And just a few posts ago, I discussed the no one is disallowed from choosing what to refute with RAA, as long as the refutation is valid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

1. A -> (B & ~B) {1}
2. A {2}
3. B & ~B {1, 2}
4. ~A {1} — TonesInDeepFreeze

Is it incoherent to say "Science is what scientists do, and what scientists do changes over time"? — Moliere

By the above criteria. You don't see Gassendi or Lucretius referenced in the activity of sciences today (just to give some naturalist philosophers that would seem to get along with the ideas, but aren't needed for science). Why should you? — Moliere

That is, rather than an organized body of knowledge based on empiricism, I'd say science is what scientists do. — Moliere

That is, I'd defend the notion of a standpoint: I think that people who do the thing are in a better position to know about it. — Moliere

many a scientist has had some pretty kooky beliefs outside of their work. — Moliere

1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science — Science | Merriam-Webster

Without the word 'assumption':

1. A -> (B & ~B) {1}
2. A {2}
3. B & ~B {1, 2}
4. ~A {1} — TonesInDeepFreeze

What if we reject (1) instead? Then A is made true, but it does not imply (B∧¬B). Your proof for ¬A depends on an arbitrary preference for rejecting (2) rather than (1). — Leontiskos

1. A→(B∧¬B) assumption
2. A assumption
3. B∧¬B 1,2, conditional proof
4. ~A 2, 3 reductio — Banno

That's obviously not the reductio. — Banno

I think that the particular era of science will specify what makes a good guess — Moliere

-share- — Moliere

Guess-check-share-guess-check-share-guess-check-share... — Moliere

Plumbing is a systematic body of knowledge that relies upon empirical guess-work, but it's not a science. — Moliere

And all the many systems of knowledge which philosophers produce aren't exactly a science either. — Moliere

Ok. That is much clearer than your other posts. I suppose I agree with what is conveyed. However, the RAA has formally either rho or mu as a premise, so no choice between the conjunct is needed within the RAA, the RAA is logical. — Lionino

• A1. μ→¬ρ
• A2. ρ
• A3. Therefore, ¬μ

• B1. ρ
• B2. Suppose: μ
• B3. Contradiction, therefore ¬μ

From the supposition we learn (P→¬Q), at which point P must be further asserted beyond supposition if we are to actually arrive at ¬Q: — Leontiskos

• C1. ρ
• C2. Suppose: μ
• C3. Contradiction, therefore (ρ xOR μ)
• C4. Therefore, ¬μ {Assumption/premise trumps supposition}

In terms of practices the bookkeeping is important: the reference to the same kinds of units so that methods and findings can be shared, for instance, can be characterized as a formalized method of collective bookkeeping so that they can communicate what they observe to one another. — Moliere

There can be motivations to do science like a sense of wonder, but there are also motivations like "I want to make more money", or "I want scientific glory" or "I want to disprove that sunavabitch!" :D

But even moreso I don't think the motivation matters as much as the activity: whether you're there out of a sense of wonder or because it's how you pay your bills the work that is valuable requires communicable findings. — Moliere

I think there's a temptation to treat science as a kind of magic — Moliere

More like an intricate conversation that's been recorded over time and modified in light of good bookkeeping (so that the conversation can happen over time, for the most part) of some clever guesses with checks -- mathematically it's "Guess and check" within a community that spans over time. — Moliere

1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science — Science | Merriam-Webster

I agree you need people trained the right way before encouraging them to heed the motto. But given the number of academics who seem remarkably unenlightened, perhaps it is not normal academic education that is required. — Ludwig V

And I think this is just common sense, which makes me wonder just what the sense, common or otherwise, that informed the judgment of some people in the Middle Ages.

And while knowing the answer to that may not change what we do, it seems it might be instructive to know with some exactness just what their error was, why or how the the exclusive study of (in their case) books was thought better than life itself. — tim wood

Well, at least to look for something beyond - and maybe wisdom to recognize that what is present is also the beyond. — tim wood

Indeed it is! I'll add here some clarity that I chose to leave out of the last post. By "fixed" I mean that a text establishes a field of meanings, or a set of meanings within a horizon of possible meanings, or however works best to express it. — tim wood

Or, is there something whose meaning is not fixed? I say no. Meanings can be wide and broad, but there must be some connection between meaning and text, else the meaning is properly identified as being independent of the text. — tim wood

1. Anything whose meaning is fixed is limited and to that extent bad.
2. The meaning of a book is fixed.
3. Therefore, books are limited and to that extent bad.

The main reason base 10 won out in most other spheres was due to the near-universal adoption of Arabic/Indian numerals for positional notation - a historical contingency. — SophistiCat

To say the world is what is, presupposes “world”, yet still leaves “what” unanswered as to its case.

The world is what is the case is the analytical tautological truth we end up with, but says nothing abut how we got there.

The world is all and any of that of which being the case, is determinable a posteriori. — Mww

It would be odd to claim that there is no significant difference between an entailment that is known and an entailment that is unknown. — Leontiskos

I understand and try to practice a version of reducing harm by changing what is in my power while knowing that it is hopefully a kind of subtraction of bad from consequences I will never learn about. That is how I hear Hillel saying: "do not do unto others what you would not have done to you." The criteria are immediately available. — Paine

As a parting shot, chaos theory is trying to bring into a Logos what Aristotle had written off. There is something about emergence which is more "universal" than our previous models imagined. — Paine

I think I must agree with you, here. — tim wood

My overall point, now getting obscured, is that an original standard of behaviour, to study books to the exclusion of all else, is now pretty much dismissed. And that granted, it's worth (imho) a dive into the reasons for that dismissal. The most general expression of which seems to be that such a life is for most just not a life at all, and a life misspent. The roots for this seeming to be at least the enlightenment, the sense of freedom and liberty and duty under these, and a sense of the possibility of a science of the world. This latter being a movement from the acceptance of the mysteries of things to the possibility of understanding them, the desirability of that understanding, and the invitation to do so based on a Cristian model that perfection is here in the world (because God made the world and thus it is perfect) and here to be understood - the methods of understanding to question and to test. — tim wood

If there's disagreement between us, it may be here. I hold that as the text is fixed, so too the meaning. That leaves on the one hand understanding the text, on the other interpretation. Understanding a discipline, interpretation an exhibition. — tim wood

Cobblers. If anything I seek to direct discussions of scientism towards intentionality. — Banno

I guess those limitations will increase from time to time. First, the 15-minute span, and maybe later you would allow answering to only users you like. That’s your ‘ideal’ world. — javi2541997

In an ideal world the poster of a thread would be able to determine the posting limit within their thread, and perhaps a user would be able to determine their own posting limit generally, with it being publicly displayed so that others are aware of their limitations. — Leontiskos

For whom? And what was their purpose?

Always just half the story. Lumpen realism delivered from an egocentrically fixed view. — apokrisis

[For Wittgenstein,] The self is pure medium, pure mirror for the world; their limits coincide. The self is, in a sense, one with the world. It gives way to it. Solipsism collapses into realism. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein on Self and Object, p. 10

3. Posting limits. Asynchronous forum software has led to instant messaging-style interactions, which are usually less than philosophical. Thread or post limits could be helpful, at a general level or applied in special cases (e.g. categories, threads, users, etc.). For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

You claim a posting time limit, but you are answering me very quickly. Aren’t you realising this is not a great idea, given the way we are having this exchange? — javi2541997

Yes, you did. — javi2541997

It will not change anything. Politics are already bollocks and a clown show. Don’t expect the users to elaborate thoughtful answers. I can’t see the point of reading the same political dullness right now or in the next 15 minutes. Do you really think it will have a big impact on the constant tit for tat? — javi2541997

It seems balanced and well enough as it is. — Outlander

If I have a topic I felt mildly interested in and wanted to discuss that isn't quite or perfectly aligned to philosophy but is still intellectually interesting, I'd post it in the Lounge. — Outlander

That sounds reasonable, but again I wouldn't be able to find a single thread at least currently on Page 1 that I would call "unreasonable" or without philosophical merit. — Outlander

Some very interesting discussions have came about from relatively short and simple questions. — Outlander

Some people are more eager than educated, that's true. But many contributors who now have to be manually approved by the site owner are actually very adept and have busy schedules so like to participate rapidly, if that makes sense. — Outlander

I'm not so sure about this one. It might result in people creating more threads because their understanding of a topic has changed or ignorance of something about it has receded. — Outlander

Some people can get their point across quite efficiently whether it be by a keyboard or the same keyboard just because it's smaller. It's a valid point, it's more "annoying" to type out a long series of paragraphs, having to error check, undo, etc., but far from unmanageable for an intellectual person with something to contribute. — Outlander

Basically, aside from OPs, there's a lot of short "back and forths" because while the topic is complex people's (mis)understandings of the point the OP was trying to make are actually quite simple or trivial, at least in the mind of the poster. If the person is confused, a simple reply and bare bones logic sentence is the best way to respond. I would say, at least. :chin: — Outlander

Again, you forget that not all the threads are about philosophy. There is The Shoutbox, which works like a chitchat, and it will not be effective to limit the time. — javi2541997

Thread or post limits could be helpful, at a general level or applied in special cases (e.g. categories, threads, users, etc.). — Leontiskos

On the other hand, look at the political threads. What’s the point of limiting the time and words in those threads? — javi2541997

Oh, you also refer to ‘new’ members. — javi2541997

I'd agree with that, as it has been the practice for every other forum I've joined. I make use of the ability to edit but generally try and observe a rule of not editing any post after it has been replied to or quoted. — Wayfarer

I think many of the other points are up to the discretion of the mods, although I don't think any of them bad ideas. — Wayfarer

By "dying" I mostly mean degrading. There is a large and thriving community in Youtube comments, for what that is worth. Yes, messages are still being posted, but the intellectual life seems to be seeping out little by little. — SophistiCat

Again, your arbitrary rules would dissuade participation. — Banno

PF has managed to survive more than a dozen years of me despite my best efforts. — Banno

You are obsessed with rules. — Banno

1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting. — Leontiskos

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. Looks to be an attempt to avoid the sort of spotlight TonesInDeepFreeze shines on your logical misunderstandings and errors, an extension on your bitching about him posting too much... :rofl: — Banno

an arbitrary word limit — Banno

You made a clear and reasonable presentation of your position in 264 words. — T Clark

Short is good. — Banno

I've looked around the web and I've never found any philosophy forum as good as this one. — T Clark

Good enough is good enough. — T Clark

I think your suggestions will lead to a reduction in participation. — T Clark

I had to look up discourse, and I find that discourse can refer to a back-and-forth, a discussion, which a book cannot do, or itself a fixed text. — tim wood

You mean unlike books, yes? — tim wood

I do not think books do this: people - readers - do this. — tim wood

Agreed. And just this arguably why the admonition to study them. I reckon my break is to question the ultimate worth of the study-in-itself. Perhaps a thousand years ago it might have been felt to be the way to heaven, and no doubt some people think so today. But most of us - and I think you're an example - are so accustomed to the sense of entitlement and freedom to question and test a text that we begin to think of reading as a kind of interaction, forgetting, if we ever knew, that such freedom is relatively new. — tim wood

If discussion is like a game of tennis, reading a book is like hitting the ball against a wall. — tim wood

But I am doing the opposite. Social construction is what language allowed. (The paleoanthropology of language evolution is one of my special areas.) — apokrisis

Two sides of the same coin. Deduce the particulars. Induce the generalities. — apokrisis