoid talking about the something first? — Frederick KOH
If this were a thread about naturalism, then I might take that burden. But I need no produce a detailed account of the naturalism that I would feel comfortable arguing for in order to point out that Weinberg's assimilation of anti-reductionism to a belief in magic, or in supernatural phenomena, is unwarranted. It suffices for me to sketch an account of the forms of non-reductive scientific explanations -- explanations that are commonly generated in ordinary scientific practice, including in physics -- the structure of which Weinberg completely overlooks, in order to show that his fear is unwarranted. — Pierre-Normand
This does not erase the flaws of naturalism. — Frederick KOH
No. Please give me exact quote. — Frederick KOH
There isn't one. — Frederick KOH
Accepting a position does not mean you are indifferent to its flaws. Similar flaws exist in other positions. — Frederick KOH
Well, how else do you "erase" the alleged flaws of a position that you endorse other than through showing that the arguments mustered by your critics against it are themselves flawed or point missing? — Pierre-Normand
You are now arguing that the flaws in his pro-reductionism arguments must be ignored since, if they were acknowleged, then similar (albeit unspecified) flaws in pro-naturalism arguments could make some naturalists worried. — Pierre-Normand
This is a mere dogmatic denial. There are many such forms of naturalism on offer (both in the philosophical literature and within ordinary scientific practice). It is your burden to show that they entail some sort of unacknowledged belief in magic, or to show that all forms of genuine scientific explanation that don't involve magic (and that aren't either reliant on mysterious emergent laws that defy all explanation) must be reductionistic in Weinberg's sense. — Pierre-Normand
I am rather faulting you with failing to even acknowledge (let alone seriously address) my criticisms of Weinberg's positive arguments on the ridiculous ground that any flaws a philosophical position might present aren't necessary fatal to it and hence dont really undermine it. — Pierre-Normand
In the case of Weinberg, he faces what I consider an insurmountable disadvantage. Even when he engages philosophers, he engages as a scientist. He makes claims that have no hope of being philosophically defended because they are empirical claims but of a different order. They are not properly scientific either because these are claims at a higher level of generality than a scientific theory. — Frederick KOH
Weinberg's denial of the autonomy of emergent domains of scientific explanation seems to rest on the belief that the affirmation of such an autonomy amounts to a denial that the laws and principles formulated at this higher-level can have any explanation. — Pierre-Normand
Notice that Weinberg again assumes that either the emergent laws must have reductive explanations in terms of deeper scientific principles that govern (in this case) the individual constituents of the high-level entities (i.e. the composite individuals picked up by the high-level "terms") or they must be believed by the strong emergentist to be governed by principles that are "fundamental" in the sense that they don't have any explanaton at all — Pierre-Normand
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.