I read that. Where is the violation of PNC? Asserting that there’s a contradiction doesn’t mean there is one.

Take wave-particle duality as an example. There are experiments where light behaves as a wave, and some where it behaves like a particle. But none where it behaves as both! How to understand this is a good question, but it’s a big leap to just assume a violation of PNC.

Ok this is the section right after the description of the double slit experiment, maybe you can point me to where there’s a misunderstanding:

“Now if we look at the logic behind this sequence of events that have been empirically observed we can see a clear contradiction with classical logical laws. A product of quantum mechanics is an understanding of wave-particle duality in which all quantum entities behave in two contradictory manners, as particle and as wave, and as a result of how they are observed as behaving the same matter can be given two separate identities. Two logical impossibilities have occurred; quantum entity x behaves as wave x and particle x when the two are contradictory and this quantum entity x is always identical to both wave x and particle x at the same time. Furthermore, given that we can not state determinately whether at any given moment a proposition about the nature of a quantum entity behaving as a particle or a wave is true or false, the answer being completely subject to incalculable probability, the final law of the excluded middle is also not being followed here. Thus, scientifically observed, empirical and existent phenomena in the form of quantum mechanics displays to us that three classical laws of logic are non-universal.”

Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.

The whole argument about quantum mechanics, for example, is based on empirical observations if scientific experiments, all of which relies on foundationalism, etc.

This has always been my problem with arguing against knowledge or logic in general. You can't argue that logic isn't real without using logic. You can't argue against the concept of truth without at least assuming the truth of your premises.

While I'm not against the ancient thought that truth may not be knowable, and it is a valid question to always ask, I don't think it can ever get very far.

Even if truth and logic being real somehow isn't "true" without a circular reference to the very idea of truth, at least assuming truth is true can be useful as a worldview

I don’t want to scrap QM. Those examples don’t look like violations of PNC to me, and I think the author is just misunderstanding the examples or PNC.

Omg you changed your comment! Ahah

Ok isn’t Quantum Mechanics the proof of this? My initial assumption was that you wanted to scrap QM because of ideological belief a.i. “I believe in the opposite of what this article is saying, therefore I will trash the theories that support it.”

Now, since I’m not a smart science person, I just trusted the conclusions about QM in the article. Does it in fact not prove the point the author is making?

Are Gettier cases strictly about false justification rather than inadequate justification?

Give me one example of a genuine violation of the principle of noncontradiction.

If you mean ‘countenance’ (weird word use) as in how you’re meant to accept, admit, or support that a violation exists, then I don’t know what to tell ya. It’s not within the scope of this article to tell you how to accept it, just that the violation exists.

If you can satisfy my “unless” condition, go for it.

An ironically sloppy comment.

Also, “If QM genuinely entails violation of principle of noncontradiction, QM belongs in the trash heap.” Maybe it’s the other way around regarding what belongs in the trash heap as a theory.

It greatly depends on the context and the truth you are seeking.

Someone once said that humans are evolved to reason and solve problems in an environment where medium sized objects move at medium speed, in a relatively short time span (human life).

So in that context intuition could be lifesaving. But when it comes to evolutionary biology, for example, our intuitions about “how much is 1 million years?” are simply useless most of the time.

I’ll give you an example I’ve heard in some podcast: picture your family in the past, like 15 generations ago. You’ll see the same humans but with very different habits, so different that you could be shocked. Now go back 30 generations more: even more differences, and it seems crazy!

Now realize that if you go back enough time, enough generations, what you see in your genealogical tree is a fish. Does that sound strange when your read it?

That’s because your intuitions about evolutionary timescales are useless.

Same applies for other fields of human knowledge. Try “understanding” the fact that your atoms were formed inside a star, hence you are literally made of stardust.

Does that sound ok to you? It doesn’t because in The Life of Primates there’s no environmental pressure to grasp such concepts, or knowledge.

[deleted]

>if quantum mechanics genuinely entails violation of the principle of noncontradiction,

It doesn't.

It just allows for unintuitive states, that are commonly mistakenly described in ways that make it seem like the principle of noncontradiction is being violated.

“Truth is a criterion by which we judge a proposition, or a quality by which we determine a proposition to be factual”

This is conflating a theory of truth with a theory of it’s assertability, or the basis on which we say or judge something to be true.

You might think this is minor, and it may end up being irrelevant to the point, but I people would stop making such stupid mistakes.

Continuing, if quantum mechanics genuinely entails violation of the principle of noncontradiction, QM belongs in the trash heap, unless you can explain how I’m supposed to be able to countenance such violations.

None of the examples presented violate PNC anyways. While there was a movement to modify logic based on QM, denting PNC wasn’t part of it, and anyways that movement has largely been abandoned.

Russell’s paradox shows that Frege’s axioms are wrong, not that every axiom system will be paradoxical.

Way too much of this is just sloppy and wrong.

Abstract: Using intuitions as evidence is a common practice in analytical philosophy, but critics have argued our intuition cannot be trusted, quoting examples of thought experiments where cognitive biases and demographic differences have impacted their outcome. Nevin Climenhaga comes to the defence of common sense, arguing that there can be good and bad intuitions and there are ways in which we can differentiate the first from the latter. Intuitions can be tested either through experiments or “armchair” philosophical reasoning which help identify whether the content of a particular intuition is based on truth or not. One avenue for testing our intuitions in the absence of reliable experimental data is to see how well it fits in with other intuitions. If a single philosophical theory can explain a diverse set of intuitions, this makes it unlikely that either of those intuitions can be explained away through experimentation or armchair error theories. Validating philosophical beliefs using intuitions is not a simple task, but this should not mean we must dismiss intuitions as generally unreliable, argues Nevin Climenhaga.

Perverse incentives. I wonder how much of worlds problems could be solved just by adjusting incentives a little bit…

Dont diagnose.

I haven't read this work, but the little exposure I did get to Taoism made me think the intent was just the opposite: it's not advice for how to change the way things are/go, it's to adapt to the way they are/go in order to avoid hurting yourself unnecessarily

You are correct; I know nothing about psychology! LoL!

loved the description of Qi as “the common factor between your respiratory, circulatory, & nervous systems.”

i do some meditation/breath work that i learned from a Taoist book (one of the sex ones, actually, lol) that’s supposed to move Qi around my body. i breathe in, tighten my anus ever so slightly, hold the breath a bit, then let it out and relax my body for 12 heart beats. When i do this, i feel my heart beat all over my body, and a tingly sensation of flow through my arms and legs. i’ve always just thought of it as feeling my blood move around my body.

Blood, oxygen, electrical signals interpreted by my nervous system, Qi—doesn’t really matter what i call it, it feels good, doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t hurt others, and calms me down.

Spinoza's rock?

Would check out Julian Barbour's The End of Time. Technically we're re-living every moment like a broken record if the universe is intrinsically timeless.

[removed]

The whole thing is a massive joke.

What a joke… I am currently a second year undergrad. I am over half way through my major, and I’ve yet to learn a single thing about diagnosing mental disorders. And that’s the thing, I’m not going to. Clinical psychology is a graduate school specialization, so I don’t expect to learn anything beyond the general basics, let alone the specifics that are taught to graduate students. So you thinking you somehow know everything enough to critique the ENTIRE field of psychology just because you were a second year student is laughable.