If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? — Cornwell1

Good question. I would think 'truth' is a totalizing idea - 'useful in practice' is a way of measuring knowledge by its efficacy rather than its truth value - whatever that means.

I hope this isn't a silly question. Can accepting ideas which are useful be a potential problem when those ideas are applied in other contexts? I'm struggling to think of good examples but, let's say a belief in God may be useful to manage grief and loss following the death of a wife/husband, but what if this same belief allows you to disown your son/daughter because they are gay? Some ideas don't allow for much parsing and are kind of 'all or nothing' affairs.

This is a discussion on pragmatic epistemology. You guys have headed off on a different subject. Hows about you start a discussion of your own elsewhere — T Clark

Digression is annoying from the standpoint of the author of a thread. I appreciate that.
Digression is also so very common within human dialogue.
Thank you for your indulgence, I'm sure we will p*** o** to other threads soon enough,
or get back on topic or do both.

Digression is annoying from the standpoint of the author of a thread. I appreciate that.
Digression is also so very common within human dialogue.
Thank you for your indulgence, I'm sure we will p*** o** to other threads soon enough,
or get back on topic or do both. — universeness

That's not how it works. If I, as OP, ask you to keep on subject you're supposed to do it. I'm not interested in having this thread cluttered up with irrelevant stuff.

Well, that's not very diplomatic or friendly. The moderators are the arbiters. Why don't you request a directive from them? Let them be the class monitor.

What are the metaphysical assumptions made in pragmatic epistemology? If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? Is knowledge gathered only in practice? — Cornwell1

Good question. Exclamation point. Here are some thoughts:

the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. — T Clark

This from Wikipedia - Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.

My underline.

Is that enough? I'm not sure.

I hope this isn't a silly question. Can accepting ideas which are useful be a potential problem when those ideas are applied in other contexts? I'm struggling to think of good examples but, let's say a belief in God may be useful to manage grief and loss following the death of a wife/husband, but what if this same belief allows you to disown your son/daughter because they are gay? Some ideas don't allow for much parsing and are kind of 'all or nothing' affairs. — Tom Storm

I don't think it's a silly question. It gives me problems too. How about this - If it's not useful, it's not true; but that doesn't mean that if it's not true, it's not useful. I don't like that.

Good question. I think this is why so many people don't like a pragmatic definition of truth. They want to tweak it to make it less absolute.

Well, that's not very diplomatic or friendly. — universeness

I don't think it's friendly to shanghai my discussion.

The moderators are the arbiters. Why don't you request a directive from them? Let them be the class monitor. — universeness

This is from a few months ago:

it seems clear to me that responders to an OP have a responsibility to address the issue as the OP sets it up and not to go off on a tangent of their own
— T Clark

Yes.

Reciprocally, I have always understood that the person who starts the discussion has the authority to enforce the OP
— T Clark

Not directly. But we can enforce it for you. — Baden

How's that?

How's that? — T Clark

Exceptionally average.

The moderators have to judge on a case-by-case basis I'm sure, rather than wield big dumb blunt weaponry or they will lose good contributors to this forum. There are plenty of others available.
Perhaps they will see your approach as a bit too inflexible and decide you need to be less provocative in the phrases you have used against others on this forum and arrogant text example you have just responded to me with ('hows that')
I and I am sure others on this site are quite capable of going further than the authority or judgment of one or more online moderators for this site. I don't find you in the least bit intimidating.
I agree that effort should be made to keep an OP on track but don't get over-excited.
You started a wee thread on a discussion forum, your not a general in charge of troops.

Stay on topic, please.

Will try my best. Could you please ask T Clark to moderate his choice of phrase when debating others.

When I start a thread, I do it for a reason. I have a position I want to test, a question I want to answer, or some thoughts I want to put into words. I work to set up the OP so people can understand what I'd like the thread to be about. I define my terms, describe the issue, provide my position, and then lay out the terms of discussion. I am always surprised by how much I learn from other people's responses. The threads I start are important to me.

I try hard to show the same consideration for others that I desire for myself. I admit that I haven't always lived up to that goal, but I try. When someone calls me out on it, I apologize and try harder to keep on track.

It's just common courtesy.

I didn't find anything particularly harsh there. Let's not derail things any further. Either of you can send a PM if you're not happy.

When I start a thread, I do it for a reason. I have a position I want to test, a question I want to answer, or some thoughts I want to put into words. I work to set up the OP so people can understand what I'd like the thread to be about. I define my terms, describe the issue, provide my position, and then lay out the terms of discussion. I am always surprised by how much I learn from other people's responses — T Clark

I'm sure we all have similar or identical intentions. My only complaint with you, is you can be very insulting towards others. You come across as petulant at times. This is just my opinion and I am no angel myself but I try to be fair and just with everyone I communicate with.

I try hard to show the same consideration for others that I desire for myself. I admit that I haven't always lived up to that goal, but I try. When someone calls me out on it, I apologize and try harder to keep on track.
It's just common courtesy. — T Clark

I agree. The golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Nuff said.

Well, I don't intend to copy and paste examples for you here, where T Clark has been very disrespectful towards others. I am not a moderator so I don't intend to invest the required time. I am not trying to derail anything and I am aware that if I have a complaint I can PM a moderator if I wish to. I would personally rather sort it out myself, amicably, with the other party but thank you for your reminder that I can 'PM a moderator, if I choose to.

Respect :smile: No offense taken and I will respect your OP's and try to contribute to them in a useful way, and try to stay on track. As you said...Nuff said.

I always thought truth was/is/will be useful. In other words, pragmatic knowledge is basically knowledge as is commonly understood (jTb).

I had similar issues with the pragmatic and coherence theory of truth. It's pragmatic to stick to the correspondence theory of truth (gravity, for instance, can't be wished away even if it makes a practical difference to do so). Plus, that which corresponds to reality is usually that which coheres.

It's confusing because it is confusing. All people, or more realistically, groups of people, see a reality which they think exists separately of them. Individuals can change it and the group reality influences the individual. Is there an all embracing reality, capturing and directing all these realities? No, because that would be a new reality believed to exist independently of us. Which is a justified belief, as anyone wants his beliefs to be objectively true. But this is only a story we tell, like the story of God being the one and only Truth. — Cornwell1

No, it is not confusing, you are. Just go back and read what you wrote. "All people see a reality which they think exists separately from them." means that other people exist in a shared world, or else how could there be other people? Where would the other people be relative to you? You obviously don't know what you're saying and you have no compunction to correct yourself and speak in a coherent manner. So I have no idea what you're actually saying - if anything.

Confusing indeed... — Cornwell1

Only to you, not to me.

Let me add this. You can add everything to the story we tell without the need of proving it, as is asked for in the scientific story. I saw a discussion on this forum about the reality of electrons in the double slit experiment. Their reality as a particle. They can't be seen directly and it was conjectured that there were only lightening unicorns traveling between the emitter and screen and they don't like to be observed. Which is actually a pretty good description! — Cornwell1

Again, I have no idea whether you're referring to your own assumptions, or what is potentially the case independent of your assumptions.

That is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity is a category error where you confuse talking about the world with talking about yourself.

and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. — T Clark

Here you are wrong. That is not the function of thought. The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world, so we can walk in it with confidence. Which has a pragmatic aspect, obviously. But walking at night beneath the winter moon and stars in a sleeping city, shows the function of thought goes beyond its pragmatic function.



I totally agree there is an objective truth. I even know what it is at the physical fundament. Still, it's a story.

Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong, firstly on your assertion that truth and accuracy are synonymous and your assertion that paradox is useless. — universeness

I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm interested in what is the case. Your opinion has no bearing on what is the case which is why it is useless to mention what your opinion is. If you can't talk about what is the case, then I'm not interested. You also have the problem of reconciling the fact that I have opinions that I am not wrong. So what do we do then? You trying to have your cake and eat it to in declaring that all truths are subjective yet implying that is only the case for you and everyone else's subjective truths are wrong.

You seem to assign some priority to what you decide is useless to you regardless of its usefulness to others. God is a useless concept to me but I respect its usefulness to others and its status as fundamental to some. — universeness

No, that is what you are doing in asserting that you are right (accurate) and I am wrong (inaccurate), while at the same time asserting that all truths are subjective.

I have never once claimed that 'all truths are subjective,' I stated the posit as part of a paradox. I don't agree with your claim that there is a logical position that exists, within which, it's impossible for an individual to be wrong. The best that can be achieved is paradox, neither true nor false. You say this is a useless state. I think it's an intriguing state. You say I am not making sense, I say I am. So we reach panto stage. so hey ho, who cares? I will still dance with you, if you want to keep the music playing. — universeness

This makes no sense whatsoever. You make sense to yourself, but no one else.

I totally agree there is an objective truth. I even know what it is at the physical fundament. Still, it's a story. — Cornwell1

Here you are again confusing what it is that we are talking about. You're talking about stories. I'm talking about what the stories are about.

Here you are again confusing what it is that we are talking about. You're talking about stories. I'm talking about what the stories are about. — Harry Hindu

That's a story also...

To me your are now just running in a circle. No way to make progress.
Thanks for the exchange.

and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.
— T Clark

Here you are wrong. That is not the function of thought. The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world, so we can walk in it with confidence. Which has a pragmatic aspect, obviously. But walking at night beneath the winter moon and stars in a sleeping city, shows the function of thought goes beyond its pragmatic function. — Cornwell1

You say "The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world..." How is that different from "...the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"?

I provided that quote as example of one of the underlying metaphysical assumptions for Pragmatism. Metaphysical assumptions, called "absolute presuppositions" by R.G. Collingwood, are not true or false. They are more or less useful in particular situations.

You say "The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world..." How is that different from "...the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"? — T Clark

You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does.

Metaphysical assumptions, called "absolute presuppositions" by R.G. Collingwood, are not true or false. They are more or less useful in particular situations. — T Clark

I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. The presuppositions, while not true or false, correspond to true or false actions, so important in pragmatism. The actions might even be absolutely true or false. If I use my knowledge to walk on the streets at night and experience the magic of reality, the pragmatic aspect of my knowledge is secondary.

You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does. — Cornwell1

You're right. I wasn't certain which assumption you were rejecting.

I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. — Cornwell1

I've read Collingwood and I find his ideas about metaphysics helpful.

The presuppositions, while not true or false, correspond to true or false actions, so important in pragmatism. The actions might even be absolutely true or false. — Cornwell1

Pragmatism doesn't say anything about the truth of actions. How can an action be true or false?

Pragmatism doesn't say anything about the truth of actions. How can an action be true or false? — T Clark

If engineers develop a model on the basis of past experience, their words and actions assent to some notion of truth.

How can an action be true or false? — T Clark

Yeah thought that myself too. But surely some knowledge must be true or false. When assessing a site, and another pragmatic epistemogist comes up with different knowledge as you do, are you both telling the truth?

If engineers develop a model on the basis of past experience, their words and actions assent to some notion of truth. — sime

That doesn't tell me how an action can be true or false. I get up, go into the kitchen, and get a glass of water. Is that action true or false?

That doesn't tell me how an action can be true or false. I get up, go into the kitchen, and get a glass of water. Is that action true or false? — T Clark

Unless the action is related to context, a truth value isn't assignable.

Certainly in the context of predictive modelling, a truth value is assignable by definition of the context concerned. One can certainly be an anti-realist about truth in such contexts, but this isn't to deny the concept of truth or to identify truth with utility.
.