Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Kyocus t1_itxs1oa wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia 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

We're mixing two distinct subjects.

  1. The Fallacy Fallacy, which I contend is like a distracted dog chasing a squirrel of irrelevance.
  2. Truthiness? Even Science approximates accuracy with reference to the most accurate of knowledge we have, rather than revealing absolute boolean truths about the Universe. I doubt we can reliably achieve such lofty goals with regularity.
1

wow-signal t1_itxqszb wrote

Reply to comment by WildIsland-S-E 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

logical positivism != logical analysis (fortunately!)

logical positivism is a constellation of views about knowledge and meaning which centers around the idea of identifying the meaning of a content-bearer (e.g. a statement about the color of grass) with its 'empirical content' (e.g. a certain kind of visual experience). it's just a theory (or more accurately, a theoretical temperament) like any other

5

iiioiia t1_itxo8oa 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

> We had a discussion about the fallacy fallacy, which I will adamantly contend is stupid till my deathbed.

Depending on which side of it you fall on, I will totally agree, or argue to the death!! 😂🙏

> I agree with you that it's obviously terrible for someone to claim something is false based on faulty argument. I'm also saying that's a red herring, because if the only thing substantiating said claim was the fallacious argument, then there is no longer support to believe such a thing. It's not that I am saying "That's a fallacy, therefore your conclusion is false" I am saying your premise is wrong so I'm agnostic to the claim till it's substantiated, important difference.

I think you may have missed my point: there is a level of "reality" where "absolute truth" (at least on some matters) exists, but since we do not have access to this level, we seem to have decided to ~pretend that it doesn't exist, or have decided on educational curriculum that does not cover it (causing it to appear to not exist, unless one learns about it elsewhere).

This is the distinction I tried to get at with"This of course overlooks the "justified" part..." - you were talking about Knowledge (JTB), but the "T" is typically/often completely independent from humans - our ability to measure it (empirically or otherwise) has no bearing on the actual underlying truth. But the way we describe reality is often other than this, and thus many people seem to believe it is this way.

0

rich8n t1_itxnn8l wrote

Reply to comment by Sprucecaboose2 in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

>We shouldn't need reporting on random people's unscientific and incorrect view

People elected a silver-spoon baboon to the highest office in the land because he fake fired people on a faux-real-life game show. Stupid people will lend the trappings of authority to someone just because they are famous and recognizable and no other reason.

12

SamuraiJackBauer t1_itxmcc8 wrote

Reply to Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

The best guide to critical thinking I’ve encountered is in Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World.

He actually provides a way to teach it if I recall.

I miss him and it’s been 28 years.

PLEASE: if you are reading this and want to be blown away by how a book from 1996 accurately describes QANON and it’s inevitability…

The Demon Haunted World.

Give it a shot.

80

El_Rei_Dom_Manuel t1_itxmb00 wrote

Reply to comment by RyeZuul 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

They seem to have gone for the rortyan view that scientificism is a flawed form of redemption typical of modern times, unable to replace spirituality as renewed kind of faith. There might even be a solid point there but, as usual, they botched the argumentation pretty badly.

Iatv seems to be investing heavily on philosphy, also posting a lot here on reddit, but it should not be done like this. This is a borderline 'fake-news' style of doing philosphy, imho.

4