What you’re dismissing as ‘speculation’ is just part of the character of philosophy as a discipline

You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?

>It's all literally just speculating.

Philosophy might be all about speculating when you confine yourself to arguing with the natural sciences about metaphysics. For some of us at least philosophy is more than just unverifiable speculation and is something that should be lived and applied. Or at least the useful parts can be applied.

You hit the bull's eye. "other forms of knowing" is just a blanket term with nothing defined, because there is no other form of actually reliably knowing without empiricism. Even mathematics starts with presuppositions and tautologies stemming from "the number of things we can physically count", which happens to be an empirical base. Even our intuitive "warm fuzzies" start from aggregate experiences which all correlate to an idea.

The chances he is actually allergic to PEG are pretty slim, and regardless the J&J vaccine doesn't have PEG.

You can apply the scientific method to anything you can measure.

>Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.

Preposterous. You do not need to demonstrate direct causality to apply the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of investigation that can be applied to anything not a set of direct casual results.

Not every question in the physical sciences can be settled with airtight logic either. I'm not sure how that demonstrates the value of speculation on this.

>That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...

Nonsense. I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

Can you give me any reason to believe that there is ANYONE on Earth who sees things the way you are describing them? Do you see the world that way? Do you know anyone who has told you they see the world that way? Or are you just projecting that world view onto people you disagree with?

He was allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine and his doctor advised him to not get it. But you knew that already right?

Correct. Science requires the use of the scientific method. Which in some fields of study is impossible to achieve - either because there exists no way to isolate multivariate systems (while maintaining social ethical norms) or the experiment is not repeatable. Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.

Word salad for people who never studied science.

I may be missing something here.

>>Since the verification principle cannot easily be accommodated within the Humean fork, according to which all meaningful propositions must be either empirical propositions about matters of fact or analytic propositions concerning relations of ideas, it looks suspiciously like a foundational principle for a positivist metaphysics. Positivism, it seems, does not dispense with metaphysics; it merely proposes a different kind of (naturalist) metaphysics. Failure to reflect on the logical status of the verificationist principle, to acknowledge it as a heuristic principle which governs scientific knowledge of reality, therefore, not only encourages a form of methodological monism, one which denies the autonomy of other forms of knowing; it also betrays a commitment to an uncritical realism which assumes scientific method reveals the ultimate nature of reality and, in so doing, places science in the position once occupied by metaphysics as the science of pure being.

The interesting thing about "other forms of knowing" is that they'd have to be verified to prove that they can provide justified, true belief (i.e. knowledge), no? If not, how can we know they're true or not? And all of those forms of knowing will require their origins in sensation, for anyone born without sensation will never develop self-awareness or language because they need their senses to acquire those things through association and contradistinction.

As for scientific method revealing the ultimate state of reality, wouldn't that actually be beyond the scope? If you dispensed with metaphysics then the "ultimate nature of reality" is beyond your epistemology beyond a few language games like "I think therefore I am" which can't actually get around ideas like philosophical zombies and simulations.

Scientific method and verification as the arbiter of truth shifts to the generation of meaningful knowledge (i.e. epistemology) in a seemingly reliable frame of reference, regardless of the "ultimate nature of reality". For an open-ended scientific approach, it doesn't matter if that's a dream of Azathoth, the Matrix or the only existing real universe. It's just working with what is actually available to make realistic inferences and deductions. This doesn't fail verification in that if it didn't work, we'd have no expectation that all the things we engineer will work, and yet they do. It may not be a perfect metaphysical proof, but it is a strong, albeit open-ended epistemological justification.

Really? That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...

All sorts of everyday things refuse to submit to positivist analysis, but we agree to common values anyway. Let's not quibble over what individual things may or may not be good, but the fact that we all (humans) seem to agree that there is such a thing seems somewhat important to me. You may disagree with the idea of "goodness" being used as data, but I think it's probably more dangerous to get embroiled in a philosophy that demands that there can be no such thing.

Philosophy is not a hard science. Actually, you could probably argue that lack of strict, reliable verifiability is exactly where philosophy begins and the sciences end. Not every question can be settled with airtight logic or an experiment; sometimes all you have is a better or worse argument

My guy what? We're talking about philosophy not science. It's all literally just speculating. You think Plato put people in a cave?

This is tangential to something called "epistemological intelligence", a concept explored by Stephen James Bartlett of Williamette University.

I think that intellectual humility is an important part of epistemological competence, i.e. the ability to accurately evaluate claims and assign some sort of realistic probability value to their truthfulness. For example, how likely is it that I would know better than an expert in a given field of study?

This was frustrating to read. In the beginning of the damn article it cites the actual purpose of Logical Positivism, which is to dispense with wasteful & specious nonsense. If our musings are not anchored to reality in some small way, through the thinnest of tethers of evidence, then EVERYTHING which comes from such musings are nonsense and can be treated as such! To do otherwise is to open ourselves to a literal INFINITE Hall of absurd ideas, all of which have equal footing to waste our entire LIVES by their volume of time taken from us. The anchor to reality is what protects us from nonsense.

Here is the acknowledgement of the purpose of Logical Positivism from the beginning of the article:
"logical positivism mounted one of the most scathing attacks on the very idea that the nature of reality could be known by reflection alone, a priori, from the so-called philosophical armchair. Logical positivism sought to put an end to what it regarded to be irresolvable metaphysical pseudo-disputes by arguing that genuine knowledge claims must be verifiable, that there must be, at least in principle, evidence that can be cited to determine whether a claim is true or false. Claims which cannot be found to be either true or false in this way, the argument goes, express meaningless propositions, and the treatises in which they are contained should be confined to the flames, just as Hume suggested."

AAAAAaand here is the wasteful reading which suddenly COMPLETELY forgets what was just cited in the beginning of the article:
"The demand that knowledge claims should be verifiable, that there must be evidence that can be provided to substantiate one’s views, seems to be reasonable enough; rejecting it would lead to a form of dogmatism. But what the logical positivists also assumed is that the criterion of verification that belongs to the empirical sciences is a universal criterion of meaning, not a domain-specific criterion that merely determines what does and does not count as a genuine scientific hypothesis. They uncritically extended the criterion of verification which governs empirical enquiry to all claims (bar tautologies) rather than acknowledging it as a heuristic principle of scientific enquiry."

We do not suddenly place Logical Positivism ONLY as a tool for Scientific inquiry which has no place in other endeavors of knowledge. It is a general shield which should be placed into EVERY consideration as a failsafe against lost time of thought and, just as important, against ignorance. The simple phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows that it's safe to make small assumptions about things for efficiency sake, but the more impactful a claim, the stronger it's tether to reality should be.

The best example of Logical Positivism helping mankind IMO is Special Relativity and General Relativity. Einstein held one empirical truth constant about the nature of the Universe, that the Speed of light is constant from ALL reference frames. From this empirical VERIFIABLE truth, he can then make all manner of implications and logical steps to unravel the nature of the fabric of reality itself. Such awe-inspiring truth is impossible without that initial tether to reality, evidence.

If you can't verify or falsify you're just speculating. What's the point in pretending there's any philosophical value in baseless speculation beyond exercising your philosophical "muscles"?

By ethical I mean, within the spirit of the work or atleast transparent about the translators own biases. If your goal is to keep medieval Europeans subservient and illiterate, I question your ability to ethically translate the Bible.

Aka "the problem with reducing every single question to formal logic". Really, the comment I replied to is a perfect example of the flaws in logical positivism - not every question can be reduced to proposition and counter-proposition, much less anything "verifiable" or falsifiable. "Logical fallacy" =/= "wrong".

I had a crazy idea I'd like to share.

I had before an idea for the description of the being as such: there's the One (Being), there's the Multiple (the objects we get through senses), but then there's Intermediate Categories. These are the categories you get when you abstract from a multiple: I'm a multiple; but I'm a man, that is a human being, that is an animal and so on until you reach the Being.

So, in this idea, the sciences are what happens when you select an intermediate category and describe it. The techniques are when you get one and try to open its possibilities. I won't go further, it's not well descripted yet, but imagine there's the obvious difference between poetry for poets and poetry for literature theory.

Ok but then... I realized I may have got into this idea because I actually live a situation in life that's very odd. I liked so many things since birth that I got commitments with many people and techniques. I had to move from city sometimes, so I always had to restart things, but as it was since childhood, as a child I decided never forget the best I got in each place (and people), and it's cute and so, but actually turned out into a curious situation.

I, for instance, right now need to be at the same time a poet, a programmer, a clothing seller and a teacher. You can't see how crazy it is, but it did got me many ideas about what is life, how it works, how looks, language and knowledge influences a carreer and a social cyrcle and so on. That's a very enriching situation. Still, pretty shitty, I got smashed by the weight and right now have to restart life. Still, carrying the weight.

So then I had to start thinking starting my life for real. It means having more than one life. I realized yesterday that's the empiric source of my idea of the Being. Because first of all, I'm at the same time all of these things and none of them. It doesn't feel like being an actor, because although I have to act differently in each place, I'm not pretending. For instance, the poet and the seller need to have two different personalities, but I'm both of them.

I'm venting this because this at first kind of break the sense of identity. Each "life" I'd need to have to take these things serious have even a nickname on their own. But then I realized these are intermediate categories, while I, the truth self, is something before all of this. It's either the whole of them combined, but that's the price I have to pay for existence (I actually don't really like/identify with any of these lifes, although I feel positively resposible for them), or this empty self whose only property is to be curious. I'm essentially curious, then, but that, in time, means having a body and leaving a track necessarily. Thus, the price comes.

I then thought, but that's out of the point: if there could be an afterlife where the curiosity, without body, can live by itself and get knowledge without a price, that would be actually pretty fun.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

ah the fallacy fallacy

>level 2BernardJOrtcuttMod · 22 hr. agoLockedYour comment was removed for violating the following rule:Argue your Position

I wouldn't read too far into it. The reception of German philosophy in Japan is a long and fascinating topic--especially in regards to the Kyoto School which has some controversial tensions between technics, nature, and how the two potentially impacted wartime policies. There's even some speculation that Heidegger and philosophers in Japan responded to one another and shaped each other's thought. But I'm going on a tangent and that's a discussion for another day.