Your 'valid' critique was a few pejorative adjectives, a few platitudes, and a few links to books/videos that maybe were supposed to supply the actual critique.... — jas0n
I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar
You can not have wise claims without epistemic support. — Nickolasgaspar
This is an awkward tautology. The hard part (the actual work) is figuring out what all that otherwise vague babble means. — jas0n
I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar
How can a statement be accepted as false if it is true? Riddle me that ! — jas0n
I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar
explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support — Nickolasgaspar
Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up.what makes a claim wise...in your opinion? — Nickolasgaspar
-I think you are an excellent example for my arguments! I hope Agent Smith can observe this interaction and see how huge of a problem epistemic disconnectedness is for Pseudo Philosophy and sophists.'Hello. I'm Nick. I define a wise (philosophical) claim to be one with epistemic support. Now, given this uselessly vague definition, I challenge you to accept and challenge this definition simultaneously.' — jas0n
Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself. — Nickolasgaspar
Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up. — jas0n
Exactly! Modern Science studies the physical aspects of Nature, by means of their innate "scope" of Consciousness (what we know with). But they take that inwardly focused "lens" for granted, because it is not a material object to be dissected into structural elements. Instead, Consciousness arises from complex systems as a holistic function. It seems to be "aware" of internal neural states, converting their physical patterns into metaphysical meanings.3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc. — Agent Smith
Thanks. Since I have no formal training in philosophical argumentation, I'm using this forum as a "school of hard knocks". As a child, my opinion was seldom solicited, and it was expected to align with the rather conventional views of my father (with a sixth grade education & fundamentalist indoctrination). So, I reached adulthood with a scarcity of clear ideas of my own, and little confidence in those few I had mulled-over inwardly.↪Gnomon
:up: Your posts are definitely improving through time in my humble opinion. Just been reading this interview which I'm sure you will find relevant. — Wayfarer
Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics & Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar
Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar
-I don't know when you stop beating your wife? can you see the problem in your initial statement?
And how entering that home will allow you to know???
What methods will you use to FALSIFY that universal negative statement? — Nickolasgaspar
Likewise, if I wanted to know if there's an ultimate truth, a ToE, wouldn't I have to look for it "everywhere" to come to the conclusion that there is one (I discover it) or that there isn't one (Your search - ToE - did not match any documents). — Agent Smith
Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity". — Gnomon
-You just did by pointing out that we should accept as a legit philosophical statement that QM and Information theory point to "the mind-of-the-observer", when none of our facts support such a claim.Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with the appeal to authority of "its philosophy". — Gnomon
-By using the term " traditional" you in essence "demand"(in a good way) respect as if it is an authority.I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. — Gnomon
-That is not true because Philosophy is accepted as the main tool in science and I it isn't assumed that science is the only tool of epistemology and without limits in what it can achieve.That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical position known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. — Gnomon
-The crisis expands through ages....this is why Natural Philosophy was forced to split from the academy. Some Philosophers saw that things were going nowhere, anyone could presume anything he wanted, they constantly ignored the guidlines provided by established epistemology and objectivity didn't play a role in their evaluations. This is what we still can observe by Idealists and super-naturalists.Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. — Gnomon
-Again Science and scientism have nothing to do with the issue in hand. We are talking about Objective and Verifiable auxiliary principles in our philosophical interpretations VS Subjective and Unverifiable principles. We are talking about high standards of evidence and evaluation VS no standards at all and we are referring to epistemic foundations vs faith based foundations in Metaphysics.By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra. — Gnomon
For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and ↪180 Proof
are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science and philosophy — Gnomon
-Well we all know how stupid we are...don't worry. Our differences, probably are not in our mental abilities but in the methods and in our auxiliary principles we use which force our syllogisms to drift apart.And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. — Gnomon
But I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. of the 174 list in the link below, only Daniel Dennett and Thomas Nagel books are in my library. The others, I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae. — Gnomon
So here is a question. You are interested in Information in Consciousness, but you say that you are sill on the margins of establishment scientific concern.And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, including philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of establishment scientific concern. — Gnomon
3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc. — Agent Smith
Why are you returning to this attempt to limit the applicability of a universal logical rule?The Null Hypothesis is, as I told you, on the whole about causality and requires an experimental or other kind of study. To establish a causal link between cancer and smoking would require us to use H0 (Smoking doesn't cause cancer). The Alternative Hypothesis (H1). — Agent Smith
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.