Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea? — Hillary
You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect). — Skalidris
Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance? — Skalidris
Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example. — Skalidris
They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method. — Skalidris
Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays. — Skalidris
I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. — Hillary
No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here. — Hillary
He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never. — Hillary
What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle — Hillary
It are the circumstances that make it flourish. — Hillary
An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary
An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary
Two million euros thrown away. — Hillary
And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one... — Hillary
He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life. — Hillary
Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that. — Hillary
Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages? — Skalidris
By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing... — Skalidris
Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions. — Skalidris
What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy? — Skalidris
Why should they believe in gods? If the eternal heavenly gods created the temporary material universe in their image, bats do enough to just live and please the bat gods. Like we live to entertain the people gids. — Hillary
That doesn't apply to the night creatures on the planets. Why should gods have no form and be light? The bat-gods would disagree. — Hillary
An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic). — Skalidris
I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... — Skalidris
Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom? — Skalidris
Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris
Now we come to Richard M. Brickner M.D. description of Germany as paranoid. He defines this paranoia as excessive need to be superior and in control. And I want to mention here that with the change in education came a change in popular philosophers with Hegal and Nitsche replacing the Greek and Rome philosophers. Those philosophies may have remained harmless if it were not for the Prussian control of Germany and its superior bureaucracy and education for technology. What we call the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education began as Prussian management of Germany. — Athena
Texas really shocked me by making a law that encourages people to report on their family or neighbors, or anyone they think might be suspect of helping in an abortion. These things were the horror of fascist Germany. We seem to be blind to this insidious perversion of our democracy and liberty. — Athena
This sounds so contradictory and even has no sense. Perfection needs to be connected to something that at least has existence because you can perceive it so accurately that you end up calling it "perfect" — javi2541997
Ergo, the greatest anything's got to exist.
That means, in my humble opinion, since it is apparent that, taking just one example, the greatest man doesn't exist on earth, he must exist on another planet! — Agent Smith
1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time
From what I can tell, metaphysics is an attempt to get a handle on the conceptual schema that we utilize to comprehend reality.
Can you help me, preferably with an example or two, how the aforementioned 5 topics in metaphysics constitute a framework for making sense of whatever all this is? — Agent Smith
As far as I'm concerned metaphysics is just an assortment of unrelated ideas and a faithful translation of "metaphysics" should be "miscellaneous". — Agent Smith
↪Agent Smith Well it is simple because we can not include all the scenarios in a generalization. — Nickolasgaspar
I believe that we can both agree human imagination can produce amazing things, superpowers, aliens, creatures of horrors, con artists, scams, car design, Hollywood movies etc etc — Nickolasgaspar
Sure If I didn't have the ability to imagine things I wouldn't be in the business, but a more important ability is to conform your imagination to the rules of reality. — Nickolasgaspar
I knew we weren't far off but its hard work to present a position accurately and even harder to overcome the other side's preconceptions ( i include my self too). — Nickolasgaspar
All these metaphysical ideas (Philosophical Naturalism, Physicalism, idealism,supernaturalism, occasionalism, solipsism etc etc) are part of our system of beliefs for ages. We have observed zero advances in their supportive facts or our arguments.
People should allow them to be part of the History of Philosophy but they need to stop dragging them in our Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
This is the only reason why I point out to ↪Tobias that Objective Observation and Verification/Falsification is our foundations without underplaying the value of imagination in the construction of Hypothesis. Objectivity in our Observations is how we put in check our imagination (reality check) or reasoning our assumptions, how we evaluate different competing claims and how we recognize knowledge from arbitrary opinions. — 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.
This is why toddlers do not have the way to communicate concepts. They lack the theory but they also lack the observations that will allow the emergence of concepts.
Those depend on each other as you said, but your argument was not about the importance of theory, but on how fundamental imagination is.
We are off topic again. — Nickolasgaspar
Like all our principles and axioms, its an educated conclusion based on all available observations from the past and present and the success we get from our predictions. None of our faith based claims enjoys such epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar
Facts are not neutral. They are isolated bits of information, taken out of the context of a relationship to all kinds of states of affairs to use more analytic language. This process of abstraction is mental and already laden with value judgments. They are the result of a process to establish 'what matters'.Your angle projects this quality on the facts "'Objective' means pertaining to the object"...but again facts are neutral. The facts are what we evaluate to render the value of a claim. — Nickolasgaspar
If we understand that simple fact then we can look out which characteristics render a claim objective or not. — Nickolasgaspar
I am sure you didn't know the work I expect from induction but if you read my post...now you know — Nickolasgaspar
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 interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not. — Nickolasgaspar
-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic. — Nickolasgaspar
You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from. — Nickolasgaspar
Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown. — Nickolasgaspar
And that behavior can be conducted as well by looking at the stars and base it on the configurations of the stars. Maybe not as you like it, or as science likes it but that's up to the people themselves. — Hillary
Science can offer a plead at most to conduct live on scientific base (and technological gadgets are very convincing!) but no more than that. — Hillary
It can't tell it's the way of conduct. — Hillary
Which has brought the world on the brink of a "nuclear exchange", to put it mildly, and natural disasters. — Hillary
I can point you at non-prosperity as well. Every culture has prosperities. Im glad prof. Kirschemann ooat the VU gave stuff to read about Feyerabend! — Hillary
Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!! — Nickolasgaspar
You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!! — Nickolasgaspar
The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified. — Nickolasgaspar
If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles. — Nickolasgaspar
-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
And how did that work out? Just take a look around you to see... — Hillary
No, of course it's not arbitrary. But why is scientific culture better than other cultures (of which many have been wiped away from the face of the world by science and western religion)? — Hillary
Every culture has a proven track record of obtaining results. — Hillary
What I mean is that what we learn at school or universities is science. Math, physics, economy, chemistry, biology, etc. By law you have to go to school and learn about it. I don't care to learn, I was fascinated by physics and even voluntarily studied it at the VU (which you probably know). But why shouldn't, for example, astrology be learned by law? What's inherently better about science?
By law I mean that it's written in the law to go to school from young age already and learn about science. — Hillary
I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle. — Nickolasgaspar
((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) — Nickolasgaspar
- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense). — Nickolasgaspar
-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol — Nickolasgaspar
No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar
(Defuse thinking or Fast thinking (Daniel Kahneman).
At the end of the day we will need to Objectively evaluate every thought we make so imagination and fantasy are not necessary or sufficient or credible ways for the progress of our epistemology and philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
The old god is the one in power before the enlightenment. The new god is the impersonal, so-called absolute, objective god of scientific thinking. Just look at all the tasks to be completed, the problems to be "solved" in the learning books, especially the math or "exact" ones. Which is all nice, I love them! But why, for example, should astrology not be learned by law? — Hillary
Evidence-based is the only way to progress. Fantasy is only for entertainment. — universeness
It caught my eye when reading through a short discussion about the morality of bearing a child and it threw me off because my initial reaction was to question how it could even be possible to make such an argument. — ratgambling
That seemed to be Isaac's problem, too. In his case it has to do with the notion of modelling used in neuroscience. And @Tobias is caught in a form of conceptual relativism perhaps resulting from a diet of legal mumbo. — Banno
And I could ask: am I ruled by some stupid rule if law allowing incasso to raise my debt by almost 1000 euro? — Hillary
True, I didn't reacted to repeated pressure of the insurance company. But suppose they said, 1000 euro extra, for doing nothing (except sending a woman to court). What then? — Hillary
And who made the law? Mainly the possessing class. Als de rechter linkser was (of linker) had ze aan mijn kant kunnen komen staat! — Hillary
And who made the law? Mainly the possessing class. — Hillary
I had to pay 580 euro. Which I didn't in time. The incasso raised the amount to 1300. I took it to the judge because I didn't agree. But, nonewithstanding my financial situation, the law is such and such. That's the way the money system works. If you don't pay in time, you have to pay almost 1000 euro extra. Dus, de rechter is niet recht maar krom. Ze is een krommer, geen rechter. — Hillary
Yes, I can taste the sweet candy you offer here, but I have experienced a lot of times that the musings of de rechter are based on custom and pre-established norms of conduct. De rechter kan behoorlijk krom zijn! Ook al zegt zuj rechter te zijn dan recht (supposing you are Dutch). — Hillary
They are different because we decide the difference merits the distinction. Ipso facto there is a difference for which we might make that distinction. — Banno
We make the words fit the world, and we also make the world fit the words. We know what wood is by cutting, carving, burning and talking about, wood. We know what lead is by melting, folding, feeling, and talking about lead. We cannot melt, fold, or feel wood. — Banno
Well, I asked if modern day law is not based on habit and custom just as well. You replied it's based on case law, codyfied law, treatise, and legal principles. So law is based on codified law? Isn't that circular? — Hillary
So the law accepts objective measures of moral, independent of human interest? — Hillary