GENIUS FORUMS

David,

And the shortest, easiest way to deal with doubts is to simply put up with them.

Yes, with a few exceptions.

And the shortest, easiest way to be content with this is to push the doubts into the background.

Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone.

And the shortest, easiest way to gain a feeling that one has some wisdom is to make a virtue out of this.

No. That would involve deluding oneself. If a person "makes a virtue out of this" it would be to gain time to pursue other matters, such as comfort or happiness.

-

Shahrazad wrote:

And the shortest, easiest way to be content with this is to push the doubts into the background.

Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone.

You're probably right. A strong perfectionist streak as well. Ideally, the perfectionist streak will be strong enough to cause intolerance of self-delusion and thus create willingness to face doubts head on.

-

David,

A strong perfectionist streak as well. Ideally, the perfectionist streak will be strong enough to cause intolerance of self-delusion and thus create willingness to face doubts head on.

I have my doubts about how much of a role perfectionism plays here. I'm a perfectionist and I rarely ever make time to pursue the doubts you're talking about. We seek perfection in things that give us pride, and there may or may not be pride in reducing the doubt level to zero. Assuming, of course, that it is possible to do so, without the help of that wonderful virtue: faith.

David Quinn wrote:What is the worth of your "explicitly renouncing claims to certainty" when implicit claims to certainty underlie your every post?

It's worth realization that I could be wrong; which you Ultimate Reality people don't accept.

The belief that the "scientific method is the only valid means of gaining meaningful knowledge" is the first that springs to mind. Pure faith, that one.

Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful theories. No faith, here's the skeleton of the justification for you.

You are just mad that I refuse to recognize your word-juggling as producing actual knowledge. :)

"I perceive God in the world around me. If I pray to Him and do His bidding with a glad heart, He will reward me with His love, and I will feel peace within myself."

Instrumentalism at work.

You know, I knew you were ignorant, i didn't think you were brazenly dishonest.

You of course completely ignored the part about predictions -- testable predictions.

Shahrazad wrote:David,

A strong perfectionist streak as well. Ideally, the perfectionist streak will be strong enough to cause intolerance of self-delusion and thus create willingness to face doubts head on.

I have my doubts about how much of a role perfectionism plays here. I'm a perfectionist and I rarely ever make time to pursue the doubts you're talking about. We seek perfection in things that give us pride, and there may or may not be pride in reducing the doubt level to zero. Assuming, of course, that it is possible to do so, without the help of that wonderful virtue: faith.

I can't imagine a perfectionist who is happy with being deceived by their own minds, but perhaps that's just me.

-

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What is the worth of your "explicitly renouncing claims to certainty" when implicit claims to certainty underlie your every post?

It's worth realization that I could be wrong; which you Ultimate Reality people don't accept.

I'm happy enough to recognize that I could be wrong in the areas that I am uncertain about - for example, with an empirical observation - while acknowledging the certainty that I have in what is logically irrefutable.

That's the problem with taking refuge in the "everything is uncertain" charade. It negates the reality of logical irrefutability, which makes it a form of close-mindedness.

vicdan wrote:

The belief that the "scientific method is the only valid means of gaining meaningful knowledge" is the first that springs to mind. Pure faith, that one.

Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful theories. No faith, here's the skeleton of the justification for you.

That's how science works, yes. It is the belief that only this process alone can yield meaningful knowledge which constitutes the article of faith.

You are just mad that I refuse to recognize your word-juggling as producing actual knowledge. :)

Don't worry, Victor, I harbour no hopes of being able to open your mind to other forms of knowledge. My reasons for discussing these things with you lie elsewhere.

vicdan wrote:

"I perceive God in the world around me. If I pray to Him and do His bidding with a glad heart, He will reward me with His love, and I will feel peace within myself."

Instrumentalism at work.

You know, I knew you were ignorant, i didn't think you were brazenly dishonest.

You of course completely ignored the part about predictions -- testable predictions.

"If, due to my prayers and good works, I experience heavenly love being showered upon me and peace fills my heart, then it is proof that God exists and that He loves me."

-

vicdan wrote:Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful theories. No faith, here's the skeleton of the justification for you.

In a sense it could be said that faith is at the very heart of the scientific method, amongst other things the faith that what happened in the past shall continue to happen in the same way in the future. e.g. if I drop a ball and it falls to the ground 999 times, I have faith that it will do so when dropped for the thousandth time.

Shahrazad wrote:Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone.

How did you come to the conclusion that they had high levels of testosterone? Do you just mean that they're male?

Victor, would you say that "noumenon" means pretty much the same thing as "essense" in the Platonic sense?

It seems to me that when you are accusing someone of noumenalism, you are saying they are an essentialist. Do you agree with that?

David Quinn wrote:

vicdan wrote:Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful theories. No faith, here's the skeleton of the justification for you.

That's how science works, yes. It is the belief that only this process alone can yield meaningful knowledge which constitutes the article of faith.

Are you going to just keep asserting it, or are you going to argue for it?

vicdan wrote:"If, due to my prayers and good works, I experience heavenly love being showered upon me and peace fills my heart, then it is proof that God exists and that He loves me."

uh-huh. Come up to an instrumentalist and suggest that "After the Universe Ends, Bobo the Clown will bestride the world" is an instrumental prediction. See how far that gets you.

Lying is a sin, dontchaknow. Defining a 'test' that cannot in fact be tested is not instrumentalism -- it's more like the verbal juggling you guys do, defining your way to a conclusion.

Jason wrote:In a sense it could be said that faith is at the very heart of the scientific method, amongst other things the faith that what happened in the past shall continue to happen in the same way in the future. e.g. if I drop a ball and it falls to the ground 999 times, I have faith that it will do so when dropped for the thousandth time.

Yes, it could (this is Hume's induction problem). it could -- except for one tiny caveat.

Faith is belief without justification. Until we establish a basic epistemic framework, the concept of 'justification' has no meaning, and acceptance of induction is in fact a keystone of such a framework. Therefore, before induction, there is no such thing as 'without justification'.

Another way to look at it is that induction is a necessary presupposition; an axiom, if you will. Attacking science for relying on induction is like attacking mathematics for relying on Peano axioms of number theory. It's a sophomoric objection akin to acontextual skepticism.

DHodges wrote:Victor, would you say that "noumenon" means pretty much the same thing as "essense" in the Platonic sense?

It seems to me that when you are accusing someone of noumenalism, you are saying they are an essentialist. Do you agree with that?

I am not sure what you mean by platonic essences. You mean platonic ideals? If so, then yeah, they are rather similar -- platonic ideal forms could be known by their reflection upon the world, but not directly (and like QRS, Plato thought the human mind could come to know the ideal forms via contemplation). They of course are undergirded by different ontologies (platonic ideals are, well, ideal, noumena don't have to be), but they relate to sensible world in a similar manner.

Jason,

How did you come to the conclusion that they had high levels of testosterone? Do you just mean that they're male?

I concluded that because they have high libidos and act like straight males usually do.

vicdan wrote:Yes, it could (this is Hume's induction problem). it could -- except for one tiny caveat.

Faith is belief without justification.

But is the scientific method and its predictions justified? What is valid justification? I'm sure plenty of fundamentalist Christians believe that their faith is entirely justifiable.

vicdan wrote:Until we establish a basic epistemic framework, the concept of 'justification' has no meaning, and acceptance of induction is in fact a keystone of such a framework.

What if claims of knowledge were limited to certainties?

vicdan wrote:Another way to look at it is that induction is a necessary presupposition; an axiom, if you will.

Why is it necessary? Necessary for what?

vicdan wrote:It's a sophomoric objection akin to acontextual skepticism.

Acontextual skepticism eh? That sounds like it describes your "All knowledge is provisional and contextual. All knowledge is subject to revision."

David,

I can't imagine a perfectionist who is happy with being deceived by their own minds, but perhaps that's just me.

I think it is just you.

Please explain why refusing to investigate doubts to a ridiculous degree is deceiving oneself.

-

David Quinn: And the shortest, easiest way to be content with this is to push the doubts into the background.

Shahrazad: Yes, but just for clarity, I'd like to point out that some people can't do this. My observation is that those people tend to have high levels of testosterone.

Jason: How did you come to the conclusion that they had high levels of testosterone? Do you just mean that they're male?

Shahrazad: I concluded that because they have high libidos and act like straight males usually do.

I think I'm getting the picture now. These people, who you observed, had doubts about their ability to seduce and sleep with you, but they weren't content to live with these doubts. It makes perfect sense. ;)

Jason,

These people, who you observed, had doubts about their ability to seduce and sleep with you, but they weren't content to live with these doubts. It makes perfect sense. ;)

That's not what I meant at all. I haven't played the seduction game in a very long time. But that was a cool way to look at it.

You seem like a high libido dude. Do you usually try to satisfy your curiosity and clear your doubts?

-

Jason wrote:But is the scientific method and its predictions justified?

How do you prove that !(A & !A) -- the non-contradiction axiom, one of the core axioms of boolean and predicate logic? Or how about the excluded middle axiom -- A | !A?

What if claims of knowledge were limited to certainties?

[LOL] Why don't you think a little about what you just said, and what it would even mean to arrive at 'certainties' without relying on induction -- induction e.g. in the process of learning language, learning to navigate the world around us, etc.?

Read Quine's "Two Dogma of Empiricism". Trust me.

Why is it necessary? Necessary for what?

For functioning. For being able to move a muscle or say a word.

Acontextual skepticism eh? That sounds like it describes your "All knowledge is provisional and contextual. All knowledge is subject to revision."

It's not.

Shahrazad wrote:Jason,

These people, who you observed, had doubts about their ability to seduce and sleep with you, but they weren't content to live with these doubts. It makes perfect sense. ;)

That's not what I meant at all. I haven't played the seduction game in a very long time. But that was a cool way to look at it.

It was an amusing shot in the dark, but seemed like a coherent scenario given what you've said, which is what I thought made it amusing.

Shahrazad wrote:You seem like a high libido dude. Do you usually try to satisfy your curiosity and clear your doubts?

Those are very broad questions(translation: I'm concerned with and trying to clear the doubts and uncertainty I have about your questions), but I'm feeling bold(translation: I'm willing to make a very minor venture into uncertainty and take a guess) so my answer is: "absolutely."(OH FUCK, WHAT HAVE I DONE!!?? "ABSOLUTELY"??!!! ARE YOU CRAZY?!! I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THAT!! IT COULD BE WRONG! THIS IS GOING TO BE ARCHIVED IN A MILLION PLACES ACROSS THE WEB AND MY MOMENTARY SLIP INTO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY WILL BE RECORDED FOR THE AGES!)

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:But is the scientific method and its predictions justified?

How do you prove that !(A & !A) -- the non-contradiction axiom, one of the core axioms of boolean and predicate logic? Or how about the excluded middle axiom -- A | !A?

Tell me, Victor, how do you prove those?

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:What if claims of knowledge were limited to certainties?

[LOL] Why don't you think a little about what you just said, and what it would even mean to arrive at 'certainties' without relying on induction -- induction e.g. in the process of learning language, learning to navigate the world around us, etc.?

First, I think it is you who should "think a little", because the exact first scenario that you gave(learning language), was one of the scenarios that I imagined whilst posing the question. As I've suggested before, you'd do well with a little less of those ego-inflating assumptions about the inferiority of others. Believe it or not I pose questions for which I have answers; it has its uses, I was attempting to further discussion and understanding on both sides.

Second, 'certainties', of a kind, can still exist without induction. What is experienced directly and in the moment - like the visual sensation of "red", for example. Or even when I use language to utter the word "red" in the moment.

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:Why is it necessary? Necessary for what?

For functioning. For being able to move a muscle or say a word.

Maybe in the past that was the case ;P

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:Acontextual skepticism eh? That sounds like it describes your "All knowledge is provisional and contextual. All knowledge is subject to revision."

It's not.

Actually it does.

Jason wrote:Tell me, Victor, how do you prove those?

You don't.

vicdan wrote:First, I think it is you who should "think a little", because the exact first scenario that you gave(learning language), was one of the scenarios that I imagined whilst posing the question.

And you thought that to fall into 'totally certain' category? <LOL>

Second, 'certainties', of a kind, can still exist without induction. What is experienced directly and in the moment - like the visual sensation of "red", for example. Or even when I use language to utter the word "red" in the moment.

1) These 'certainties' are grounded in the 'uncertainty' of your cognitive development at the very least. You are claiming that you can build a solid rock of certainty in the middle of an infinitely deep ocean of uncertainty.

2) The things you mentioned aren't nearly as certain as you think. In fact, it's amazing how uncertain our own introspection is. For a more detailed exposition of this, read Dennett's "Quining Qualia".

vicdan wrote:Maybe in the past that was the case ;P

And your present self is grounded in those past uncertainties. They infuse everything about you, so your presumption that you can extract certainty from uncertainty is, shall we say, bizarre.

vicdan wrote:Actually it does.

Wrong answer. Try again. :)

Free hint: fallibilism, which is what I am advocating, is not the same thing as acontextual skepticism. There is a subtle but critically important difference between the two: acontextual skeptical positions, such as pyrrhonism, hold that knowledge is impossible; fallibilism instead holds that knowledge is possible but uncertain and provisional.

P.S. You should really read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Really. And "Quining Qualia" too.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

vicdan wrote:Actually what I generally say is that the scientific method is a distillation of how knowledge actually works and is acquired. Knowledge being predictive power, the scientific method -- the hypothesis/test/corroboration thing -- is exactly the optimal way to arrive as reliable predictively powerful theories. No faith, here's the skeleton of the justification for you.

That's how science works, yes. It is the belief that only this process alone can yield meaningful knowledge which constitutes the article of faith.

Are you going to just keep asserting it, or are you going to argue for it?

Surely, it is obvious. In order to prove that the scientific method is the only valid means of gaining meaningful knowldge, you would either have to use the scientific method itself (thereby employing what is under examination) or use some other means (in which case, the proposition is automatically disproven).

Either way, your affirmation of the proposition is an act of faith.

vicdan wrote:

"If, due to my prayers and good works, I experience heavenly love being showered upon me and peace fills my heart, then it is proof that God exists and that He loves me."

uh-huh. Come up to an instrumentalist and suggest that "After the Universe Ends, Bobo the Clown will bestride the world" is an instrumental prediction. See how far that gets you.

Lying is a sin, dontchaknow. Defining a 'test' that cannot in fact be tested is not instrumentalism -- it's more like the verbal juggling you guys do, defining your way to a conclusion.

The Christian here is using perception ("I perceive God in the world") and making a testible prediction ("if, due to my virtuous actions, I experience heavenly love and peace, then it means God really does exist and that He loves me").

This is pure instrumentalism at work.

I'm illustrating how vague and useless instrumentalism is, when treated as a stand-alone philosophy. You're only objecting to my examples because they don't fit in with the athiestic/materialistic outlook which you happen to favour.

-

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:Second, 'certainties', of a kind, can still exist without induction. What is experienced directly and in the moment - like the visual sensation of "red", for example. Or even when I use language to utter the word "red" in the moment.

1) These 'certainties' are grounded in the 'uncertainty' of your cognitive development at the very least. You are claiming that you can build a solid rock of certainty in the middle of an infinitely deep ocean of uncertainty.

2) The things you mentioned aren't nearly as certain as you think. In fact, it's amazing how uncertain our own introspection is. For a more detailed exposition of this, read Dennett's "Quining Qualia".

You can't see it, can you? You're so locked into academic theory that you have lost contact with what it means to be a subjective entity in real life.

P.S. You should really read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Really. And "Quining Qualia" too.

You should read the holy scriptures, Jason. They'll set you straight.

-

vicdan wrote:

Jason wrote:In a sense it could be said that faith is at the very heart of the scientific method, amongst other things the faith that what happened in the past shall continue to happen in the same way in the future. e.g. if I drop a ball and it falls to the ground 999 times, I have faith that it will do so when dropped for the thousandth time.

Yes, it could (this is Hume's induction problem). it could -- except for one tiny caveat.

Faith is belief without justification. Until we establish a basic epistemic framework, the concept of 'justification' has no meaning, and acceptance of induction is in fact a keystone of such a framework. Therefore, before induction, there is no such thing as 'without justification'.

Another way to look at it is that induction is a necessary presupposition; an axiom, if you will. Attacking science for relying on induction is like attacking mathematics for relying on Peano axioms of number theory. It's a sophomoric objection akin to acontextual skepticism.

Nonetheless, if you didn't have faith that the world will continue to function as before, you wouldn't bother trying to make predictions.

And it is a faith without justification. In essence, it is hope.

I am not sure what you mean by platonic essences. You mean platonic ideals? If so, then yeah, they are rather similar -- platonic ideal forms could be known by their reflection upon the world, but not directly (and like QRS, Plato thought the human mind could come to know the ideal forms via contemplation). They of course are undergirded by different ontologies (platonic ideals are, well, ideal, noumena don't have to be), but they relate to sensible world in a similar manner.

There isn't a slither of similarity between "QRS" and Plato. I laughed at the goal of knowing ideal forms long ago, near the beginning of my philosophic journey.

The only ideal forms I recognize are the ones that I experience each moment as a subjective being.

-

Any good professor or scientist will admit that science is faith, many have. Victor's religious mentality wont allow him to do this. It's probably due to being raised in a Jewish culture where the religious/faith based mindset runs deep.