I've never understood - How can you turn something as simple as my own experience of the world into something so complicated and convoluted. Whenever I start to read something about phenomenology I say "No! No! How does it feel?" — T Clark

Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit! :wink:

I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention.. — Tom Storm

This is a bit of an aside to the OP but I have some commonality with you here, I think. In the sense that my natural territory would be science and politics and I do understand why the 'philosophers' would get a little impatient with me at times because I don't have the depth of knowledge of the philosophical theories which are presented in some of these threads in quite 'flowery' terms. I suppose every field of study has its language and those outside may consider such terminology, 'elitist.'
I am just interested in the philosophical aspects of science and politics. Hence my presence on this site.

Ha! Good one, my find!

Cool. I'm here to see what I may have missed. I am mainly interested in values and morality.

Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit! — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit!
— Tom Storm

Agreed. — T Clark

I flagged you!

From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences. — T Clark

Oh, I don't think I have ever suggested to you that individuals should not employ pragmatism in general terms, whenever they are able to. My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority. You said earlier you did not like labels. Philosophy is built on labels. They then debate the validity of each and every label, exhaustively and then they come up with a whole bunch of new labels to replace some of the ones they think don't fit well enough. Philosophers LOVE labels.
I know you will probably answer with....but I'm not a philosopher...and I accept that but. They do prioritise labels based on their importance and I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority. But its just my opinion.

To be pragmatic in a scientific setting has it's virtues. What can be molded is the real stuff. So, depending on the instruments used different realities can come into existence.

My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority... I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority — universeness

I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences.

You are being a bit cryptic or you are saying something very simple.
If your hungry and you eat food then the reality becomes 'I'm not hungry any more.'
If you burn the food then the reality becomes 'Still hungry but have some ashes beside me.'
Is that all you mean by using different instruments results in different realities?

I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences. — T Clark

Well, at the end of the day, if we all saw the world the same way then there would be no need for TPF.
Thanks for the exchange of viewpoint :smile:

Sorry! I was referring to the multitude of scientific instruments used in experiments. In experiments reality is litterally molded to fit the theory. Scientific reality is litterally created.

Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences. — T Clark

Others might not be interested in honor, like to take it easy, and don't mind negative consequences or even welcome them.

Just to put things in perspective. :smile:

I think I get what you are trying to type.
I think you are trying to claim that Science uses current technology to produce experimental results which confirm their theories and their intention is to deceive. If I am correct then I would say that though this may be true in a very small number of cases, it is in general absolutely untrue.

I don't disagree with everything said in this thread, but I feel that I start losing the track of what it means to be pragmatic vs not pragmatic. Could you give some examples of non-pragmatic behaviors or philosophies? It seems like it's the human nature to act pragmatically. Even the people who subscribe to seemingly nonsense philosophies have their reason to do so, and such people act pragmatically in their own ways.

I don't disagree with everything said in this thread, but I feel that I start losing the track of what it means to be pragmatic vs not pragmatic. Could you give some examples of non-pragmatic behaviors or philosophies? It seems like it's the human nature to act pragmatically. Even the people who subscribe to seemingly nonsense philosophies have their reason to do so, and such people act pragmatically in their own ways. — pfirefry

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." I gave what I consider a good example of such an approach in the OP. Several other people have provided additional examples.

In opposition to that, I described the justified true belief approach to knowledge, which focuses on the truth of individual propositions rather than development of conceptual models.

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge — T Clark

Ah, so the purpose of the thread is to invite others to share pragmatic approaches to knowledge. Initially, I thought it was about the benefits of the pragmatic approach over other "non-pragmatic" approaches. My bad.

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." — T Clark

.
Knowledge informs and causes related human action. You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel.

"the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action."
But human actions can be instinctive or intuitive, which in my opinion is not pragmatic but is just as valid in many circumstances.
Here are two examples:

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
Another example of the kind was referring to in my opinion is:

'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'

Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.

You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in.

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." — T Clark

Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful?

I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in, for instance, phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention... — Tom Storm

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right.

You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel. — universeness

I never said that.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved. — universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?

'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'

Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.

You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in. — universeness

I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism?

Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful? — Harry Hindu

I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read?

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right. — baker

I want to step in here to defend @Tom Storm. He is not a bully.

I'm referring to using you-language, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message

One uses you-language when one states one's feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions about other people (or things) as if those feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions would be objective facts about the other person (and that the other person is wrong, bad, evil, delusional if they don't see themselves (or some thing) that way).

I-language:
"I like you."
"I don't like you."
"I appreciate how you painted that picture."
"I don't appreciate how you painted that picture."

You-language:
"You're a good person."
"You're a bad person."
"You painted a good picture."
"You painted a bad picture."

As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. Philosophy that does not meet this standard is not useful. — T Clark

I perhaps need to think more carefully about what exactly you've said, but philosophically, doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? Then you're right back in the epistemic trenches with the rest of us, asking 'what can we know? and, how can we know it?'

I never said that. — T Clark

Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel.

I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism? — T Clark

Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge?

doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? — karl stone

Here is a description of William James' definition of truth from an article I found on his book "Pragmatism.

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”

So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism.

Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel. — universeness

Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge? — universeness

Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters.

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”

So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism. — T Clark

I have some symapthy with your perspective on a human level, it's true because it's useful and useful because it's true. But then, what do you mean by useful? And so you resort in the end to Malsow's heirarchy of needs, in the same way one might resort to asserting the existence of an objective reality. As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism - than to admit, we might all be brains in jars being fed electrical impulses the brain interprets as reality, but so long as one cannot see the join, truth qua Truth is irrelevent?

Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters — T Clark

Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. I don't think any epistemology 'cares' where data or information comes from.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
— universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point? — T Clark

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase?

Perhaps we are now just discussing the perceived semantic rules, associated with certain terminology.
Probably a boring area for both of us.