what do you mean by useful? — karl stone

Here's what I wrote in the OP.

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. — T Clark

As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism — karl stone

I said this in an earlier post in this thread:

One thing I haven't discussed is how the information we incorporate into the conceptual model is evaluated, justified. Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:
— T Clark

• Does the information we have provide adequate support?
• Can we identify and document the source of that information?
• What are the uncertainties in our knowledge?
• What are the consequences of us being wrong?

I would ask these questions about whatever information I am using. The relevant ones here are the last two. How uncertain am I of the information I am using? What happens if I'm wrong. Those considerations would determine whether any assumption is reasonable or not.

Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. — universeness

William James, pragmatism, and I don't care which mechanism is used to obtain the information.

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

I don't know what this means.

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. — T Clark

Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion?

I don't know what this means. — T Clark

Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.

You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning?

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.
— T Clark

Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion? — Cornwell1

It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact.

Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.

You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning? — Cornwell1

I'll let @universeness respond to my post and see where we go from there.

It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact — T Clark

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact?

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

This was your response when I offered a scenario where new knowledge may be gained due to an instinctive act. Perhaps something like:
'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. Pragmatism may now be employed to prevent future harm to the child but the initial learning was through an instinctive act and not a pragmatic one. You said there is no philosophy here.
I asked if 'The philosophy of instinct' was an incorrect phrase.
You responded with

I don't know what this means — T Clark

I typed 'philosophy and instinct' into google and got hits with titles like

"what are the current theories about instinct in philosophy of the mind?"
"The role of instinct in David Hume's conception of human reason"
"William James - what is an instinct - The information Philosopher"
"The philosophy of Instinctualism (almost what I typed)"
"Peirce on Intuition, Instinct & common sense"

I did not read all of the associated material to pick out statements that would support your position or mine but I did quickly find:

Hume said 'human reason is nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct'

Based on the above findings, I would suggest that your comment that there is no philosophy in instinctive acts was inaccurate. I would imagine the same follows for intuitive acts or acts of inspiration. I simply suggest that such acts have very little to do with pragmatic thought, especially during the time of the event. You can have a pragmatic analysis afterward, which informs future action, but that's not my point.
So would it be just as valid to suggest, a 'Pragmatic/Instinctive/Intuitive epistemology?'

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

Is that a recommendation or a question?

'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. — universeness

This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior.

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? — universeness

It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it.

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact? — Cornwell1

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics. Try "An Essay on Metaphysics" by RG Collingwood.

This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior. — T Clark

Have we not covered this already? Does knowledge not inform behavior? They are strongly linked!

It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it. — T Clark

There are two separate and parallel streams of discussion here.
In one stream, you posit that pragmatic epistemology is not just a valid strategy for dealing with the experience of living a human life. You are suggesting, it seems to me, that it is the best strategy for living a good human life, as an individual, and it is also the best method of assisting other humans in their lives. I disagree and I propose that mere pragmatism is an insufficient epistemology to achieve such goals. You yourself state:

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. — T Clark

I am saying that pragmatism alone will not furnish you with the level of 'truth and knowledge' needed by people in their everyday lives.

The second stream comes from my counter, that instinctive or intuitive acts which are not pragmatic can provide very valuable new knowledge to help people make decisions. You introduced a parallel line of discussion by suggesting that instinctive acts and intuitive acts have no basis in philosophy. I think I demonstrated through my internet search results that they do.

You then conflate the two streams and say there was no 'philosophy' in my scenario about the child.
I didn't introduce the example of the child to demonstrate a 'philosophy', I introduced it to exemplify an instinctive act which would result in very useful new knowledge that would assist future decision making.
(Such new knowledge may even save the childs life, if the coffee table danger is dealt with).
This is just as important as new knowledge gained from pragmatic thought.

You did not respond to the question is Pragmatic/instinctive/intuitive epistemology more accurate than just pragmatic epistemology as a guide for how to approach optimum decision making?

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics. Try "An Essay on Metaphysics" by RG Collingwood — T Clark

Wow, I see that your arrogance buttons are easy to activate. If all philosophies are based on fairytales then does that not make 'Pragmatic Epistemology' based on a fairytale. Off the cuff remarks like that can cause a politician's position to be no longer tenable. Many learned people believe that the metaphysical does not exist. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that we can all learn more about......
There is no need for anyone to go away and come back when......
Perhaps you can just decide to improve your level of politeness when debating others.

Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics.

I just wanted to say that in my opinion, you should disregard this advice...... :smile:

As a software engineer, I'm involved in building backend systems that collect information and then use it as a source of knowledge for decision making. As a system gets more complex, the amount of information grows not only in volume but also in variety.

When you have a system with hundreds of database tables and millions of rows, it becomes hard to understand all the data points and how they relate to each other. E.g. you have data collected about users, vendors, products, categories, brands, ratings, discounts, inventory, suppliers, open issues, shipments, recommendations, subscriptions, etc. The number of data points becomes too large to comprehend.

This raises a question about the practical ways to dealing with complexity and organising knowledge.

One of the best methodologies that I know is Domain-Driven Design (DDD). DDD suggests that in order for information to become useful, it needs to be put in a context (BoundedContext). A bounded context is usually centred around a specific problem, e.g. presenting product information to users; accepting payments; managing product inventory; fulfilling orders; shipping fulfilled orders to customers. Each context defines which data points are useful and which aren't, resulting in smaller, comprehensible sub-models.

As an example, the information that the sales department knows about products is very different from the information that the inventory department has. The concept of a product is the same, but the details are different. DDD advocates that in this scenario we have two BoundedContexts, so we create two sub-systems for managing each of the aspects while also connecting them by preserving the identities of products across them.

I think I explained this relatively poorly, but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. This speaks to the pragmatic approach to knowledge described in the OP.

If all philosophies are based on fairytales then does that not make 'Pragmatic Epistemology' based on a fairytale. — universeness

My reading of the argument, with which I largely agree, is that you need to get past the fairy tales and see how the beliefs are used in practice and what happens. I think what distinguishes the pragmatism of @T Clark is its efficacy, as opposed to other fairytale derived systems.

Richard Rorty (who has no particular bearing here except that he is a self described neo-pragmatist) says we can say nothing about the true nature of reality but we do know something about how to justify beliefs. This latter is the significant part of the project.

To be fair, the original comment was even more more arrogant than T Clark's response

So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact? — Cornwell1

In one stream, you posit that pragmatic epistemology is not just a valid strategy for dealing with the experience of living a human life. You are suggesting, it seems to me, that it is the best strategy for living a good human life, as an individual, and it is also the best method of assisting other humans in their lives. I disagree and I propose that mere pragmatism is an insufficient epistemology to achieve such goals. — universeness

No. It's the path I've taken. I find it's useful. I present it here. Pragmatism is a metaphysical position. It's not true or false, it's just more or less useful in a particular situation. Which is a very pragmatic definition of metaphysics. You disagree? I have no problem with that.

As for pragmatic epistemology being a strategy, it's not, at least not as I've laid it out here. It's a philosophy, a way of seeing reality, the whole shebang. Ontology, epistemology, yadda yadda yadda. It has all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy.

Perhaps you can just decide to improve your level of politeness when debating others. — universeness

@cornwell1 was a snotty little twerp and I slapped him down.

↪universeness To be fair, the original comment was even more more arrogant than T Clark's response. — pfirefry

Yes. And that's why I slapped him down. Should I have? Of course not. Would I do it again.... Maybe. By which I mean yes.

??? I need to get past the fairytales? I did not say all philosophies were based on fairytales, T Clark did.

I am not suggesting that T Clark is the only person on this forum that could improve on the phrases they choose to employ during a dialogue.

I didn't say you said it. All I did was walk through my take on this idea.

but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. — pfirefry

This is a pretty good summary of what I think this thread is about. People work in different disciplines with different problems and different language, but we all need to use and manage knowledge.

I certainly don't need the fairy tale book of Collingwood to base my science and actions on. I can learn of the brothers Grimm even more, and I know their wicked fairies "fairly" well. :smile:

Be careful, his big brother might decide you are a snotty little twerp and decide to slap you down a lot harder. All vendetta starts this way. Turn it off and that way, it does not grow.

Scientific reality can't be caught in a metaphysical jacket. For scientific practice to be free, not one jacket will do. They become straight jackets.

No. It's the path I've taken. I find it's useful. I present it here. Pragmatism is a metaphysical position. It's not true or false, it's just more or less useful in a particular situation. Which is a very pragmatic definition of metaphysics. You disagree? I have no problem with that.

As for pragmatic epistemology being a strategy, it's not, at least not as I've laid it out here. It's a philosophy, a way of seeing reality, the whole shebang. Ontology, epistemology, yadda yadda yadda. It has all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy — T Clark

Fair enough, again I appreciate the exchange of viewpoints.

Be careful, his big brother might decide you are a snotty little twerp and decide to slap you down a lot harder. All vendetta starts this way. Turn it off and that way, it does not grow. — universeness

:100:

My field is Computing Science so I am familiar with the type of system you are describing.
The electronic information systems used in Artificial intelligence and Natural Language Processing based on Neural nets and distributed and relational database storage and retrieval systems is a fascinating area. As are the algorithms used to simulate human decision-making. One point I would raise with you however, based on:

I think I explained this relatively poorly, but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. This speaks to the pragmatic approach to knowledge described in the OP. — pfirefry

and it's a point you probably already know based on your software engineering background. Its only at the front end of software that we get information. Information comes through the screen or the printer etc as a result of the HCI or human computer interface. The system only processes raw data. Information has as you say, context and therefore meaning but that 'meaning' is only apparent to the user. It is not apparent to the computer system so I think your example does speak a little to the OP but I think it's a low whisper of limited relevance

I think strong emotion is more likely to lead you to making the wrong decision about what to do than clear thinking. — T Clark

Strong emotions are intended to produce quick decisions, like "get the hell out of town before the 350 pounder buries the knife in your gut". (As you already know) that's the function of the limbic system -- to save us from immediate danger (the knife, the snake, the spider, the snarling dog...) The limbic / emotion system, as you say, can disrupt clear thinking. This has been proved to me over and over again in my life.

But still, strong emotions arise for a reason. If you have anxiety attacks when thinking about selling your house, you should probably rethink the reasons for the sale. Same for buying a house. Or for quitting a job, taking a job, going on a second date, or getting married.

Our particular emotions are one of the elements we do well to know about, understand, and manage. Sometimes emotions have nothing to do with thought: Leaping away from the snake in the grass has nothing to do with our thoughts on snakes. But for less primitive responses (like feeling nauseated when thinking about taking the questionable job offer) one's emotional response is a piece of data that should be taken account of.

Maybe not, but my guess is that you agree with my take on emotion. We want to direct our lives by relying on reliable knowledge, clear perception, logical thinking, and settled emotions. In order to achieve this happy result, we have to take the volatile aspects of our brains into account.