Recent comments in /f/philosophy
[deleted] t1_itvxr2u wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxr2t wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxqti wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxqmh wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription
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.
daikarasu t1_itvx25r wrote
Reply to comment by livebonk in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
Ah man, you got me. It's a shame Einstein doesn't have a ton of mathematics and data to back up his ideas.
platoprime t1_itvwykd wrote
Reply to comment by WhatsThatNoize in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.
You're entirely forgetting Relativity has been experimentally confirmed.
cosmospen t1_itvwy95 wrote
Reply to comment by snailsshouldvote in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
Well, the will to power is strong, but it is not my goal.
daikarasu t1_itvwrlp wrote
DarkSkyKnight t1_itvwpse wrote
Reply to comment by Kyocus in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
This is suggestive evidence, but you would have to do better than that to demonstrate your claim.
WhatsThatNoize t1_itvwojf wrote
Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
No, you're just attributing a meaningless distinction to an important one.
> If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality.
You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.
platoprime t1_itvwnen wrote
Reply to comment by civil_beast in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>But is it a science? I apologize but no.
It's okay. I accept your apology for your ignorance on what the scientific method is.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvwm08 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
cosmospen t1_itvwkky wrote
Reply to comment by notkevinjohn in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
I'm not disagreeing overall except on the point that going back to nature is not Heidegger's point. Sorry.
platoprime t1_itvwi41 wrote
Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>Ok great explanation thanks.
A truth being hard to check and there not being a truth are not the same thing.
civil_beast t1_itvwgc2 wrote
Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
In theory, yes. But invariably social sciences (and if we are being honest, this is why we even have a taxonomic differentiation) have immense problems when it comes to repeatability. Repeatability is a key requirement. If your hypothesis does not qualify the domain concretely, then when results don’t support the original experiment’s conclusion - they get tossed. Practically, the ability to isolate the differences in the null-case in my experience Make reproduction not viable. Because of this, the social sciences do not have academia in those fields judging experiments by anything other than practical validation of steps taken before publishing. Largely it’s the best we have to garner understanding behaviors, and that is acceptable.
But is it a science? I apologize but no. Without verification, there is no axiomatic leverage that guarantees an outcome.
And don’t get me started with how these sciences abuse the rate of error in order to resolve inconsistent output.
livebonk t1_itvwcko wrote
Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
You think Einstein actually rode in an elevator to determine if he could tell the difference between that and gravity?
[deleted] t1_itvwcez wrote
[removed]
daikarasu t1_itvwbav wrote
Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>You ask. It isn't complicated.
Ok great explanation thanks.
Look, this has been fun, but it's pretty clear neither of us is going to budge an inch. We each hold our beliefs quite strongly. This has been an interesting conversation though, and I hope you have a nice day.
platoprime t1_itvvtv9 wrote
Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
You ask. It isn't that complicated.
>Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
That's absurd. Twins only have very similar environments not identical ones.
livebonk t1_itvvjlb wrote
Reply to Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
It's true that there are some people who dismiss discussion of idealism and solipsism as a waste of time, but then there are also plenty of trained scientists who seriously consider and model ideas like multiverses and that we are in a simulation. The reality is that building models of reality or developing logical systems that are exploratory and not based in evidence is a part of science. But you cannot claim they are reality until you link them to data.
So if considering panpsychism and idealism are under the purview of logical positivism, even if most people would consider it a waste of their time and choose to spend their efforts somewhere else, then what other forms of knowing are there? Something that dismisses logic entirely, or posits an immeasurable form of the soul, or makes other grand dogmatic statements that cannot be supported? Why should I believe in heaven and hell versus reincarnation and entry into Buddha-lands versus an infinite list of other things I could invent?
I think part of this article's problem is mixing together the traditions and institutions of science with bare statements about logic and sensory experience.
Kyocus t1_itvvj1x wrote
Reply to comment by LukeFromPhilly in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
"It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made."
I agree, where we differ is that "A" is a claim of truth, and if that claim is based on a fallacy, Logical Positivism says A should be disregarded until it's been substantiated, which is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time and why I still think the fallacy fallacy is dumb.
daikarasu t1_itvvi21 wrote
Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
>You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference
Measurement is the key word here. The issue isn't that they are different, the issue is that they are measurable. You can demonstrate in absolute mathematics what is happening and why it looks different from different perspectives.
I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
>What makes you think that?
Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
who519 t1_itvusa4 wrote
Reply to comment by pab_guy in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription
I have so many of these people in my family. They automatically judge consensus as group think and as such judge all alternatives to consensus as truth. It is infuriating.
platoprime t1_itvuhda wrote
Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
No I don't mean a belief.
>Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.
You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference.
>If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.
What makes you think that?
Edit:
>You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.
That's silly. You just ask.
Kyocus t1_itvywsm wrote
Reply to comment by DarkSkyKnight in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
Lol that's a fair assessment. I'm not going to use more time on a thread I feel is thoroughly discussed.