Nickerless Gasbag!
4m — universeness
They ask a dollar to question but without guaranteed response. You gave guaranteed response when you were a teacher. But it's worthwhile! A dollar I can spare!
Ive asked a question on the reactions part. The same I asked him by email. I have to check how to pay him that dollar — Hillary
I watched, coincidentally, a Star Trek Voyager episode, with captain Picard. In search for a vaccine the team ended up in a fight between the crew member with short blond hair and a black planet habitant. Both women, equipped with artificial hands with sharp pins with poison tips... — Hillary
I know a lot of the atheist phone-in YouTube stuff is through Patreon.
I intend to watch this month's podcast in full at some point but 3.5 hours is as long as a lord of the rings movie! — universeness
Oh you heathen!! Captain Picard on Star Trek Voyager!! Only your gods could make that happen!
Yeah, I remember the episode you are talking about. It was Star Trek the next generation.
All about the nefarious leader of a very African-looking tribal group and his intrigues to hold on to his power base. The fight was between the Enterprises security Chief Lieutenant Yar and the female suitor of the guy who was second in command to the black leader. — universeness
Ouioui! — Hillary
-So we are on to something here...and advance.I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume. — Tobias
Again, the author is irrelevant. Science and Philosophy doesn't have authorities. Their work rises and fall on its merit. In order to be able to do philosophy, we need to be aware of the latest and most credible knowledge. I don't know why you object the use of resources as a way to support our Philosophy. MAybe you could elaborate on that along with your critique on Induction!Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too. — Tobias
They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias
I would look in your suggested material but only if I was making the distinction you are accusing me of between Science and Every day knowledge...but I don't!Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias
-Correct we totally agree on those points.I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one — Tobias
I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world?What I ispute is objective access to the outside world. — Tobias
The video is very interesting. Maybe we can use it as a starting point for a discussion and see where the road takes us — Hillary
There are certainly costs involved in recording a podcast plus there is his time and expertise.You can ask on many websites for free, like here or physics fora. What money it costs Carroll to answer? — Hillary
Tennyson, quite possibly, had never lost in love or suffered in life. — Agent Smith
Have you watched the full 3.5h podcast for April? — universeness
Maybe somewhat off the beaten track, but do you know if new ST movies are planned? Is Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness something? Seems great! — Hillary
Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise? — Hillary
The ship was designed by just putting a model upside down. — Hillary
So, let's see. Maybe we can privately exchange and discuss a new thread. But first Im gonna sleep for a few hours. Eyelids dropping.. — Hillary
If you dream and them pesky gods try to set up a comlink, Spoiler alert! trust me!! it's just a dream! — universeness
W (double-U) →→ M (Emm)...New letter — Agent Smith
Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise?
— Hillary
The OP says "it is better to live." That's why I would be too scared to make the statement you made above. The geek army will get medieval on you for such sacrilege. As a polytheist, you should know better than to blaspheme like that. — universeness
First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept. — Nickolasgaspar
-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things. — Nickolasgaspar
I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try. — Nickolasgaspar
As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe."Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.." — Nickolasgaspar
Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. — Nickolasgaspar
I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world? — Nickolasgaspar
So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right. — Nickolasgaspar
I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem. — Nickolasgaspar
I am not arguing for a linear approach. I only argue for an order of importance of Objective verification in the process of justifying our Descriptions. Sure a theoretical quantity is always necessary.No, because empirical observation does not come out of nowehere. One needs concepts and categories to give meaning to observation. Therefore, instead of your linear approach, from observation to conceptualization, I hold on to a circular, hermeneutic appproach. — Tobias
I think I addressed this. Nothing is linear in real life or in science...a constant feedback is in action all the time.(this is why we don't have A scientific method but many methodologies). What we can say though Empirical interaction and theory can produce concepts. Imagination as a secondary quality can advance our concepts.I do not think your linear model points out 'the correct order of things'. — Tobias
-You misunderstood me. It wasn't a personal attack!!!My comment was based on the fact that no critique fully understands the value of induction.To see if I can do it, or to explain it to you? The second is not necessary and the first is uncalled for. I do not need to prove anything to you. As for the second, read Hume and then Kant for the solution. — Tobias
-So if I am correct you are using the example of our "uncertainty" for the Assumed Constant Regularity of our world.We can never verify if anything produces a result 'constantly'. 'Constantly' is obtained by a leap of faith, a generalization into the fuuture of past results. Next, one needs a kind of measure for credibility. The yardstick for credibility is never never free from authority, beliefs held in our current epoch etc. — Tobias
We are addressing basic Principles and axioms not rules about concepts (laws of evidence). Those are two different things and we do need intelligence and creativity for such more complex mental structures.But even those rules need to be demonstrated objectively before we can accept them as laws.Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe. — Tobias
that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!Ohhh 'direct', now I get it... By magic they are directly transferred to our brain. Who believen in magic now? — Tobias
Indeed, but mostly because I have no idea what 'objective value' means. 'Objective' means pertaining to the object, so every claim about the world is in this sense objective. Most people use objective in a different way, pertaining to the world as it really really is. Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world. — Tobias
-Fundamental does mean that. Fundamental refers to its role to feed facts for our hypotheses and to provide the facts necessary for their final or temporal verification.No, because I do not hold empirical observation to be foundational. It is necessary yes, for every claim and argument, but not a fundament in the sense of an absolute standpoint from which to judge. — Tobias
I am sure you didn't know the work I expect from induction but if you read my post...now you know.I am not disputing that it is important, in fact I think it is crucial. I do not think however, it does the work you want it to do, oferring a fundament from which you can judge all claims to knowledge. — Tobias
'Objective' means pertaining to the object" — Nickolasgaspar
'Objective' means pertaining to the object — Tobias
that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!
Our empirical interactions and observations are the direct source of the information we need to identify the value of a practice(objective verification).
We don't need to assume external systems... Even our imagination is shaped by our empirical experiences...Imagination doesn't create things magically out of thin air...right? we agreed on that. — Nickolasgaspar
'Objective' means pertaining to the object"
— Nickolasgaspar
'Objective' means pertaining to the object
— Tobias
Gracias! I didn't know that! — 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.