Rather, both sources are saying that knowledge constitutes a a subset of ones beliefs. — Relativist
I provided the definition from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy that categorically states that knowledge is belief — Relativist
(belief that is adequately justified and true) — Relativist
I'll give two examples:
I. :My name is Fred.
I believe this to be true, and I have strong justification to believe it (it's the name on my birth certificate, the name my friends and family have always called me, and the first name on a variety of legal documents). — Relativist
It's easy to see how the two often become mixed together though. I think this is especially actue in metaethics, where empiricsts epistemic presuppositions essentially amount to metaphysical presuppositions. "Examine the sense data; there are no values (or universals, or facts about meaning, etc.) to be found." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Admittedly, you can believe in both (see the catholic church). However, I think that they have different motivations for their belief. The "god of the parish" addresses the human tendency towards religion (fraternity, moral certainty, explanations and relief, etc.) while the philosophical god was a way to justify that tendency and/or the product of metaphysical investigations. That doesn't discount the philosophical god in any factual way, but it is nevertheless important to acknowledge. After all, even if a deistic god is entirely plausible, it does not mean that the god of the parish is (hence my point that conflating the two might be subconsciously beneficial to organized religion). On its own, a philosophical god would very likely seem soulless to most church goers — finarfin
By analogical predication, I mean when one predicates a property of a thing by way of an analogy that is in no way meant to be taken as one and the same (viz., univocally) or completely different (viz., equivocally): — Bob Ross
I think it is important when specifically speaking of God to use analogical predication; because God's nature is not known to us as He is in Himself but, rather, is known to us by way of analogy to His effects. He is known from what He is not that He produces and not what He is.
God’s true nature is not apparent to us, as it is in-itself, exactly because He is never afforded to our senses (nor could He be) and is always the necessary precondition, as Being itself, for all things sensed. — Bob Ross
However, this is not incompatible with the ‘strong natural theism’ I expounded: the central thesis merely claims that we can know through reason applied to the natural world around us about God’s nature—it could be equally true that God could expedite the process by just telling us. — Bob Ross
I will say that knowing God through reason applied to the ordinary world is stronger and richer than if God were to reveal it to us; because epistemically it would be much less certain with Divine Revelation and it comes with many other disadvantages (such as requiring faith, tradition, etc.) unless we are talking about God supernaturally infusing us with immanent knowledge. — Bob Ross
You said, "I know X is not a statement of belief". Well, it IS a statement of belief in standard philosophical discourse. — Relativist
We're still dealing with beliefs — Relativist
Our colloquial way of speaking is vague, and implies distinctions that are not real. An opinion is a belief. — Relativist
A TRUTH is a statement that corresponds to some aspect of reality. Of course there are truths. Truth is what we all want to have in our possession. The issue is: how do we assess whether of not some statement is true? A justification is a reason to believe the statement is true. Some justifications are better than others. If it's derived from deductive reasoning, you're on very solid ground (although you're still dependent on the premises being true). The point I've been making is that we rarely use deduction; more often we use abduction - it's an imperfect guide to truth, but it's usually the best we can do. — Relativist
You made no points that go to the central point. — apokrisis
And that is if wisdom and cleverness are cognitive processes, then how does that relate to the evolved structure of brains and nervous systems? If one isn’t minded to treat these things as gifts given by God to humans, but instead naturally evolved traits, then how does one make sense of their evolutionary continuity with mammalian neurobiology?
Brains in general are good in the sense that they put animals in a functional relation with their worlds. And brains work generally by applying the structural logic of dichotomies and hierarchies - the Peircean triad that is the cycle of reasoning. Abduction-deduction-induction. This understanding of the world by dialectical analysis - dissolving it into some structure of generals and particulars - is just what we see in every aspect of neuroanatomy. Frontal lobes for planning and motor control, back of the brain for sensory processing. Left brain for focal processing, right brain for global background or contextual awareness. Mid brain for emitting habitual responses in quick learnt and automatic fashion, higher brain for taking time to pause and analyse and so develop answers when faced by novelty. — apokrisis
Sure. But the brain doing all this is the same brain with the same cognitive structure. So the only difference is that playing chess is a highly constrained and artificial task – thus good for extracting the story of what is going on in a controlled setting. And then cleverness~wisdom is this standard brain trajectory applied to our lives in their most general and uncontrolled settings – the lives we live as social creatures interacting with the perils and opportunities of a complex physical environment. — apokrisis
What survives this test of time becomes the weight of mental habits that leaves us as well optimised as organisms as we can be. At least within whatever physical and social environment in which we must co-exist.
Anyway, my point here is that I’m not pulling positions out my arse. I have a metaphysics. I speak for a natural world that is organised by its natural rationality. — apokrisis
And brains work generally by applying the structural logic of dichotomies and hierarchies - the Peircean triad that is the cycle of reasoning. Abduction-deduction-induction. This understanding of the world by dialectical analysis - dissolving it into some structure of generals and particulars - is just what we see in every aspect of neuroanatomy. Frontal lobes for planning and motor control, back of the brain for sensory processing. Left brain for focal processing, right brain for global background or contextual awareness. Mid brain for emitting habitual responses in quick learnt and automatic fashion, higher brain for taking time to pause and analyse and so develop answers when faced by novelty. — apokrisis
I could be mistaken but you and Count Timothy von Icarus have your own metaphysical tradition. The one where we are all God’s special creation. Made imperfectly in His perfect image. Ect. You will view cleverness and wisdom within that mental framework.
And I instead have a different grounding point of view. The grand unifying perspective on Nature as a semiotic enterprise. The Universe as the growth of reason, material being as a structure of inveterate habit.
The problem becomes the God story is well known to me as it is just the general Western institution - impossible to avoid as part of collective culture. But my position seems to be poorly understood by you. — apokrisis
While science does appear to push the other story that is the natural philosophy viewpoint, it does this only in the watered down guise of Darwinian evolution and Newtonian mechanics. It is not the full-blooded response that is the holism of Aristotlean systems science and Peircean semiotics. — apokrisis
But that alternative metaphysics does exist. And it sets the terms which would count as a critique of anything I’ve said. — apokrisis
Instead, this thread has generally lapsed back to transcendental metaphysics where wisdom is just some mystical notion of The Good. Or what God would will in his own perfect image. Cleverness then gets to sit at the elbow of evil. A meretricious tool of the Devil as we have been warned ever since Adam and Eve. — apokrisis
I am certainly interested in folk actually setting out their ontological commitments. And talk of "good and bad" could mean adaptively optimal and its privation, or transcendently perfect and its privation. — apokrisis
Or I could say that any action can be judged as an adaptive optimisation that is so generally effective it can be relied on as a regular unthinking habit, and so "having an end in mind" becomes not even some particular thing that is in mind, but is instead made the flesh and blood of what I am about.
So clever thinking is aimed at the novel. Wisdom has already assimilated what is generally "the good" as just its general orientation to the world.
And wisdom can't "know precisely which ends are actually good". That is an appeal to transcendent truths that float above the real world. It can only, in the usual fallible and pragmatic fashion, keep testing, keep exploring, by being alert to its own failings and getting out the clever thinking to figure a better world model out.
So again, I highlight the quick way you leap to a transcendent framing of what wisdom could even be as a psychological trait. There is a perfection out there waiting for the wise. Whereas I stay rooted in the pragmatic world where we are moved only by our failures of prediction.
We can propose general ends that we ought to try to achieve. Then see if they do lead us some place that seems better. And that in itself is the pursuit of an adaptive life balance rather than some idealised final perfection. — apokrisis
So as soon as someone like yourself tries to frame things as a false dichotomy – the type where there is the bad choice of being good or bad – then I try to reframe it as a true systems dichotomy. One that sets up the win~win of a complementary pair of oppositions. — apokrisis
So if I turn left, I can fix that by turning right. Or if I turn away from the good towards the bad, then I can turn back towards the good again. — apokrisis
So at the level of social psychology, that cashes out as the general systems principle of stable social systems being organised as a functional balance between local competition and global cooperation. Another way of saying that any physical system is some fruitful or rational balance of its global constraints and its local degrees of freedom. — apokrisis
Neither energy is inherently good or bad. It is the matching of the dynamical balance to some context of possibilities. Any immature social endeavour needs to burn a lot of clever ideas. Any mature social endeavour need to preserve the balance of those ideas that made for the best collective habit. — apokrisis
You can always use Peirce's religiosity against me. But I already agree. He wasn't of a time or place where he could easily have escaped religious indoctrination. — apokrisis
Most christian churches continue to parade around these two very different ideas of god. In parishes and in the scripture, god is personalist, but in religious scholarship, he is a metaphysical necessity. People don't go to church for metaphysics, but if you dedicate your entire life to one religion, I suppose it's inevitable that you search for more intellectual justifications. Ironically enough, in doing so they create a deity that nobody would really care about, because it is so detached from their parishoners' beliefs and needs. — finarfin
But why would we use two words if we could do with just the one? My argument is that they are both basically the same thing, but then also completely different in terms of scale. — apokrisis
I guess I am questioning if they are generally understood to be the same thing. "Intelligence," as commonly used, tends to be viewed procedurally (i.e., as discursive ratio) or even computationally. Wisdom by contrast tends to deal with ultimate ends. An IQ test is supposed to measure intelligence, but it's unclear to me if it says much of anything about a grasp of ends (at least directly). So, I suppose my question is if "intelligence" covers the (ultimate) desirability of ends. — Count Timothy von Icarus
From a neurocognitive viewpoint, I would say the most useful definition is to oppose wisdom and cleverness. They relate to each other as the general and the specific. Or in brain terms, wisdom is accumulated useful habits and smartness is focused attention on a novel problem.
So wisdom comes with age and cleverness with youth. Being wise means hardly having to think about what is generally best while being smart is being able to leap to a particular answer. — apokrisis
Right, so wisdom isn't equivalent with what appears to be wise or is said to be wise by others. In this case, the individuals, and perhaps the society, are unwise. So then wisdom isn't just any intellectual habit, but rather a certain type of intellectual habit.
...
The question is if those ends are truly (rather than merely apparently) desirable though. If one does not distinguish between good and bad ends (wise and unwise ends) then it would seem that wisdom is just "whatever habits just so happen to emerge," or "whatever is currently said to be wise." — Count Timothy von Icarus
So how do you build a wise society? Allow the creation of social institutions to flourish. Allow wise habits to take up a permanent presence. — apokrisis
These would be proper unities of opposites. Things that are the complementary bounds of what is possible in the way that the triadic structure of a hierarchy is formed by the scale difference which is to be divided as completely as possible by a local and global bound.
This is a deep aspect of metaphysical argument that most never get. But you only have to consider the metaphysical dichotomies that have always seemed the most fundamental. Like chance~necessity, discrete~continuous, part~whole, integrated~differentiated, atom~void, matter~form, and so on. Each of these pairs seem to join two things that are as completely unalike as can be imagined in some basic way, and yet they then complement each other as they thus frame all the intermediate states that could arise in between.
Think of black and white as the complete lack of brightness and its equally total presence. Each is the other's negation. Black is zero white, and white is zero black. But then between these two bounding extremes arises any possible number of shades of grey. You can have a grey that is a 1% drip of black in a 99% pot of white. Or a 50/50 mix. Or whatever balance of the two extremes you care to put a number on.
So a useful metaphysical dichotomy comes with a hierarchy of scale in transparent fashion. Complementary limits on being are set. Then everything that actually exists is some gradation – a particular balance – in between. — apokrisis
The categories that make sense are the ones that make sense of all the intermediate cases as being placed at some relative position inbetween the extremes.
...
Everything can be made relative in a pragmatically flexible fashion. — apokrisis
Wisdom always sounds like a good thing to have. But really, it is just some set of habits that have evolved within a society's own game of life. — apokrisis
If one does not distinguish between good and bad ends (wise and unwise ends) then it would seem that wisdom is just "whatever habits just so happen to emerge," or "whatever is currently said to be wise." — Count Timothy von Icarus
But among monotheistic religions, the philosophical god conceived by scholars of the church were much later additions to a traditionally personalist god. Ever since then... — finarfin
I'm using the terms more precisely- using definitions that dovetail epistemology (dealing with beliefs and their justification) and psychology (what a belief IS to a person). — Relativist
It's a statement of belief* by whoever formulated it — Relativist
Perhaps you're thinking, "it would be true even if no one had formulated it". But what exactly would you be referring to as the "it" that is true? The statement? Does the statement exist independently of human minds? Do all possible statements have some sort of independent existence? In my opinion, statements only exist in minds. — Relativist
No, not all unproveable truths. I was being careless in my wording. More precisely: most of our rational, acquired beliefs are IBEs. (My objective had only been to contrast this with the notion that our beliefs are somehow proven deductively; in most cases - IBEs are the best we can do, and that's perfectly fine). — Relativist
I do hold that we have some beliefs that are not underdetermined. The belief that the object before me is a tree or not a tree is not underdetermined. Properly basic beliefs (e.g. there is a world external to ourselves) aren't underdetermined, because they aren't determined through reasoning at all- so the term seems inapplicable (however, arguably- they are determined by the environment that produced us. This aspect is what makes them properly basic - a variation of Alvan Plantinga's reformed epistemology). — Relativist
I understand the semantic distinction, but are the attitudes actually distinct? (Remember that I suggested certainty is an attitude). Some may insist there is a parallel distinction of attitude, but I'm not convinced. — Relativist
This seems similar to someone believing a proposition to be true vs the proposition actually being true. All we can ever do is to make a judgement: there is no oracle to inform us that our judgement is correct. One or more people may examine the reasoning and concur, but this only elevates a subjective judgement to an intersubjective one. Similar with the feeling of certainty: it's subjective, and so is the analysis that leads to the feeling. When we're certain of something, we believe we've arrived at objective truth - that's what it means to be certain. — Relativist
Because of the exclusion problem and related problems, pretty much all the discussion of mental to mental causality in that space that I have seen actually centers around mental to physical causation (generally on the idea that, if a mental state m1 brings about another, m2, such a change is thought to also necessarily involve a physical state transition from p1 to p2). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Under this view, we cannot achieve repayment of our sins on our own; but God has to freely choose to save us by sacrificing Himself. Salvation here is referring to the restoration of the sinner into the proper order of creation. — Bob Ross
Sounds good. Here’s some differences and you can choose what you want us to discuss.
Stereotypical Christianity vs. “Bobism”
1. One must accept Christ in order to be saved; whereas one must sufficiently act in accord with God to be saved.
2. Justice is retributive; whereas justice is restorative.
3. The Great Sacrifice is freely chosen in a way where it could have been otherwise; The Great Sacrifice is a necessity of God’s freedom.
3. The Trinity, the good life, the path to salvation, etc. is revealed; all of those are naturally determinable.
4. Humans are the most loved by God; Persons of pure form are the most loved by God.
5. Unrepentant sinners go to eternal hell (viz., the lake of fire where there will be gnashing of teeth and great weeping); unrepentant sinners go to an indefinite hell that punishes them appropriately to get them to realize that their sins are bad until they repent.
6. The animal kingdom largely is ordered towards what is perfectly good (e.g., the lion eating the zebra is not bad); the animal kingdom is largely polluted with evil due to the Great Fall.
7. Humans caused the Great Fall; a person which existed prior to most if not all of evolution caused the Great Fall.
8. God can and has committed (retributively) just punishments without giving mercy; whereas God has to synthesize (Restorative) Justice and Mercy.
Etc. — Bob Ross
When we say God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, etc. we are speaking analogically and not univocally. — Strong Natural Theism, by Bob Ross
3. The Trinity, the good life, the path to salvation, etc. is revealed; all of those are naturally determinable. — Bob Ross
Objection 2. Further, the Divine Law should have come to man's assistance where human reason fails him: as is evident in regard to things that are of faith, which are above reason. But man's reason seems to suffice for the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts do not belong to the Old Law, which is a Divine law.
Reply to Objection 2. It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man's assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient, but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract, as to the universal principles of the natural law; but through being habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of things to be done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend of judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue man from both these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those things set forth to which reason cannot reach, such as the Trinity of the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as the Unity of the Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to which reason is liable. — Aquinas, ST I-II.99.2 - Whether the Old Law contains moral precepts?
For some matters connected with human actions are so evident, that after very little consideration one is able at once to approve or disapprove of them by means of these general first principles: while some matters cannot be the subject of judgment without much consideration of the various circumstances, which all are not competent to do carefully, but only those who are wise: just as it is not possible for all to consider the particular conclusions of sciences, but only for those who are versed in philosophy... — Aquinas ST I-II.100.1 - Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?
I think what you are really contending, which to me begs the question, is whether or not God has the authority to take innocent life; and this just loops back to our original point of contention. — Bob Ross
That’s an interesting point. I am going to have to think about that one and get back to you.
My prima facie response would be that the world is fallen due to sin, and that sin is what causally is responsible for our mortality. Without “evil of persons”, there would be no mortality. That seems like the only viable rejoinder. — Bob Ross
Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. We could even draw a logical line from human laziness to a situation where people simply plug their "personality" into a mobile AI, stick it on themselves, and allow it to do all their conversing for them. — Baden
All we can do is be the change we want to see. — Baden
I don't think ALL beliefs are IBEs:
-We have some basic, intrinsic beliefs, that aren't inferred. Example: the instinctual belief in a world external to ourselves.
We also accept some things uncritically (no one's perf ect). — Relativist
I've been treating "underdetermined" as any belief that is not provably true (i.e. determined=necessarily true). Under this extreme definition, nearly every belief we have is underdetermined...
Most of our beliefs are not provably true, so I have labelled them IBEs. — Relativist
Re: certainty- that's an attitude, and it may or may not be justified. — Relativist
Justification doesn't require deductive proof. Consider your example "this entity before me is either a tree or it is not a tree." Solipsism is logically possible, so that there actually isn't something before you. We can justifiably feel certain despite the logical possibility we're wrong. — Relativist
An adherence to merely syllogistic logic might explain some of the difficulties had hereabouts. — Banno
It has many ways of dealing with many placed predicates and relations. The ancients and medievals did not lack a notion of polyadic properties. Indeed the core sign relation for language, supposition, and epistemic relations are all triadic. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Good question. We have beliefs that follow necessarily from other beliefs/facts, so they're provable in that sense. It seems inescapable that we depend on some foundational beliefs. So nothing can be proven without some sort of epistemological foundation. What are your thoughts? — Relativist
Most of our beliefs are not provably true, so I have labelled them IBEs. — Relativist
If some people do things for no reason then your approach works. But no one does things for no reason. No one fails deliberately. — Leontiskos
No, that's just one example of Evil and not all examples. — Barkon
This is no different than having your friend do your homework for you. If he explains you the topic, you read the book, you understand it, you do the assignment, you're fine. If he does it for you, then you cheated, and no one likes a cheater. — Hanover
AI is result-oriented. Intellectual development, and particularly philosophical intellectual development, is process-oriented. If you just want to post the "right" answer, you are doing things wrong. — Baden
Such as by taking a break mid sentence with no good reason, to add an insult, for all readers and who you're talking to, to decipher. It’s a bailing (like from a skateboard) with all your intention being channeled into a maleficent activity. — Barkon
Underdetermination is the theory that theories are not determined by the evidence, but rather are chosen in order to organize the evidence, and in some way are a selective pressure on which evidence is relevant to consider. — Moliere
Now I'll go this far: If underdetermination, as a theory, leads us to be unable to differentiate between science and pseudo-science, and we believe there is such a thing as pseudo-science (I do), then we're in a pickle. — Moliere
Most of our beliefs are not provably true, so I have labelled them IBEs. — Relativist
What I Ask of You
This position is no where near complete; and I would appreciate it, though, if people could engage with me on this position and its claims to help further or kill the ideas in it.
For those that are interested, <here's a link to the document I am writing>. — Bob Ross
5. It provides a perfect synthesis of justice and mercy that necessitates the practical and reasonable acquisition of salvation; — Bob Ross
Advantages (Over Mainstream Religion)
This strong natural theistic view is immune to:
1. Issues with historicity;
2. Having to depend on historical, Divine Revelation for morality;
3. Having to depend on the passing of tradition onto the next generation;
4. Requiring to accept the writings or reject the whole theory of all the religious scriptures passed down as canon (in whichever religion we are talking about);
5. Having to depend on faith (viz., trust in an authority to verify, at least in part, its position); and
6. Having to accept the Divinity of any given person in order to be saved (such as in Christianity). — Bob Ross
I see your point, that by labelling X and IBE, underdetermination may not apply. Labeling it the explanation would be underdetermined. — Relativist
But I suggest that in the real world, we operate on beliefs, which are often formed by inferring to the best explanation from the facts at hand (background beliefs will unavoidably affect the analysis). — Relativist
Even if we were perfect at this, the resulting beliefs would still be "underdetermined", but ideally they will be our best explanation for the set of information we have. — Relativist
So, we don't "resolve underdetermination tout court," rather, we resolve some specifically pernicious instances of its application. And then, when it comes to scientific theories, the problem of underdetermination is less concerning because our knowledge isn't just a sort of statistical model, which if radically altered, has "remade the world." When we shift paradigms, it isn't that the old world of trees, fire, stars, and sound is revealed to be illusory, and a new socially constructed world has taken its place. We are still dealing with the same actualities as apprehended through new conceptual means. And crucially, while there might be many ways to correctly describe something, these will be isomorphic. When underdetermination becomes more pernicious is when it denies this isomorphism, such that scientific findings become "sociology all the way down" or "power struggles (will to power) all the way down." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Hence, if we do not like the skeptical conclusions, we should take a look at the epistemic starting points that lead to them.
Indeed, if an epistemology leads to skepticism, that might be a good indication it is inadequate. — Count Timothy von Icarus
To me, that is an insane decision that makes no sense at all. — Athena
Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander
I'm sort of saying "Well, what if the radical conclusions are true, after all? Maybe it's the realist philosophy of science which is wrong, then" — Moliere
Underdetermination is the theory that theories are not determined by the evidence, but rather are chosen in order to organize the evidence, and in some way are a selective pressure on which evidence is relevant to consider. — Moliere
1-4 are observations of human beings attempting to generate knowledge which fit with this belief -- basically an IBE, or really just a set of reasons for why I think underdetermination is a good default position. I.e. I don't have a deep quandary with denying causation as a metaphysical reality. That's because causation isn't real but how we decide to organize some body of knowledge.
Closer, or does that just read as more of the same to you? — Moliere
That empiricism and academic skepticism died out, in part perhaps because of these arguments, is why St. Thomas doesn't have them as major contenders to rebut in his epoch. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I am not sure about the rhetorical strategy of continually expressing perplexity about the doctrine you are expounding on or its use by people you are criticizing. I think though that in this case it actually suggests a real confusion it probably doesn't mean to imply. The argument for why form in the intellect (the intellect's move from potency to actuality) cannot be unrelated to its causes comes from the idea that: a. every move from potency to act has a cause in some prior actuality; b. causes cannot be wholly unrelated (i.e. arbitrarily related) to their effects (completely equivocal agents) or else they wouldn't be causes in the first place and what we'd actually have is a spontaneous move from potency to act. Form is just that which makes anything actual to effect anything at all, so form is, in one sense, always present in all causes (granted there are analogical agents). Arguing for this doesn't require question begging and presupposing the doctrine, it requires upstream premises (I see now that Klima appears to have hit on this in more detail). — Count Timothy von Icarus
1. Things do not happen “for no reason at all.” Things/events have causes. If something is contingent, if it has only potential existence, then some prior actuality must bring it into being. It will not simply snap into being of itself. Our experiences are contingent, thus they must be caused by something that is prior to them.
2. Being is intelligible, and to be is to be intelligible. Every being is something in particular. That is, it has a form, an actuality, that is determinant of what it is (as well as the potential to change, explained by matter). This actuality determines how a thing interacts with everything else, including our sense organs and our intellects. If this was not the case, interactions would be essentially uncaused, and then there would be no reason for them to be one way and not any other (i.e. random). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Broadly speaking, an argument from underdetermination is one that attempts to show that available evidence is insufficient to determine which of several competing theories is true. That is, many different theories might be able to explain the same evidence, hence any move to choose between theories must be “underdetermined,” i.e., not determined by the evidence. Within the class of such arguments, there are many that go a step further. These will often purport to show that for any body of evidence, there will always be an infinite number of different explanations that are consistent with that evidence. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If we accept abductive reasoning (inference to best explanation on available evidence - IBE) as leading to rational beliefs, is there really a problem? Such beliefs will, of course, be undertermined but that just means they don't comprise knowledge (in the strict sense).
Epistemology should be of practical use in the world, and in the real world we are nearly always deriving conclusions from limited information. IBEs are the practical ideal. — Relativist
Is it enough to say
"Modern philosophy has problems. These medieval thinkers didn't have these problems. This is because modern philosophy invented this problem for itself by stripping out all the thoughts which earlier thinkers relied upon in making such inferences. Therefore, we should adopt these earlier approaches, given the incredible progress knowledge has made -- there is a disconnect between ability, and these supposed modern problems that we can pass over by reading the older solutions" ?
Does that demonstrate having read the OP? — Moliere
My thinking is with respect to underdetermination and its value -- what I read were some solutions to underdetermination based on a generalization of a few select authors rather than what I might say in favor of underdetermination, for instance. So I wanted some sort of reason why these are even appealing at all? — Moliere
For myself I don't feel a deep need to argue for underdetermination because to me it explains why we go through all the hoops we do in making scientific inferences -- we don't just see the object as it is, we frequently make mistakes, and go about looking for reasons to justify our first beliefs while discounting possibilities not on the basis of evidence, but because they do not fit. This is inescapable for any productive thought at all -- but it has the result that we only have a tentative grasp of the whole. — Moliere
This does not imply that we come to know everything about the actuality of the form. Indeed, we will never know everything about any sort of thing. As Aquinas’ famously put it: “all the efforts of the human intellect cannot exhaust the essence of a single fly.” Nonetheless we know what a fly is. We understand it. It is this phenomenological experience of understanding that is the key datum which epistemology is supposed to explain. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is something I thought while reading MacIntyre. Yes, I see what you're saying, but like Heidegger you're sort of inventing a whole mindset that is "pre-modern", and justifying it with many quotes -- but at the end of the day if you haven't spoken to people from the pre-modern era then, my brother in christ, you cannot make claims about how pre-modern people think no matter how many texts you read from that era.
It elucidates how we think, but it may not be the panacea of problems contemporary philosophy faces.
It looks soothing -- but ultimately when someone says that if we go back to some ancient or medieval thinker as the person who saw it all I think that we're kind of fibbing to ourselves. — Moliere
We're attempting to reconstruct the thoughts of people we can't talk to, yes. — Moliere
Yet if an epistemology results in our having to affirm conclusions that seem prima facie absurd, and if further, it seems to lead towards radical skepticism and epistemological nihilism, or an ever branching fragmentation of disparate “skeptical solutions” and new “anti-realisms,” that might be a good indication that it is simply a bad epistemology. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Knowledge of trees, an understanding of what a tree is, comes from the presence of this form in our intellect after it has been abstracted from the senses. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The result is that the underdetermination of sheer prediction becomes unanswerable, and skepticism reigns.* — Count Timothy von Icarus
Edit: with Superman we could also avoid belief and still get an apparent error with "Clark Kent appears on the Daily Planet payroll." — Count Timothy von Icarus
On your reasoning, we can disprove the thesis simply by noting that Superman wears a cape whereas Kent does not. — Leontiskos
I'm sympathetic to most of what you have been saying. But this contradiction can easily be resolved. "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are both names for the same person - but each name is assigned to a different persona. This is not particularly strange - pen names, professional names, character names (Barry Humphries, for example), regal names, baptismal names, adoptive names, married names, aliases of all sorts. — Ludwig V
As it is being trained to complete massive amounts of texts, the model comes to develop latent representations (encoded as the values of billions of contextual embedding stored in the hidden neural network layers) of the beliefs of the authors of the text as well as the features of the human world that those authors are talking about. At some stage, the model comes to be able to accurately impersonate, say, both a misinformed Moon landing hoax theorist and a well informed NASA engineer/historian. However, in order to be able to successfully impersonate both of those people, the model must be able to build a representation of the state of the world that better reflects the knowledge of the engineer than it does the beliefs of the conspiracy theorist. The reason for this is that the beliefs of the conspiracy theorist are more easily predictable in light of the actual facts (known by the engineer/historian) and the additional assumption that they are misguided and misinformed in specific ways than the other way around. In other words, the well informed engineer/historian would be more capable of impersonating a Moon landing hoax theorist in a play than the other way around. He/she would sound plausible to conspiracy theorists in the audience. The opposite isn't true. The misinformed theorists would do a poor job of stating the reasons why we can trust that Americans really landed on the Moon. So, the simple algorithms that trains the model for impersonating proponents of various competing paradigms enable it to highlight the flaws of one paradigm in light of another one. When the model is being fine-tuned, it may be rewarded for favoring some paradigms over others (mainstream medicine over alternative medicines, say) but it retains the latent ability to criticize consensual opinions in the light of heterodox ones and, through suitable prompting, the user can elicit the exercise of those capabilities by the post-trained model. — Pierre-Normand
There is both low-level continuity and high-level shift in telos. At the low level, the telos remains accurate next-token prediction, or, more accurately, autoregressive selection. At the high level, there occurs a shift from aimless reproduction of patterns in the training data to, as GPT-5 puts it "assistant policy with H/H/A (helpful/harmless/accurate) goals". How the sense that the model develops of what constitute an accurate response, and of how accuracy is better tracked by some consensual opinions and not others (and sometimes is better tracked by particular minority opinions) is a fairly difficult question. But I think it's an epistemological question that humans also are faced with, and LLMs merely inherit it. — Pierre-Normand
I'd suggest that the sheer instrumentality of the "new science" is a major culprit here. It leads to a sort of pride. It's a particularly pernicious pride in that it often masquerades as epistemic humility. Its epistemic bracketing is often an explicit turn towards the creature and the good of the creature without reference to the creator, as if the one could be cut off from the other. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," and exchanged a holistic view for a diabolical process that cuts apart and makes it so that "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Merely syllogistic logic cannot deal with modal or other intensional contexts. It treats identity as just another predication. That's one of the reasons it's not much used anymore. — Banno
Leibniz' whole point was that if you have two things with all the same properties, then you don't have two things. You were mistaken and there is only one thing after all. Thus the "=" on your definition is by definition not a two-place relation. Instead it is a reflexive relation where the object is identical to itself, and where we have mistaken a single object for two different objects. — Leontiskos