Discussion:
Implications of Recent Developments in Network Science...really? well....
JAG
2013-02-13 22:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Alan,
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes, kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do 'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away with it! ;)
No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than looking for better ideas.
I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of science.
You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you. What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable?
Alan
Hi Alan,

your post below PROVES exactly my point! and below is the respond to your great question, but let's clear the air about a few starting points:

1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)

"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of
propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein


2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's CONDITIONAL! ;)

"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
-Roger Bacon


vivid example for you: an x-ray exists ONLY as long we have an X-ray MACHINE, (and then the material to make it, and then the 'terms/means' to read it etc)!
thus, we can say that an x-ray DOES NOT exist, but only in the absence of the X-ray machine, and that's where we agree, i think, but i argue, that until we invent and posses an 'x-ray' machine (since we have the ability/capacity/vision) we can NOT really say that is not possible AT ALL -to have an x-ray; here x-ray=justification, that's what you are saying and that's exactly where i am looking for better ideas -than consuming/fooling myself, as you put it,

As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work. if you want i will be more precice later!

you are right tho about "The basic theme here is a criticism of infallibilism. It criticizes guarantees and failure to admit one's ideas could be wrong."

that's exactly my point 'about things being able to be justified!' ;)

can you see the difference and similarity @ the same time? why not?

ah...semantical or conceptual problem here? hmmmm!
same goes for the 'refuting' part; it's based on the same principle it serves! ;)
Alan Forrester
2013-02-13 23:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Hi Alan,
1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
No philosophy is about solving philosophical problems. Philosophy does not aim solely at the logical clarification of thoughts, it's aimed at solving philosophical problems. This may require new ideas, not logical clarification of current ideas. Popper criticised Wittgenstein in "Open Society and Its Enemies" and Chapter 2 of "Conjectures and Refutations".
Post by JAG
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes, kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do 'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's CONDITIONAL! ;)
Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is unjustified for that reason too.
Post by JAG
"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
-Roger Bacon
Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
Post by JAG
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away with it! ;)
No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than looking for better ideas.
vivid example for you: an x-ray exists ONLY as long we have an X-ray MACHINE, (and then the material to make it, and then the 'terms/means' to read it etc)!
thus, we can say that an x-ray DOES NOT exist, but only in the absence of the X-ray machine, and that's where we agree, i think, but i argue, that until we invent and posses an 'x-ray' machine (since we have the ability/capacity/vision) we can NOT really say that is not possible AT ALL -to have an x-ray; here x-ray=justification, that's what you are saying and that's exactly where i am looking for better ideas -than consuming/fooling myself, as you put it,
We can say that it's possible to have an X-ray machine before we build one. Having an explanation as to why it should be possible to build one doesn't justify the idea that it is possible, but then nor does actually building an X-ray machine because we may be mistaken about what we have built. So you are fooling yourself.
Post by JAG
I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of science.
You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you. What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable?
As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work. if you want i will be more precice later!
Conjecture and criticism are not a means of justification as you have explained it above.

Alan
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-14 16:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
Hi Alan,
your post below PROVES exactly my point! and below is the respond
to your great question, but let's clear the air about a few starting
Post by JAG
1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A
philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy
does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as
it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and
give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
No philosophy is about solving philosophical problems. Philosophy
does not aim solely at the logical clarification of thoughts, it's
aimed at solving philosophical problems. This may require new ideas,
not logical clarification of current ideas. Popper criticised
Wittgenstein in "Open Society and Its Enemies" and Chapter 2 of
"Conjectures and Refutations".
Post by JAG
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes,
kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do
'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.
Post by JAG
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since
any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises
and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged
foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so
saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
Post by JAG
2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's
CONDITIONAL! ;)
Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the
condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so
is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference
of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is
unjustified for that reason too.
But the point is may be that it can still be conditionally justified.
Perhaps.
I agree with Popper and Deutsch on some key points, but I disagree
with the wording and the vocabulary.

It is better to assume that knowledge is related to truth, by
definition. And belief are the conjecture and theories, which are
always falsifiable. So I can sum up Popper by saying that in science
there is only beliefs. But knowledge still exist, in the non
constructive way, because some beliefs, despite falsifiable, can be
true, and never actually falisfied. We can of course never know that,
but that's does not make it non existing, on the contrary, this can be
used to show that science needs some form of faith, in some reality.

Bruno
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning
and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the
conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it
remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth,
unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
Post by JAG
-Roger Bacon
Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be
wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
Post by JAG
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling
ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away
with it! ;)
Post by JAG
No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or
probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be
wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of
your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than
looking for better ideas.
Post by JAG
vivid example for you: an x-ray exists ONLY as long we have an X-
ray MACHINE, (and then the material to make it, and then the 'terms/
means' to read it etc)!
Post by JAG
thus, we can say that an x-ray DOES NOT exist, but only in the
absence of the X-ray machine, and that's where we agree, i think,
but i argue, that until we invent and posses an 'x-ray' machine
(since we have the ability/capacity/vision) we can NOT really say
that is not possible AT ALL -to have an x-ray; here x-
ray=justification, that's what you are saying and that's exactly
where i am looking for better ideas -than consuming/fooling myself,
as you put it,
We can say that it's possible to have an X-ray machine before we
build one. Having an explanation as to why it should be possible to
build one doesn't justify the idea that it is possible, but then nor
does actually building an X-ray machine because we may be mistaken
about what we have built. So you are fooling yourself.
Post by JAG
I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to
empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of
science.
Post by JAG
You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated
them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual
problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you.
What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is
created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and
unjustifiable?
Post by JAG
As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by
conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and
unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism
are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they
are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having
meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state
anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work.
if you want i will be more precice later!
Conjecture and criticism are not a means of justification as you have explained it above.
Alan
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-15 16:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
Hi Alan,
your post below PROVES exactly my point! and below is the respond
to your great question, but let's clear the air about a few starting
Post by JAG
1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A
philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy
does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as
it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and
give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
No philosophy is about solving philosophical problems. Philosophy
does not aim solely at the logical clarification of thoughts, it's
aimed at solving philosophical problems. This may require new ideas,
not logical clarification of current ideas. Popper criticised
Wittgenstein in "Open Society and Its Enemies" and Chapter 2 of
"Conjectures and Refutations".
hmm...i think we are playing with words here, especially when you say 'solely' (and i agree to a certain degree) but Philosophy does aim at the logical clarification of thoughts and NOT just @ philosophical problems. I don't see where and why someone would disagree....
Somehow, you sound very 'opinioned' and in favor of Popper's ideas as the ultimate truth=as method, and again, while i agree and use most of his concepts, I don't think that Popper's intention was to produced some dogmatic method/philosophy.
Actually, i am using his brilliant 'refutation' concept/method to *refut* some of his own ideas. ;)

Read again maybe, and hopefully you'll see what i mean by that....

and please comment on my Piaget's quote? what do you think of that? anyone?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes,
kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do
'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.
Post by JAG
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since
any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises
and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged
foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so
saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
well, ok, If knowledge can NOT be proben to be true, then all SCIENCE and all theories and methods are fraudulent! To avoid such pitfalls and that kind of irrational thinking, we need to be situation/theory-specific and then use examples to make sense ?...and be rational.
Rational enough to see what works and wise enough to choose the next best and available solution -beyond dogmatic thinking and reasoning. I would say that some knowledge can be said to be proven true, for the time being, based on 'evidence' and other agreeable conditions, and of course until it is proven wrong...HOW ELSE? (and like that we are still in line with Popper, not bc Popper said so, but bc it works!) ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's
CONDITIONAL! ;)
Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the
condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so
is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference
of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is
unjustified for that reason too.
Again, if that is valid, then it should be valid for all 'arguments' incuding Popper's idea about how a few things are 'totally unjustified and unjustifiable' -and that would imply that Hume (as quoted earlier) is correct. ;)

Furthermore, how can you claim that we can NOT take a condition for granted? That is a hasty generalization used to prove your argument here, and while true for some, not true and valid for ALL conditions.

I think, i can see what you mean and you are right up to a point but for the wrong reasons as you stated above. :)
Please, support your idea (if you care of course), with your own words and thinking, why *justification* is not necessary and then why it can NOT be conditional. I would expect some original thinking here -beyond Popper's ideas. ;0
Post by Bruno Marchal
But the point is may be that it can still be conditionally justified.
Perhaps.
I agree with Popper and Deutsch on some key points, but I disagree
with the wording and the vocabulary.
Exactly! and it even goes beyond that....I think that Bertrand Rusell's work could be of great help here, in this specific argument, but then we do need to have an open mind to accept certain things ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
It is better to assume that knowledge is related to truth, by
definition. And belief are the conjecture and theories, which are
always falsifiable. So I can sum up Popper by saying that in science
there is only beliefs. But knowledge still exist, in the non
constructive way, because some beliefs, despite falsifiable, can be
true, and never actually falisfied. We can of course never know that,
but that's does not make it non existing, on the contrary, this can be
used to show that science needs some form of faith, in some reality.
Bruno
True, but in some cases we CAN know for sure. Furthermore, it's not just about *faith* but some other kind of direct 'knowledge'. I won't use the words 'instictual' or 'intuitive' bc we are gonna get in another argument here, but some things/situations offer POTENTIAL insights of what could be, at least @ the conceptual level! (example: gravity, senses, hidden dimensions, etc.) and the example of Ayers last words, (at the bottom of this post)
I believe, the subject matters above belong and need the same *philosophical* inquiry and examination.
Furthermore, i beleive, we are in need of *JUSTIFICATION* in philosophy of science and method but *justification* of why we should refuse to give some when it is necessary.
I think that Popper offered constructed criticism and stated his views, but in some instances he didn't *justified* his views/conclusion either!
and that's exactly my point here.! ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning
and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the
conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it
remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth,
unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
Post by JAG
-Roger Bacon
Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be
wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
Again Allan, I strongly disagree. Bacon is not wrong but let's say..he is kinda incomplete and not that all-inclusive. You are right though that exeperience needs to be interpreted, and that's why in my 'model' and reasoning/approach i have to use findings and 'analogies' from cognitive psychology and other fields.

A quick answer to the 'interpetation' problem as you put it, is nothing else but Whitehead's idea that 'the process of reality becomes reality itself" and that would be good enough, and *justified* enough to solve and explain a few things -based on findings from perceptual/cognitive processes ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling
ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away
with it! ;)
Post by JAG
No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or
probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be
wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of
your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than
looking for better ideas.
Post by JAG
vivid example for you: an x-ray exists ONLY as long we have an X-
ray MACHINE, (and then the material to make it, and then the 'terms/
means' to read it etc)!
Post by JAG
thus, we can say that an x-ray DOES NOT exist, but only in the
absence of the X-ray machine, and that's where we agree, i think,
but i argue, that until we invent and posses an 'x-ray' machine
(since we have the ability/capacity/vision) we can NOT really say
that is not possible AT ALL -to have an x-ray; here x-
ray=justification, that's what you are saying and that's exactly
where i am looking for better ideas -than consuming/fooling myself,
as you put it,
We can say that it's possible to have an X-ray machine before we
build one. Having an explanation as to why it should be possible to
build one doesn't justify the idea that it is possible, but then nor
does actually building an X-ray machine because we may be mistaken
about what we have built. So you are fooling yourself.
ok, i will buy that, but what happens when we know for sure that we can be build the machine (after many trial/errors etc) and have the x-ray etc. Can you still say that we can't justify a few things? I don't think so. So, CONDIONALLY only we can say and accept and refuse a few things ;)

i think we have an entirely different approach and reasoning here. And while i think that Popper was brilliant and contributed so much, and am in agreement, still he is not that all-conclusive. Personally, I can NOT really ACCEPT that there can be NO justification. My idea of CONDITIONAL justification could solve the problem but we do need an open mind to accept a few things ;)

Furthermore, and as pointed out above, a few things can be valid, and JUSTIFIED, CONDITIONALLY as you just did prove above! ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to
empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of
science.
Post by JAG
You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated
them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual
problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you.
What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is
created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and
unjustifiable?
My original comment/question was about 'justification'. I didn't use Popper's ideas only, but am not here to attack his ideas either. Quite the contrary, and as a free thinker, i think i should express my concerns and questions about a few things without the fear or the need to state certain things according to Poppers terms ONLY, and in agreement with his terms, ONLY ;)
That would forfeit both the motive and the goal here.
Somehow, i feel that you *force* me, and my question/inquiry, to that specific direction and i think that's kinda....unacceptable in personal and philosophical terms! so, thanks but no thanks! :(
but still very challenging! thanks! :)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by
conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and
unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism
are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they
are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having
meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state
anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work.
if you want i will be more precice later!
Conjecture and criticism are not a means of justification as you
have explained it above.
Alan
Allan, yes, as i CONDIOTIONALLY explained it above. ;)

To illustrate, think and please relate the argument above, to Ayer's last words, after his near death experience:
"What I saw when I was dead....slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."

then he revised it and said:

"what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief"

Now, use the above, as an example of how 'Conjecture and Criticism' could justify epistemeologically certain truths -in this case, not about death, but about his 'inflexible attitude' ;)

My point here, epistemologically thinking the 'unjustfiable' argument in NOT valid, certain aspects are both very NECESSARY and very JUSTIFIED-JUSTIFIABLE too.

Finally, and to take advantage of his great last words, I think that's the spirit, the FLEXIBLE attitude we all need to have here, regardless of any other differences we might (?) have -to understand both the 'problem' and what we are talking about..!

Cheers!
Alan Forrester
2013-02-15 21:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Hi Alan,
your post below PROVES exactly my point! and below is the respond
to your great question, but let's clear the air about a few starting
1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A
philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy
does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as
it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and
give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
No philosophy is about solving philosophical problems. Philosophy
does not aim solely at the logical clarification of thoughts, it's
aimed at solving philosophical problems. This may require new ideas,
not logical clarification of current ideas. Popper criticised
Wittgenstein in "Open Society and Its Enemies" and Chapter 2 of
"Conjectures and Refutations".
Wittgenstein aimed to restrict philosophy to deal only with clarifying words and concepts. I am saying that philosophy deals with a wider set of problems than that.
Post by JAG
Somehow, you sound very 'opinioned' and in favor of Popper's ideas as the ultimate truth=as method, and again, while i agree and use most of his concepts, I don't think that Popper's intention was to produced some dogmatic method/philosophy.
Actually, i am using his brilliant 'refutation' concept/method to *refut* some of his own ideas. ;)
A refutation involves pointing out some problem that a position fails to solve. You have not done this.
Post by JAG
and please comment on my Piaget's quote? what do you think of that? anyone?
"To assert that metaphysical problems are meaningless is
unacceptable from the point of view of knowledge itself, not that
the validity of metaphysical knowledge can be accepted without
question, but because we are not justified in definitely
classification of a problem as either scientific or metaphysical; at
the most a disputed problem can be said to be without(cognitive)
meaning....there are can be many wisdoms, while ther exists only one
truth."
-Piaget
This quote does not explain Piaget's position. What problem is Piaget trying to address? What does "without (cognitive) meaning" mean?
Post by JAG
Post by Alan Forrester
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes,
kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do
'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since
any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises
and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged
foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so
saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
well, ok, If knowledge can NOT be proben to be true, then all SCIENCE and all theories and methods are fraudulent! To avoid such pitfalls and that kind of irrational thinking, we need to be situation/theory-specific and then use examples to make sense ?...and be rational.
Rational enough to see what works and wise enough to choose the next best and available solution -beyond dogmatic thinking and reasoning. I would say that some knowledge can be said to be proven true, for the time being, based on 'evidence' and other agreeable conditions, and of course until it is proven wrong...HOW ELSE? (and like that we are still in line with Popper, not bc Popper said so, but bc it works!) ;)
You are taking for granted that justification (showing that an idea is true or probably true) is necessary for rationality and knowledge. It is not necessary. We can try to discover better ideas by looking for criticisms of our current ideas, suggesting solutions to those problems and looking for problems with the solutions.

Knowledge is just useful or explanatory information: it does not have to be justified. Scientists have created a lot of useful and deep knowledge by looking for problems with their previous ideas and suggesting better replacements. Why would they need to do anything else?

What problem does the idea of justification solve that cannot be solved with conjecture and criticism?
Post by JAG
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's
CONDITIONAL! ;)
Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the
condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so
is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference
of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is
unjustified for that reason too.
Again, if that is valid, then it should be valid for all 'arguments' incuding Popper's idea about how a few things are 'totally unjustified and unjustifiable' -and that would imply that Hume (as quoted earlier) is correct. ;)
Arguments serve as ways to criticise ideas not to justify them.
Post by JAG
"How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
in circle."
-Hume
Hume like you assumes that justification is necessary. Both you and he are wrong.
Post by JAG
Furthermore, how can you claim that we can NOT take a condition for granted? That is a hasty generalization used to prove your argument here, and while true for some, not true and valid for ALL conditions.
Why take a condition for granted rather than proposing it as a conjecture that may be wrong?
Post by JAG
I think, i can see what you mean and you are right up to a point but for the wrong reasons as you stated above. :)
Please, support your idea (if you care of course), with your own words and thinking, why *justification* is not necessary and then why it can NOT be conditional.
I have already addressed the non-necessity. As for why it can't be conditional. I can just take any step in your argument and ask you to justify it, show why it is true or probably true. And then I can take that argument, pick a step and ask you to justify it. And I can keep doing this indefinitely. Even if I were willing to grant some set of conditions that doesn't matter because the rest of your argument can be taken to pieces indefinitely.
Post by JAG
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning
and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the
conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it
remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth,
unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
-Roger Bacon
Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be
wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
Again Allan, I strongly disagree. Bacon is not wrong but let's say..he is kinda incomplete and not that all-inclusive. You are right though that exeperience needs to be interpreted, and that's why in my 'model' and reasoning/approach i have to use findings and 'analogies' from cognitive psychology and other fields.
A quick answer to the 'interpetation' problem as you put it, is nothing else but Whitehead's idea that 'the process of reality becomes reality itself" and that would be good enough, and *justified* enough to solve and explain a few things -based on findings from perceptual/cognitive processes ;)
This is vague. I'm not going to say anything further in reply because there is not enough substance here for any further criticism.
Post by JAG
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by
conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and
unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism
are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they
are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having
meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state
anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work.
if you want i will be more precice later!
Conjecture and criticism are not a means of justification as you
have explained it above.
Allan, yes, as i CONDIOTIONALLY explained it above. ;)
"What I saw when I was dead....slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."
"what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief"
Now, use the above, as an example of how 'Conjecture and Criticism' could justify epistemeologically certain truths -in this case, not about death, but about his 'inflexible attitude' ;)
My point here, epistemologically thinking the 'unjustfiable' argument in NOT valid, certain aspects are both very NECESSARY and very JUSTIFIED-JUSTIFIABLE too.
Finally, and to take advantage of his great last words, I think that's the spirit, the FLEXIBLE attitude we all need to have here, regardless of any other differences we might (?) have -to understand both the 'problem' and what we are talking about..!
What is the distinction between (1) a conditional justification, and (2) an idea that you have not managed to refute and are not currently actively trying to refute because it doesn't seem problematic?

Alan


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
JAG
2013-02-16 20:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
Hi Alan,
let's clear the air about a few starting
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A
philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy
does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the
clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as
it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and
give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Actually, i am using his brilliant 'refutation' concept/method to *refut* some of his own ideas. ;)
A refutation involves pointing out some problem that a position fails to solve. You have not done this.
True, I have NOT done it for many reasons (conceptual and practical), so before we proceed (yes, i will ask/need for your help here), let's take into account the following, and correct me if/when am wrong :

1) To be politically correct, it's not exactly a 'refutation' simply bc we are not talking about a theory here but disagreement of some of his ideas/statements.
So from that perspective is more than an attempted refutation of the validity of his claims.

2) in similar terms, if you say that it can not be done, i would say that your 'irrefutability' is not valid, (not a virtue bc it lacks the necessary *MEANING*), indeedy, so please let's check and see what applies here ;)

3) on the other hand, it is true that the way i use *justification* becomes an explanatory power, it gives MEANING and VERIFIES certain processes, and i think that's the root of our difference/argument here. From that 'prohibions' about *justification* are unacceptable, but yes, from that perspetcive, i can see that in the very same way my views are kinda irrefutable.


Now, it's also true that i have not make myself clear enough and probably have not stated a few things appropriately -so far, but the point am trying to make here, is specific and in relation to *JUSTIFICATION* -and then taking into account others, Hume's idea Piaget etc. Also, keep in mind that that when i say am using Poppers' method, is more like being selective in concepts and methods and attempting a synthesis of ideas, more specifically, my insighs and INDUCTIONS (yes) ;), supported in part by selected releavant wok and concepts by others, but without being in full agreement with them either ;)

So, The argument here is about Popper's idea that *justification* is not necessary -and then that a few things are *unjustifiable*.

1)Simply, I don't think that he explains/supports this idea enough to be acceptable. His particular idea seems to me more like an ad hoc assumption than truth -philosophiically speaking. Your respond/defense is more like a way of stating things that actually would make a refuation impossible (that's why i said earlier that we are playing with words)

2)I am asking for the criteria which could make his claims true and valid for most inquiries. So far I heard none! quite the contrary, you seem to escape 'falsification' yourself by giving a conventional twist of his claims, but then i do the same by inserting the variable of *MEANING* here, just bc *justifications* provide *meaning* and aim *verification* and not necessarily falsifiability ;)

3)Now about the need and why we can NOT do without it: I propose that justification is what provides clarity and ensures some kind of fairness, FLEXIBILITY, and while is independent by other processes and concepts, is still relevant and part of them. I beleive that without *justification* we are prone to deception, exploitation/misdirection. from that perspective, a few things also become justifiable! ;)

4)Popper's idea that we can get away without justification misdirects/boycotts both our perception/method and then the outcome/gools. his ideas even fail to be self-evident in terms of observation -in reality/practice there is alsways a potential (conditional) justification and need for meaning. What am saying is that without justification there is no meaning. In other words, am asking you to prove how *justifications* are instrinscically false and inappropriate as Popper/you claim to be.
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
and please comment on my Piaget's quote? what do you think of that? anyone?
"To assert that metaphysical problems are meaningless is
unacceptable from the point of view of knowledge itself, not that
the validity of metaphysical knowledge can be accepted without
question, but because we are not justified in definitely
classification of a problem as either scientific or metaphysical; at
the most a disputed problem can be said to be without(cognitive)
meaning....there are can be many wisdoms, while ther exists only one
truth."
-Piaget
This quote does not explain Piaget's position. What problem is Piaget trying to address? What does "without (cognitive) meaning" mean?
Great question, at last! :) "without...justification" maybe? but then it is also a trap :)

Yes, ok the quote does not explain his postion but he adressses the problem of 'classification' of a problem as either scientific or metaphysical -and that remains a challenging issue/problem for many reasons which i will try to elaborate....
At the mean time, please, think of it, in line with Poppers own question about what makes a theory valid and true, its criteria etc. and probably you''ll see what am talking about and how is related here. Popper as you very well know rejected certain theories based on the grounds of falsifiability...but then somehow he managed to propose that problems of demarcations and inductions were the same thing! Thing again, and try to see how and where *justification* could make the difference and ad another dimension here. ;0

Now, if were to be creative, we'll take it to the next level:
*justification* becomes the criterion of and for the validity of induction. Think about it! ;)

Furthermore it becomes the common denominator to the classification problem! ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
From my perspective (and GREAT interest) in a META-theoretical level, this problem of 'classification' becomes of paramount value, and then it is also extended and valid in specifc 'problems' (mainly in variouw demarcations)...again, we need *MEANING* !!! how else? what is possible/real/valid without it?
I will try to connect the dots here and make some sense but it has to do with the problem of knowledge as discussed (quoted) below, the true nature of reality-the ultimate reality and various implications of *knowing*. First, it would be wise to agree in some basic ideas and then examine the implications and differences in methods and in what we think and accept as necessary and relevant, -here specifcally the issue about 'justification'. But then, and since there way too many ideas and concepts involved will make this task impossible here.
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since
any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises
and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged
foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so
saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.
You are taking for granted that justification (showing that an idea is true or probably true) is necessary for rationality and knowledge. It is not necessary. We can try to discover better ideas by looking for criticisms of our current ideas, suggesting solutions to those problems and looking for problems with the solutions.
Well, I am taking from 'granted' that justification is necessary to show that an idea has a good='positive' reason (or the potential) to be true or probaly true/useful. I don't see how we can try to *discover* better ideas if that part is not met and satisfied, that is, justified! -yes, even deductively this time ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
Knowledge is just useful or explanatory information: it does not have to be justified. Scientists have created a lot of useful and deep knowledge by looking for problems with their previous ideas and suggesting better replacements. Why would they need to do anything else?
What problem does the idea of justification solve that cannot be solved with conjecture and criticism?
It has to do with conjecture's veracity and in cases with undecible conjectures and that's where *justification* could be the solution ;) but as you very well pointed out elsewher/below, this argument as well can also be taken to pieces indefinitely. Way to many concepts and variables here to make sense and have clear starting and finishing point.....
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's
CONDITIONAL! ;)
Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the
condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so
is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference
of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is
unjustified for that reason too.
Again, if that is valid, then it should be valid for all 'arguments' incuding Popper's idea about how a few things are 'totally unjustified and unjustifiable' -and that would imply that Hume (as quoted earlier) is correct. ;)
Arguments serve as ways to criticise ideas not to justify them.
That's where we disagree and i propose that arguments could be the means to justify ideas=give meaning, which in return would support and direct *verification* rather falsifiability-testability (actually, that's exactly my critique of anyone and Poppers idea about eliminating justification) and furtermore to point out glinches and imperfections of conjectures and criticism. How else? that's exactly my point, we need *justification* to test and verify conjectures thmesleves; otherwise we are subjected to the very (potentially) limitations and pitfalls of conjecture and criticism. it is *MEANING* that makes the difference and justification provides meaning and thn makes conjectures and critisism valid/true ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
"How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
in circle."
-Hume
Hume like you assumes that justification is necessary. Both you and he are wrong.
Well, that's the argument here, but still you haven't *justified* your criticism and conclusion either -why he is wrong, we need a *true* falsifying statement here, but then probably, that is exactly the limitation am talking about when there is no JUSTIFICATION ;)

Now, if IN GENERAL you think that it is not necessary then there is no way to agree and there is no point in 'arguing' about it.
Simply i don't see another possible way -conceptually speaking even as the criterion of falsifibility.
Post by Alan Forrester
Why take a condition for granted rather than proposing it as a conjecture that may be wrong?
Because a *condition* can be controlled/tested/agreed upon on. It becomes the means we may need later in *verifying* the truth or falsity of a 'conjecture'. That proves the need for justification and that could also solve the problem of 'arguing in circles' ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
I have already addressed the non-necessity. As for why it can't be conditional. I can just take any step in your argument and ask you to justify it, show why it is true or probably true. And then I can take that argument, pick a step and ask you to justify it. And I can keep doing this indefinitely. Even if I were willing to grant some set of conditions that doesn't matter because the rest of your argument can be taken to pieces indefinitely.
Again, please read above, and think how 'counter-examples' work -and the role of *meaning* !!!!!
You are right though that we could spend many lifetimes arguing about it :)

The way we have put is so far, it makes things way too complex, but in essence am looking for a *verifacation* in line and in terms of Ayer than Popper ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
"There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning
and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the
conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it
remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth,
unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience."
-Roger Bacon
Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be
wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
A quick answer to the 'interpetation' problem as you put it, is nothing else but Whitehead's idea that 'the process of reality becomes reality itself" and that would be good enough, and *justified* enough to solve and explain a few things -based on findings from perceptual/cognitive processes ;)
This is vague. I'm not going to say anything further in reply because there is not enough substance here for any further criticism.
The 'substance' is 'there', I call it * MEANING* but as i mentioned before, i have not stated/connected a few things appropriately, so you are fully *justified* saying something like that ;)


Now, the problem is that Popper's ideas are NOT independent of psychological considerations -and that's why i used Whitehead's idea of perceiving reality as a PROCESS, where that nature of reality, of an Ultimte reality (if existent) depends and opreates both intrinscically and extrinscically, VERIFIES and finally gives meaning to the exepeience/method/theory, and in order to avoid confusion and mis-interpation, certain *justifications* are both necessary and justifiable. Now, bc a few things/events are kinda impossible, (such TOTAL AWARENESS of all KNOWLEDGE/PROCESSES in meaningul terms) only *conditionally* we could accept and make sense of themselves -and ourselves...(ontologically and Epistemologically)

in other words, i don't believe that we can sacrifice *MEANING* in any case/method/theory ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
What is the distinction between (1) a conditional justification, and (2) an idea that you have not managed to refute and are not currently actively trying to refute because it doesn't seem problematic?
Alan
You are politically correct but (1) a conditional justification solves the problems (by giving *MEANING*) mentioned above, and (2) the problematic idea we need to 'refute' here is that of *justification*, as necessary for *verification*

Indeed, i propose that *verifiability* could NOT really be replaced with UNJUSTIFIED falsifiability, and i guess that's the root of all argument and confusion here! ;)

cheers!

JAG
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-17 17:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
It is better to assume that knowledge is related to truth, by
definition. And belief are the conjecture and theories, which are
always falsifiable. So I can sum up Popper by saying that in science
there is only beliefs. But knowledge still exist, in the non
constructive way, because some beliefs, despite falsifiable, can be
true, and never actually falisfied. We can of course never know that,
but that's does not make it non existing, on the contrary, this can be
used to show that science needs some form of faith, in some reality.
Bruno
True, but in some cases we CAN know for sure.
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
Post by JAG
Furthermore, it's not just about *faith* but some other kind of
direct 'knowledge'.
Certainly. To be clear, faith is doubtable. If it was not, it would
not ask for faith.
Post by JAG
I won't use the words 'instictual' or 'intuitive' bc we are gonna
get in another argument here, but some things/situations offer
level! (example: gravity, senses, hidden dimensions, etc.)
Well, here I disagree. Feeling something does make the actual feeling
undoubtable, but if we interpret it in a theory (like grandmother
theory of gravitation: objects fall), we are in front of something
doubtable.
I can conceive that I can wake up in a reality where objects don't fall.
Post by JAG
and the example of Ayers last words, (at the bottom of this post)
I believe, the subject matters above belong and need the same
*philosophical* inquiry and examination.
Furthermore, i beleive, we are in need of *JUSTIFICATION* in
philosophy of science and method but *justification* of why we
should refuse to give some when it is necessary.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Post by JAG
I think that Popper offered constructed criticism and stated his
views, but in some instances he didn't *justified* his views/
conclusion either!
and that's exactly my point here.! ;)
To be sure, I am not sure I understand the critics of "justification".
I think that people makes a links between truth and justification
which does not exist. I am not sure there is any difference in
"explanation" and "justification", except as nuances, useful at some
stage, but misleading outside a rigorous theory, making clear what is
assumed, and what is derived. Both BOI and FOR seems to me having a
lot of justification and a lot of inductive inference too. Each time
we refer to a theory, we do an induction, even for a mundane theory
like "we have to pay bill", or the like. I guess I might miss
something, of course, but it looks it might be just a problem of
vocabulary, and this hides the real critics I can do on FOR, like
presenting the 'physical Church-Turing thesis" as a more precise
version of Church's thesis, where I think it is just a complete
different thesis, probably even contradicting Church-Turing thesis (at
least when we assume computationalism, as David Deutsch is doing).

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-18 17:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
To be sure, I am not sure I understand the critics of "justification".
I think that people makes a links between truth and justification
which does not exist. I am not sure there is any difference in
"explanation" and "justification", except as nuances, useful at some
stage, but misleading outside a rigorous theory, making clear what is
assumed, and what is derived. Both BOI and FOR seems to me having a
lot of justification and a lot of inductive inference too. Each time
we refer to a theory, we do an induction, even for a mundane theory
like "we have to pay bill", or the like. I guess I might miss
something, of course, but it looks it might be just a problem of
vocabulary, and this hides the real critics I can do on FOR, like
presenting the 'physical Church-Turing thesis" as a more precise
version of Church's thesis, where I think it is just a complete
different thesis, probably even contradicting Church-Turing thesis (at
least when we assume computationalism, as David Deutsch is doing).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Hi, Bruno,

I agree that (and for our purposes here), there is no difference between 'explanation' and 'justification'.

Furthermore, i argue that without them, we can not have the necessary *meaning* to carry out our important tasks (minly, theory construction and testing)

Justifications are exactly the explanations we need, and at the same time, we are looking for, to give meaning and justify any event -method/theory/science!

Furthermore, i don't believe that we can truly test for any validity and reliability without having, and giving, the proper *justification* first.

Again, that's exactly my point and critique of Popper's claim that justification is not necessary, (and then, that a few things are not justifiable.)

Accordning to my view, and as i(probably poorly) explained it in my previous post, Popper failed to provide the *criteria* which could make his claims true and valid!

In specific, and using his method/terms, i suggested that Popper's (and his supporters 'here') can not really show how and why *justifications* are intrinsically false and inappropriate!!!!

Based on these terms, I believe that your 'Computationalism' example *proves* a few things -and serves an as an excellent example about *method* and *epistemological* thinking..... ;)

Last but not least, i am glad to see that some people can *THINK* for themselves here!

Friendly question/reminder here: What is the aim of Science -and philosophy for that matter?

Isn't the quest for Truth? -and for some of us here, at the same time, it is also the quest for the Holy Grail! ;)

and, similarly, sorry but I can't resist and ask again:

what is all about? Is it about Discovery or Invention?

While Science is, and should be, about Discovery, I think that Scientifc method is, at least in part, about Invention....

and everything is still in progress....


"It is the theory that decides what we can observe." -Albert Einstein


;)


all the best!

JAG
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-19 11:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
To be sure, I am not sure I understand the critics of "justification".
I think that people makes a links between truth and justification
which does not exist. I am not sure there is any difference in
"explanation" and "justification", except as nuances, useful at some
stage, but misleading outside a rigorous theory, making clear what is
assumed, and what is derived. Both BOI and FOR seems to me having a
lot of justification and a lot of inductive inference too. Each time
we refer to a theory, we do an induction, even for a mundane theory
like "we have to pay bill", or the like. I guess I might miss
something, of course, but it looks it might be just a problem of
vocabulary, and this hides the real critics I can do on FOR, like
presenting the 'physical Church-Turing thesis" as a more precise
version of Church's thesis, where I think it is just a complete
different thesis, probably even contradicting Church-Turing thesis (at
least when we assume computationalism, as David Deutsch is doing).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Hi, Bruno,
I agree that (and for our purposes here), there is no difference
between 'explanation' and 'justification'.
Furthermore, i argue that without them, we can not have the
necessary *meaning* to carry out our important tasks (minly, theory
construction and testing)
Justifications are exactly the explanations we need, and at the same
time, we are looking for, to give meaning and justify any event -
method/theory/science!
Furthermore, i don't believe that we can truly test for any validity
and reliability without having, and giving, the proper
*justification* first.
Again, that's exactly my point and critique of Popper's claim that
justification is not necessary, (and then, that a few things are not
justifiable.)
Accordning to my view, and as i(probably poorly) explained it in my
previous post, Popper failed to provide the *criteria* which could
make his claims true and valid!
In specific, and using his method/terms, i suggested that Popper's
(and his supporters 'here') can not really show how and why
*justifications* are intrinsically false and inappropriate!!!!
Only a proposition can be true or false, and always with respect to
some semantic, which can be left implicit, or made explicit. In
interdisciplinary studies, this leads to difficulties. In the
academical realm, we are still at the stage where diplomats are
killed, so some effort in rigor seems premature.

Now, a justification can be valid or non valid. But not true or false.
Post by JAG
Based on these terms, I believe that your 'Computationalism' example
*proves* a few things -and serves an as an excellent example about
*method* and *epistemological* thinking..... ;)
Well, I think so, but I am not well placed to say so! Thanks.
Post by JAG
Last but not least, i am glad to see that some people can *THINK* for themselves here!
Friendly question/reminder here: What is the aim of Science -and
philosophy for that matter?
I would not distinguish science and philosophy. That distinction has
led some people to defend the idea that we can lack rigor in
philosophy, and basically defend any idea. The distinction seem to be
used for making curriculum boudaries, but it is not something
fundamental.
The aim of science is knowledge, but we get only belief (falsifiable
knowledge). Some truth can be found but they can never been publicly
asserted as such. Even 0+0=0 is a belief. We can agree on, and start
from that, but we cannot really prove it, unless we have already agree
on some postulate and inference rule.
Post by JAG
Isn't the quest for Truth?
Yes, for fundamental science. For non fundamental science, all aims
are possible, from money, glory, to satisfying personal dreams, like
flying or visit the planet Mars.
Post by JAG
-and for some of us here, at the same time, it is also the quest for
the Holy Grail! ;)
what is all about? Is it about Discovery or Invention?
The answer to such question might differ according to your favorite
metaphysics. With computationalism we need to accept some realism in
arithmetic, and this lean to the idea that we discover most things,
and invent few things.
Post by JAG
While Science is, and should be, about Discovery, I think that
Scientifc method is, at least in part, about Invention....
Even a method can be said to be discovered, especially if the method
seems to work.
Post by JAG
and everything is still in progress....
My opinion is that as long as theology has not come back to academy
(which is the worst thing except for all the other, paraphrasing
Churchill), science cannot be said to have even begun. Science is
modesty, and it is an attempt to not let emotions introduce wishful
thinking a priori.
Post by JAG
"It is the theory that decides what we can observe." -Albert Einstein
Science is a back-and-forth between observation, dialog and
introspection, driven by curiosity, and respect of the others.
Post by JAG
all the best!
Best regards,

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-18 19:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc attitude is also the goal; sometimes we do take things for granted and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is exactly where Philosophy of Science aims -and becomes important:

To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude and at the same to point out various problems and implications.

Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about 'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes towards that goal.

Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with *meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific approach is and/or should be all about!

Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of Science?

or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?

what is the true nature of this problem?

what is exactly the goal here?

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
- Stephen W. Hawking

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-19 13:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAG
sometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
Post by JAG
and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.

And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Post by JAG
Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
Post by JAG
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.

If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Post by JAG
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.

Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Post by JAG
what is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.

About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAG
what is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
Post by JAG
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?

On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for. It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
Post by JAG
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-26 01:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAG
sometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....

Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a 'problem') ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.
And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)

"How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
More and more that become for me the real measure of value. Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole', even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives;

Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/methods should be employed....
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Post by JAG
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)

I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
what is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.
indeed but what about cause and effect?
check this out:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970


i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about causes and effects here, about how various Developments and processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.) about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and methods...

thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find objectivity by subjective means...

I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...

so, here are some interesting findings about brain functioning, again, from a different perspective and approach:

http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569


"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on,
and our little life
Is rounded with sleep."
-Shakespeare, The Tempest
Post by Bruno Marchal
About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAG
what is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein

and speaking about contemplation here is another interesting study:

http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract

I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)

Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher, not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit, with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;)

http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/

http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf


once we learn how to join in the Universal then there is no need for other defenses -that could make us miserable and even intoxicate further our consciousness and epistemic process:

http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html

http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract

"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
Post by Bruno Marchal
It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...

Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
Post by Bruno Marchal
Bruno
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein




"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates

JAG
Brett Hall
2013-02-26 19:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAG
sometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....
Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a 'problem') ;)
In the first paragraph you are pretty categorical with your "there are NO problems" and then in your second you assert that "behind each and every problem lies a solution".

This contradiction is a problem.

Your second paragraph is a reasonable version of David Deutsch's central theme in BoI:

"Problems are inevitable.
Problems are soluble."
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Do you think "know" means "certain of"?
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.
And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)
"How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
More and more that become for me the real measure of value. Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole', even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives;
Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/methods should be employed....
Not merely a testing. Both science and philosophy are about generating good explanations.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Bruno makes a very good point here. Meaning is hard to grasp. The meaning of "meaning" is ambiguous. He provides at least two there.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
Bruno, what do you mean by fashion in science? Are you endorsing some version of Kuhn's framework?

Fashion, to me, sounds rather whimsical. It's as if, if science is indeed motivated by fashion, that there need be no connection to reality. That the theories of science are not just useful fictions...but *not even* useful.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
Really? I suggest the first 3 chapters of FoR. Just search this very list for that word (yahoo has a good search facility).

Justifications are ways of giving positive support to some argument. But then what justifies the justifications? Something else. And so on. It leads to a foundation. Which one cannot justify. And what justifies the rules of inference as well? Apparently, nothing.

Now there is another discussion going on, on another list, that this is not the complete picture. It has also to do with the fact justifications - positive arguments - will never only justify one explanation, but many simultaneously. Check the BoI list if you want.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
what is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.
indeed but what about cause and effect?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about causes and effects here, about how various Developments and processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.) about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and methods...
thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find objectivity by subjective means...
I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on,
and our little life
Is rounded with sleep."
-Shakespeare, The Tempest
Post by Bruno Marchal
About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAG
what is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
I have argued, on this list and others, about the usefulness of meditation and, indeed, the philosophical insight such practises can bring. But...
Post by JAG
Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher,
This is garbage, to my mind. What does "evolve further and higher" even mean? And how can meditation accomplish this?
Post by JAG
not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit,
How are the mind and spirit different?
Post by JAG
with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
Post by Bruno Marchal
It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...
Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
Your love of quotes, I have said before, is a love of authority. Which ain't any good. But if authority impresses you...look up Bruno Marchal - on this list and elsewhere. He is more accomplished, and has better ideas than many people you quote. So, by your own lights, surely telling someone with all the knowledge of Bruno Marchal, who he is and what he thinks, is awfully presumptuous!
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
Post by Bruno Marchal
Bruno
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
He was totally wrong about that and this idea led him well up the garden path of bad ideas. Language is not the only game in town. Philosophy is not only about language.

What do you think of that quote? Let's actually talk about some of these quotes of yours rather than letting them pepper your postings like too much spice in a cheap meal. Let's start with this Wittgenstein quote. I assert it's rubbish for the reason I have just gave. What do you think about it?
Post by JAG
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
He was smart, right? But what do *you think* about what he says? From what you have given us there, in glorious isolation (a massive problem with quotes of this kind - no context whatsoever) is that, as it's written, it looks like Socrates is after certainty from knowledge.

If he was after good explanations, then he would know, that he does indeed know all that he thinks he actually knows. Right?

Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-27 10:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
<snip>
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Bruno makes a very good point here. Meaning is hard to grasp. The
meaning of "meaning" is ambiguous. He provides at least two there.
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
Bruno, what do you mean by fashion in science? Are you endorsing
some version of Kuhn's framework?
Not really. When I ask to a logician, teaching logic in some
university, if he intend to teach Gödel's theorem, he answered me that
it was not in fashion. But Quine new foundation was in fashion. I was
more thinking to the arbitrariness of the funding, for this and that
domain. At some other level, it might be related to Kuhn, like the
"fashion" to abandon theology to the clergy, and no more addressing
the question with the scientific manner. This is a bit more than
fashion, but is related. My interest relies in afterlife, beforelife,
parallel-life, and it becomes timidly reconsidered thanks to Everett,
and Deustch, but most academics disqualify this as "theology", which
it is, but today, it is a fashion to disqualify theology. It is
cultural also, and based on the success of Aristotle simplification of
Plato's theory.
Post by Brett Hall
Fashion, to me, sounds rather whimsical. It's as if, if science is
indeed motivated by fashion, that there need be no connection to
reality. That the theories of science are not just useful
fictions...but *not even* useful.
I don't see this. it is like with the clothe fashion. Clothe are
useful, for decency and warming oneself. But the choice of the clothes
is driven, for many, by fashion and cultural habits. Same with
science. Some domain can be fashioned, and then been forgotten by
fashion. In Sienna I met an important guy in the history of
provability logic (GL, GLS, or G and G*), and he told me he was no
more working in the subject, and that the subject was no more "à la
mode" (in french), that is literally out of fashion.
Post by Brett Hall
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
Really? I suggest the first 3 chapters of FoR. Just search this very
list for that word (yahoo has a good search facility).
Justifications are ways of giving positive support to some argument.
But then what justifies the justifications? Something else. And so
on. It leads to a foundation. Which one cannot justify. And what
justifies the rules of inference as well? Apparently, nothing.
Intuition and definition. Everyone accepts that from A and A -> B, we
can justify B. I interpret "justification" as logical explanation.
Then I tend to agree that there is no positive support of truth, but
there is positive support for plausibility. If not, I would not find
plausible that there is coffee in my kitchen.
Post by Brett Hall
Now there is another discussion going on, on another list, that this
is not the complete picture. It has also to do with the fact
justifications - positive arguments - will never only justify one
explanation, but many simultaneously. Check the BoI list if you want.
But observation itself supports infinities of explanations. That is
not a problem, as we will choose the shorter one, or the one
conceptually simpler.
Post by Brett Hall
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
I have argued, on this list and others, about the usefulness of
meditation and, indeed, the philosophical insight such practises can
bring. But...
OK. And if some people feel help in prosac, let them be free to use
it. Meditation can have bad side effects. Well, some illegal plants,
like salvia divinorum, can have much less bad effects than mediation
or prosac. Prohibition has led to so many misinformation in that
domain. It is very sad.
Post by Brett Hall
Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher,
This is garbage, to my mind. What does "evolve further and higher"
even mean? And how can meditation accomplish this?
not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit,
How are the mind and spirit different?
with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...
Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
Your love of quotes, I have said before, is a love of authority.
Which ain't any good. But if authority impresses you...look up Bruno
Marchal - on this list and elsewhere. He is more accomplished, and
has better ideas than many people you quote. So, by your own lights,
surely telling someone with all the knowledge of Bruno Marchal, who
he is and what he thinks, is awfully presumptuous!
I can agree with this :)

But then, is not David on the limit of using such kind of authority by
singling out so much Popper, Darwin, etc. I think it is better to make
a point, and refer discretly to those who have inspired or get the
idea first, by honesty. If not it looks like idolatry, which is a form
of authority indeed.
Post by Brett Hall
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
Bruno
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
He was totally wrong about that and this idea led him well up the
garden path of bad ideas. Language is not the only game in town.
Philosophy is not only about language.
I can't agree more.
Post by Brett Hall
What do you think of that quote? Let's actually talk about some of
these quotes of yours rather than letting them pepper your postings
like too much spice in a cheap meal. Let's start with this
Wittgenstein quote. I assert it's rubbish for the reason I have just
gave. What do you think about it?
I agree that this quote sum up a big error in philosophy (in the sense
of fundamental science). There is a use of language to systematically
hide the problems. It is a bit like the use of the "unconscious" in
some psychology. It is not problem solving, it is problem mockery.
Post by Brett Hall
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
He was smart, right? But what do *you think* about what he says?
From what you have given us there, in glorious isolation (a massive
problem with quotes of this kind - no context whatsoever) is that,
as it's written, it looks like Socrates is after certainty from
knowledge.
If he was after good explanations, then he would know, that he does
indeed know all that he thinks he actually knows. Right?
Of course "I know nothing" is already a logical contradiction. But to
be fair with him, he might have intended to just say that he does not
know a lot. As Plato illustrates, Socrates was a good questioner.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-27 15:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAG
sometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....
Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a 'problem') ;)
In the first paragraph you are pretty categorical with your "there are NO problems" and then in your second you assert that "behind each and every problem lies a solution".
This contradiction is a problem.
There is no contradiction here; the first paragraph is about the existential nature of a 'problem' (the one you seem to ignore sometimes) and the other is the idea about the 'solubility' of a problem, and that's where we are optimistic -and in line with DD;
Post by Brett Hall
"Problems are inevitable.
Problems are soluble."
Full agreement here, am just asking, "what is the best way and why so?"

Furthermore, a *challenge* is nothing else but a creative approch and personal attitude as an aid when dealing with certain problems. It's a matter of strategy and then of application-practice.

It is brave and optimistic in nature, as a a feeling-emotion, and alters many processes. Think of it as the 'moral' of the scientist-philosopher. It's the attitude we have towards certain cosmological and social events from a more prominent and novel position.
It does not mean that a problem is not a problem, rather it gives another quality to is, its due respect and admiration.

;)


I think that DD accurately, and creatively, grasped the concept and the importance of *emergening* properties.

Thus, the *causal* aspects are justified. What am saying is that we need to justify the causal, and then justifications themselves. here the concept and process of *emergentism* solves both ontological and epsietemological aspecs of knowledge and method. so am happy and satisfied.Thus, we are all good here on this! ;)

what am saying is that the same, *emergentism* applies to our epistemic processes themselves.

In like with DD, and that where i can see his brilliance, at the conceptual level, i would suggest that *emergentism*, and its emboided physicalism (don't forget that), is the correct choice, it is necessary, and then it could become a true representation of the events. more succesful if in conjustction though, with other activities explained from a relativistic perspetcive -and then even extend this to functionalism.


.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Do you think "know" means "certain of"?
*know* here in terms of 'knowing more', the most available that could *justify* and explain process themesleves, its nature and properties. Certain aspects of human experience of the Universal are ineffable.

For example, to *know* the Tao is different than to be able to 'explain' it. ;)

but then, by *knowing* one could find better ways to decsribe it.....

Now, the problem with Dualistic thinking is that it can NOT ecsape *DUALISM" thus, it negates the method and the results, thus, all-conclusive and 'wholistic' ;)

The same goes for methods of 'contemplation' ;)
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.
And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)
"How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
More and more that become for me the real measure of value. Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole', even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives;
Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/methods should be employed....
Not merely a testing. Both science and philosophy are about generating good explanations.
exactly - when good explanations are generated, then, we are accept them, and we are in agreement!

Furthermore, we can justify that we should accept as findings from both aproches -actually, they are different forms and projections of the subject matter and its consclusions, -with similar involvement of cognitive and affective processses.

Indeed, what am saying is that we need both; in fact, and looking form the outside now, the bif picture metaphorically, they are the necessary 'ying and yang' of the cosmic fabric. ;)
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Bruno makes a very good point here. Meaning is hard to grasp. The meaning of "meaning" is ambiguous. He provides at least two there.
ok, it's not exactly ambiguous but it has similar negative effects, but it is the ambigious 'explanations" and 'justifications' that make meaning kinda 'doubtful'. In yours words, ambigious. Interpratation of meaning is relative and then very specific. Generalization is possible but not always true and valid.

Understanding the nature of the problem implies and negates the right choice of method and tools. The wholistic model includes everything and all that there is. There are relativistic and vitalistic and computationalist and existential aspects at work here. We can not ignore some aspects and processes. The goal is to find the best possible and available method to approach a 'problem' in all-inclusive and all-conclusive manner.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
Bruno, what do you mean by fashion in science? Are you endorsing some version of Kuhn's framework?
Fashion, to me, sounds rather whimsical. It's as if, if science is indeed motivated by fashion, that there need be no connection to reality. That the theories of science are not just useful fictions...but *not even* useful.
You are kinda 'wrong' the way to see it here (not justified in approch/conclusion here) ...it does not work that way;

don't make it real in that sense bc it does not exist....
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
Really? I suggest the first 3 chapters of FoR. Just search this very list for that word (yahoo has a good search facility).
Justifications are ways of giving positive support to some argument. But then what justifies the justifications? Something else. And so on. It leads to a foundation. Which one cannot justify. And what justifies the rules of inference as well? Apparently, nothing.
well said, well done! There is no disagreement here, but if we can not justify a foundation that means we are in trouble. Furthermore, i propose that there is a way to justify a few things, a few foundations, thus, we should not reject the whole process based on the assumption that it does work -always or in that way. ;)

Popper somehow rejected psychoanalysis as non-scientific.

I would tell you that psyconalysis is in fact the study of the (strucrure) of the Uncoscious Mind, and that it can be explained in many terms and ways; in ours days, unconscious processing can be viewed scientifically.

Now, saying that *psychoanalysis* is not (or can not be) scientifc based on Poppers views, is kinda hasty and not accurate.

What am saying is that we should not ignore and reject some methods and attempts based on other assumptions and older claims and findings.
Post by Brett Hall
Now there is another discussion going on, on another list, that this is not the complete picture. It has also to do with the fact justifications - positive arguments - will never only justify one explanation, but many simultaneously. Check the BoI list if you want.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
what is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.
indeed but what about cause and effect?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about causes and effects here, about how various Developments and processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.) about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and methods...
thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find objectivity by subjective means...
I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on,
and our little life
Is rounded with sleep."
-Shakespeare, The Tempest
Post by Bruno Marchal
About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAG
what is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
I have argued, on this list and others, about the usefulness of meditation and, indeed, the philosophical insight such practises can bring. But...
so now finally and hopefully, you can grasp the idea and meaning of what a complementary theory/method is all about, and of course, recognize its necessity too? ;)
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher,
This is garbage, to my mind. What does "evolve further and higher" even mean? And how can meditation accomplish this?
It's about understanding the process of knowing and then mastery of Awareness. It's about understanding 'causes' and 'effects' and then finding productive ways to have desirable results-solutions.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit,
How are the mind and spirit different?
Post by JAG
with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
Post by Bruno Marchal
It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...
Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
Your love of quotes, I have said before, is a love of authority. Which ain't any good. But if authority impresses you...look up Bruno Marchal - on this list and elsewhere. He is more accomplished, and has better ideas than many people you quote. So, by your own lights, surely telling someone with all the knowledge of Bruno Marchal, who he is and what he thinks, is awfully presumptuous!
The love and use of quotes is not appeal to authority as you say, you are wrong, conceptually....

Even if most quotes are out of context here, there is a connection; that's the goal here: to provide first variety of opinion -and method, and then see the relations, and the role as conceptual freamework for inquiry, even if this entils disagreement; but you have to do the work for yourself too, to connect the dots and see the whole picture....see how quotes promote that?

You are using authority in the wrong sense here; and in general now, authority in one thing/field does not guarantee authority in another.
I don't see the connection with Bruno as you put it above.

Some times things and people do go and put things together but sometimes is about the merging and the emerging and the correct dialectic, in terms of vitalism and 'rationalism' and yes, not just than in terms of reductionism...yes...

but in general, don't take things for granted and don't enforce your conclusions as other people's opinion. (for example here, your assumption that the love of quotes is love of authority).

The same goes with the referal and use of various studies here! ;)

To show the variety and what is needed; to show both the prosess and the available means and then specifically show how certain ides provoke further action towrds unity and menaing and towards inspiration and Creativity.

We need to constantly evaluate -and then promate the well being and mastery of- our own epistemological processes.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
Post by Bruno Marchal
Bruno
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
He was totally wrong about that and this idea led him well up the garden path of bad ideas. Language is not the only game in town. Philosophy is not only about language.
What do you think of that quote? Let's actually talk about some of these quotes of yours rather than letting them pepper your postings like too much spice in a cheap meal. Let's start with this Wittgenstein quote. I assert it's rubbish for the reason I have just gave. What do you think about it?
a quote makes me *think* so it serves my need and purposes; critical thinking is essential. I don't necessarily agree with this quote but his claims provide grounds for inspiration and conceptualization.

in return, I would paraphrase him and say that:

"Science is a battle against the bewitchment of intelligece by means of technology" ;)

At least, we can see, even metaphorically, that there exist some 'bewitchment'....which is both emergent and then included and/or rejected based on our orientation and method. ;)

And that is where 'wholism' provides solutions, by conteplating both, the problem and the method -and then the results-conclusion-development. ;)
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
He was smart, right? But what do *you think* about what he says? From what you have given us there, in glorious isolation (a massive problem with quotes of this kind - no context whatsoever) is that, as it's written, it looks like Socrates is after certainty from knowledge.
If he was after good explanations, then he would know, that he does indeed know all that he thinks he actually knows. Right?
He is *good* in terms of virtue. in terms of humility. it's about aware of the potentiality and the limits of one's own epistemic processes, and then be brave and humble enough to admit it. Ego-inflation is both, a potential reality (yes, it is a stage in the personality development and in epistemic evolution) but also the cause of misinterprteting reality -and then claiming authority.
Probably, the same kind of fhe authority you claim that you reject elsewhere -but then somehow you need to have elsewhere! ;)

Ignorance and double standards are the enemy, and these could come from either scientific or philosophical arrogance -and claim for superiority.

I am not rejecting *rationality*, rather i sugest that we are in need for its impovement -and then propose specific ways to achieve it ;)
Post by Brett Hall
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG



"To return to one's true home is to return to one's original nature- to rediscover one's real Self -to regain the awareness of the Wholeness which was never lost but only forgotten".
-Master Li Jun Feng

Bruno Marchal
2013-02-27 10:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAG
sometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/
theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....
Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a
solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/
method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a
'problem') ;)
All problems are solvable or meta-solvable (showing precisely why we
cannot solve them).

I don't believe in science and philosophy. I believe in scientific
attitude, and I believe those are domain independent. In Europe,
philosophy is litterature.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.
And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)
"How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
More and more that become for me the real measure of value.
Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole',
even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives;
OK.
Post by JAG
Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than
a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/
methods should be employed....
I agree. But some use the label "philosophy" to introduce problems
where there are none. This hides genuine problems.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Post by JAG
or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in
Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result
in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true
true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those
prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
I am not sure the word "prohibition" should be used here. We cannot
divide by zero, for example, but that's not prohibition: it is logical
impossibility. We cannot fly to the moon with the force of the arms,
but that's not prohibition, that's a physical impossibility.
Post by JAG
I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan
earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why
Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
This is a mystery. I follow David on the critics of both inductionism
and justificationism, but to make sense of even just that, I need
induction and I hear their justification.
I do induction all the time, and justification is part of my
profession. I just guess that they use the words in some stronger
sense than I do.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
what is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.
indeed but what about cause and effect?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about
causes and effects here, about how various Developments and
processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.)
about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and
see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes
themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified
in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and
methods...
I don't assume cause and effect, nor matter and time. Those can be
explained as high level construction of the mind.
From comp, I have adopted a simple theory of everything, which is
just elementary arithmetic. All the rest is what numbers do to figure
out what numbers are. The physical universe is an number
epistemological construction. Church's thesis completely rehabilitates
Pythagorus. Literally.
Post by JAG
thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our
epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -
and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find
objectivity by subjective means...
I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...
so, here are some interesting findings about brain functioning,
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569
I prefer you make your point, because I got about 30 mails by people
wanting that I read papers. And now I begin a new teaching period, so
I have a sharp scheduling.
Post by JAG
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on,
and our little life
Is rounded with sleep."
-Shakespeare, The Tempest
Post by Bruno Marchal
About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAG
what is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and
contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings
with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative
individuals ;)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and
one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of
the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve
certain and such practices to evolve further and higher, not
necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence,
but that of the mind and spirit, with great success, with different
epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they
could be considered static... ;)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
once we learn how to join in the Universal then there is no need for
other defenses -that could make us miserable and even intoxicate
http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms
The idea is to take the simple notion, from which we can derive/
justify/explain the most, and of course without hiding too much data.
Post by JAG
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal
sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new
grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that
tongue." -Emerson
Post by Bruno Marchal
It explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is
all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce
methods...creative and productive methods...
Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and
opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of
Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of
Science yourself ;)
I don't believe in Nature, nor in philosophy. A good philosopher is
just a good scientist, working in domain which might not yet accepted
by a majority of scientists, during some period, for cultural reason.
Post by JAG
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by JAG
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
Post by Bruno Marchal
Bruno
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence
by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
That's the young Wittgenstein. The older one is more serious.
"language" can be used to hide problems, not to solve them.
Post by JAG
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
Ah Ah. Here Socrates lacks a bit of humility :)

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Loading...