Because the claim started with 'obviously' and it is an inductive fact that 99.873% of claims that begin with 'obviously' are false (and the percentage is 99.3725 for 'clearly').

How do you define sentience? — Πετροκότσυφας

I classify any living organism that has a nervous system as sentient. I have not yet made up my mind about living organisms without nervous systems - it's a work in progress. But sentience for me is a property that lies on a continuous spectrum, not an all-or-nothing property.

The reasons typically given for holding human life, even pre-sentience, more valuable than that of a highly sentient non-human animal, are founded in Aristotelian ideas of essence. The basic idea is that there is a precious metaphysical essence of a human organism - be it even a single cell - that is not present in a non-human animal. Such a thing is typically labelled a soul.

One either accepts that or one doesn't. Personally I don't. I don't have any use for concepts of essences, or souls (Minds are what interests me). But I don't regard it as illogical that others do accept it. After all, I accept that sentient life is worthy of more consideration than non-sentient objects. But I cannot logically deduce that principle without circularity.

As David Hume said 'It is not contrary to reason that I should prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my finger'.

Anyway - thoughts? — shmik

For some reason I seem to think you're Australian - perhaps something you wrote once at the old place.

If you are, then what do you think of Philip Adams as an example of someone of the Left that is very friendly, open-minded and non-abusive to those with whom he disagrees, often having them as guests on his late night talk show on Radio National. He seeks to engage with and understand them rather than shouting at or accusing them.

Is he a model of what we need more of on the Left? Or do you think that he also suffers from too many of the flaws that concern you?

I'm trying to think of an American equivalent but my knowledge of US public intellectuals is too thin. Adams is a gentle, cuddly, bearded, grandfatherly, rumbly-voiced old Leftie who, many decades ago may even have been a Commie (gasp!). He made plenty of money working in advertising and film-making, so he is completely immune to accusations of 'envy politics'.

Calling Dems "lefties" is a Fox News meme. — Real Gone Cat

That sounds about right to me. Neither of the US parties would qualify as Left in most other countries. While I agree that the raging, holier-than-though, politically correct left-wing preacher is an unfortunately too common member of what is thought of as the Left, I don't believe that is what gave the election to Trump, because the Dems, including Ms Clinton, are much too right-wing to appeal to such types.

If it's not legal to park there, of course it's morally wrong to park there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? Does it then follow that Ohio Quakers who hid fugitive slaves in 1850 were acting immorally because they were acting illegally?

What would you call phenomena that we're not even aware of, so that there's no concept of it, etc.? — Terrapin Station

To get a fix on that we can turn to that famous non-idealist philosopher Donald Rumsfeld (I'm deliberately misusing the word 'idealist' here, but why not, it's a Thursday after all):

Those phenomena are the 'unknown unknowns'. By contrast I think that the unobservables referred to in the OP are, in Rumsfeldian terms, the 'known unknowns'.

'Ipse dixit' - my new Fancy Foreign Frase for the day. I love it! I can't believe I've been hanging around philosophy forums for years and never come across it before, especially given how often some people do it.

The philosophical question is whether FA demonstrates that realism (of whatever sort) is the case. — Marchesk

It's not a philosophical question until a particular factor analysis has been performed. Then one can have a philosophical discussion about the interpretation and implications of the results.

You have not specified any factor analysis, nor even indicated what sets of observed values should be used in the factor analysis, let alone performed one, so I can't see that there is, so far at least, any philosophical issue to discuss.

Also, you seem to be using an unusual meaning for 'unobservables'. My understanding of the role of unobservables is that they are well-understood concepts that cannot be directly quantified, and for which proxies are used. For example IQ test results are used as a proxy for intelligence, or life expectancy may be used as a proxy for quality of life.

But one thing we mostly believe is that all of our current theories are wrong, and will be replaced by newer, better theories over time. — andrewk

Is that inference an inductive one based on what has been observed to happen with some past scientific theories? — John

You appear to have been thinking along the same lines as I was when I wrote that sentence. It started out as saying 'All of our current theories are wrong...', which would indeed have been an inference. But I had the same concern as you expressed: for all we know, there may be one or more of our theories that is exactly correct. So I changed it to 'we mostly believe', so that it became an observation about a belief rather than a claim about our theories.

Wrong or incomplete? Newtonian gravity is incomplete, not wrong — Marchesk

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong in the sense that it makes predictions that are demonstrably incorrect - for instance about the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Under certain circumstances, Newton's theory is a good approximation.

That could turn out to be the case for any of our scientific theories. They may turn out to be generally far from accurate, and only reasonable approximations in a narrow set of conditions that includes those that have been observed by humans.

I got halfway through writing a follow-on para describing what I think an 'incomplete' theory is, in order to contrast it with a wrong/falsified one. But then I got myself in a muddle and, on reflection, realised that every theory is incomplete, because there will always be things that are unexplained. Theories start with postulates - statements of rules - that are presented as brute facts. So they are incomplete in that they do not explain why those postulates hold.

"Does physics admit to the possibility of making a perpetual motion machine at some point in the future, or is it ruled out as impossible?"
The current theory of Thermodynamics says it is impossible. But one thing we mostly believe is that all of our current theories are wrong, and will be replaced by newer, better theories over time.

"How does a Humean explain the differences?"
This Humean doesn't accept that there are differences, because we don't 'know' anything, so there is nothing to explain.

Surely you don't think that when you look in a mirror, you are *literally* seeing your own face — dukkha

Correct! I would not think, or say, such a thing, because the word 'literally' has a metaphysical odour about it and I avoid making (or thinking) metaphysical claims.

In fact, that's a problem for the Humeans. Why can't we do those things? — Marchesk

This Humean can't see any problem, because we don't know that we can't do those things. All we know is that nobody has managed to do them so far - from which we can infer nothing about what might happen in the future.

The point is that, at any time, it is possible, that the world may be radically different. But that doesn't mean that it it is.
— TheWillowOfDarkness

But we have never observed this to be the case
— Marchesk

I have. Up until last Tuesday, the USA had operated as a reasonably well-intentioned, albeit heavily flawed, democracy and world citizen. Then it suddenly elected a fascist as president.

"If we believe that nature is governed by laws then I would say we have very good reason to think it is actually impossible for those laws to suddenly change."

Can you elaborate on what that good reason is? It seems to me that it runs directly into Hume's problem of induction.

My position is that I believe that there are patterns in nature, that can be used to our advantage to make predictions about what might happen next. But I cannot logically ground that belief in anything, and I accept that everything may change tomorrow - the sun not rise, people start floating in the air, pencils spontaneously combusting, enormous otters dancing the can-can inside a thimble, etc.

So, I plan and act as if things will continue to follow the pattern, but I stand ready to be surprised! As Christopher Hitchens said 'I like surprises' (mostly).

Well, it was only ever meant as an example of a more general point which I have explained separately — Sapientia

Yes, the problem with long debates in very long threads like this is that it's very hard to get, and keep, a fix on what exactly the claim and counter-claim are. I thought 'this looks interesting' and traced it back for at least three pages and could not find a definitive statement of the respective positions, but only skirmishing on what may well have been tangential issues.

Perhaps it would be good to have a recap of exactly what the dispute is. Or maybe even a formal debate, if that's the sort of thing this platform can support.

What is the 'visual field' to which you refer? I know what those words mean from a practical point of view, but from that viewpoint, other than the effects of refraction, there is no difference between what is seen through glass and what is seen without the glass there. You appear to be trying to make some sort of metaphysical distinction and I can't see that the distinction boils down to anything more than word choice.

"Which is why it is only probable, as opposed to certain, that the boiling point of water will be 100 degrees Celsius, the same as it has been innumerable times in the past."
In fact we can not even say it is probable. To do that we would need to make some assumptions about regularity, which we have no ground for making.

"under conditions as close as possible to any previous experiment"
There's no such thing as 'conditions as close as possible'. This is fundamental and crucial. It cannot be dismissed by claims of pedantry.

Also, I suspect that I may (perhaps for the first time?!?) agree with MU. If, as it seems to be, the Celsius scale is defined by a temperature of 100 being the temperature at which pure water boils at 1060 kPa then by definition, whenever pure water boils at 1060 kPa, the temperature is 100C, regardless of what a thermometer says, and regardless of what the value of 1/(dS/dE) may be. What we would learn from such an interesting development is that the Celsius scale is context-dependent, contrary to what had been previously supposed.

[For some reason the quote facility does not work on this computer]

The OP looks to me like a reboot of the old 'indirect realism' argument, but just using different words.

If you want to think you are seeing the object, then think that. If you want to think you are seeing a representation of the object, then think that instead. The difference between the two is nothing but word choice.

I'm talking about repeating an experiment under the same conditions. In this case, whether, all else being equal, the boiling point can vary — Sapientia

It is not possible to repeat an experiment under the same conditions. There will always be some conditions that differ. The best that can be done is to conduct a similar experiment in which certain specified conditions are managed to be as close as possible to those of the earlier experiment.

To talk meaningfully about repeating an experiment, one needs to specify exactly what those conditions are and what tolerances of deviation must be met for each one.

The question is not well-defined. In the first sentence he says it is 'suicide', by which I presume he means the question 'Shall I commit suicide?'. In the second sentence he says the question is 'Is life worth living?', which is a correlated but different question.

It is possible for somebody to decide (not) to commit suicide despite their finding life (not) worth living.

Also, the audience to whom the question is posed is biased. Since they can read the question they are alive and hence must have already decided the answer to the question is 'No, I shall not commit suicide, for the present at least'.

Perhaps one could change the boiling temperature of water at normal sea level pressure (approx. 106 kPa) by adding salt. Since salty water freezes at a different temperature to fresh water, perhaps it also boils at a different temperature.

More importantly, what if it's not water, but 'water' from Hilary Putnam's Twin Earth?

Gosh there are a lot of critics around today aren't there! Your philosophy sounds like a decent starting point to me.

As an attempt at a constructive suggestion, I think it would be more useful if you add an ethical angle to it. There appears to be no statement of values and without that it is hard for the philosophy to be any sort of guide as to how to act.

Theology has been taught at Oxford and Cambridge for about eight hundred years, with I think the degree being something like Bachelor of Divinity. I am not aware of its having been discontinued.

In fact: here's Cambridge's page on bachelor of divinity.

I think it would be quite interesting.

I lean towards the views of Peter Singer. Infanticide, despite its scary-sounding verbage, is probably not morally problematic — darthbarracuda

These two sentences need to be separated. Because they are juxtaposed, it is easy for anybody other than a very careful reader to infer that Peter Singer thinks there is no moral problem with infanticide. That would be an incorrect inference. It is darthbarracuda that has no problem with infanticide.

One day I hope to look at my desk at work and to my life generally and find that the most significant question facing me is whether some college kids are numerically rating women's asses. — Hanover

Nice!

Very quotable (so I did).

It's like a reverso Ian Dury wanted to write a song 'Reasons to be Miserable - Part Three'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIMNXogXnvE

I find it interesting that some Christians adduce that bus ad as evidence of Dawkins' radicalism and hostility to religion. While Dawkins' view is much more hostile to religion than mine and I cringe at some of the things he says, that bus ad campaign stood out to me as an excellent example of restraint, moderation and positivity. I see it as one of the best and most nuanced things he's done in his religious campaigning - a good 'middle path'.

Speech doesn't directly cause other actions, or at least it can not be shown to. — Terrapin Station

Who cares about 'directly' - this new word that you have tried to smuggle into the discussion? Fortunately, the answer is - almost nobody, including the law in most countries. 'Directly' is a meaningless notion.

No cases of libel are harmful. (Was that clear enough that time?) — Terrapin Station

That's clear, but I'd be surprised if that's what you intended to say. It follows from that that the Ewells' libellous accusations of rape against Tom Robinson in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' were not harmful, despite the fact that they led to trauma and finally death for Tom.

Is that your position?

I agree.

I'm really enjoying your contributions in this thread Nagase. I'm still eagerly waiting to find out which of premises 1 or 2 is rejected.

Like the 1960s Batman, the argument is so bad that it's good. Here are some bad/good (nonsensical) things about it that I love:

Line 4 is note even a proposition, as it lacks a verb.

The only justification offered for line 5 is 'then'. Can I apply the same reasoning to the proposition 'You must give me all your money' by putting 'then' in front of it?

The most interesting one though, to me, is that proposition 1 is also insupportable, even though most people would usually accept it. If we map each instant in time to an ordinal that denotes how many years ago it was, we can hypothesise that the collection of all non-fractional instants in time might map to the set of all finite ordinals together with the first infinite ordinal ω. Then the instant of time that maps to ω can be thought of as the first instant of time, even though the past is infinite in this model.

The key point though, is that these days arguments of the impossibility of an infinite past are only made by people that do not understand mathematics well.

In most people's lives friendships are mostly organic (ie happenstance, not deliberately constructed), but they don't have to be. There are many suggestions around on how to develop new friends, and some of them are even not totally useless. Joining groups is a good way to obtain new friends. Examples are sporting teams, volunteer organisations, craft collectives, cultural groups (choirs, music ensembles, book clubs, philosophy clubs) and political parties or movements.

A phenomenon that I find really interesting is that, over the last fifteen years, it has become quite normal to apply the same sort of deliberate relationship creation to erotic relationships as well. Twenty years ago there was quite a stigma associated with seeking a mate through a dating service or the personal ads in the classified section in a newspaper. Although it is decades since I have been 'in the market' my observation is that with young people it is now considered perfectly normal to seek a partner through an online dating app.

That's by the by though, as I am interested in the pros and cons of friendships rather than of erotic relationships. I agree with you that, for many people, erotic relationships cause more harm than good, whereas I think there could be only a tiny minority of people that would not benefit from friendship.

If Arthur were here today I wonder if he'd join a musical ensemble, for the joint benefits of companionship and culture. He really did love music, after all. I joined a local choir a couple of weeks ago and am really enjoying it. We're singing the Nelson Mass on 20 November, and the tenor part is challenging for somebody that has not sung publicly for 25 years.

So to put your two thoughts together.. 1) some people's suffering is ok because at least the vague "majority" doesn't suffer in such a way 2) these people are not doing the relationship thing right anyways, so they are a poor example. — schopenhauer1

I didn't say either of those two things, and I don't believe them, so I'm not interested in what happens when they're put together.

Do you really believe that you are better off without any relationships? Do you live out that belief, avoiding friendships, avoiding human contact and keeping solitary as much as you can? Unless you do that, it seems that you are arguing for a position that you do not believe.

If you do think you live that out, have you reflected on why you participate in a forum like this rather than just reading philosophical books and papers? Are you sure that wanting human interaction is not a part of that?

Anyways, the point is, whether from the disposition happy or the disposition curmudgeon perspective, relationships can be of high quality and/or abundant for some and it could be quite barren, and not the right circumstances for abundant or quality relationships with others.. — schopenhauer1

That's just anecdotal. One might as well say 'sometimes food tastes nice and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no point in eating it'. What matters is not whether there are sometimes bad relationships or bad food, but whether having food or relationships is in general conducive to our flourishing, and in both cases the evidence is an overwhelming Yes.

There are people in life who have no relationships. They are those who because of bad luck or bad management have ended up isolated in life - living alone in an apartment on a pension, with no visitors or people ringing their phone, nobody that they go out to meet and talk to. The option of living like that is available to anybody that is retired on a pension, and for those not yet old enough to retire, there exists a halfway house of going to work to earn a salary, talking to nobody there except where necessitated by the job, going straight home and having no social contact.

Almost nobody chooses such a life, because for anybody except somebody with a very unusual psychology, it would be a desperately sad, lonely, miserable, despairing life.

I'm glad to see that darth has quoted that famous Sartre saying about other people. I quite like Sartre but that is one of the stupidest, most ignorant and dishonest things I have ever known a philosopher to say. I can only hope that, like many sayings attributed to famous people, he never really said it.

It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results. — MonfortS26

It is having faith in the principle of induction - the belief that the future will be like the past. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to logically ground belief in that principle - one has to take it on faith.... or (we expect, based on our faith in that principle) starve.

Personally, I'm happy to take that leap of faith, as Hume himself was.

it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. But there are neuro-scientists, and other scientists, who are not at all materialistic in their approach, so it's not an problem of science per se, it's more an attribute of Western secular culture. — Wayfarer

It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious. I guarantee you that Christians in Syria, Muslims in India and Hindus in Bangladesh would love for the culture in which they live to be much more secular than it is.

Your bete noire is reductive materialism, a worldview which I also vigorously reject. But you keep on linking it to other really good things about Western culture, such as secularism, scepticism and an appreciation of science, which is irritating, as it has nothing to do with those things.

I used to play Batman with my brothers. Don't tell me there isn't a Batman either!?!

We can posit that a tree of some very precise description does not exists anywhere in the universe, but we cannot experience its non-existence — John

I agree, in the case of a tree, provided we have not witnessed the destruction of the tree*. And I agree in the case of an uninterested God, like the one that is associated with some varieties of Deism.

But when it comes to a God that loves us, listens to our prayers and grants what they request, is all-powerful and all-knowing, one can experience the non-existence of such a God because, by dint of those particular properties, it would make itself known to the individual in a situation where it was so desperately needed and wanted. One can experience the non-existence of such a God as palpably as one can experience the existence of a tree.

* We had a large, old, greatly beloved gum tree in our garden that we had to have removed because it had an incurable fungus and was becoming dangerous. I experienced the non-existence of that tree very powerfully for a long time after it was gone, as I went through the mourning process.