If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? — Cornwell1
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. — universeness
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
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 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
Well, that's not very diplomatic or friendly. — universeness
The moderators are the arbiters. Why don't you request a directive from them? Let them be the class monitor. — universeness
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
Exceptionally average.How's that? — T Clark
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 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
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.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
Only to you, not to me.Confusing indeed... — Cornwell1
Again, I have no idea whether you're referring to your own assumptions, or what is potentially the case independent of your assumptions.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
and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. — T Clark
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.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
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.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
This makes no sense whatsoever. You make sense to yourself, but no one else.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
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.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. — Harry Hindu
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"? — T Clark
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
You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does. — Cornwell1
I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. — Cornwell1
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
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
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.