Pragmatic epistemology
I call myself a pragmatist. When I was working as an engineer, I also sometimes called myself an engineering epistemologist. So, I think I’m qualified to start this thread.
As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. Philosophy that does not meet this standard is not useful.
Since I’m going to talk about epistemology, I’ll need to talk about knowledge. “Knowledge” probably means something different to a pragmatist than to other people. There have been many discussions of knowledge. Most of them have focused on truth rather than usefulness. My purpose here is to lay out a more pragmatic way of thinking about knowledge, by looking at my experience as a civil and environmental engineer.
Most of my work as an engineer focused on cleaning up soil, groundwater, and sediment contamination from industrial processes. Here's how I've come to think about knowledge after 30 years as an environmental engineer:
For me, that sets the groundwork for how to see knowledge. You start with data - unprocessed observations, measurements, counts, photographs, and recordings. The data is then processed to be put in a more usable form, e.g. tabulation, graphing, and statistical analysis, what we call information. Information does not become knowledge until it has been further processed to be put in the context of a conceptual model of conditions of interest. Conceptual models are not true or false, they are accurate or inaccurate.
I would like if this discussion doesn't become a general discussion of knowledge but rather focuses on the view I've presented here. That doesn't mean you can't bring up other ways of seeing knowledge, but I'd like to do it in the context of the discussion I've set up here.
As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. Philosophy that does not meet this standard is not useful.
Since I’m going to talk about epistemology, I’ll need to talk about knowledge. “Knowledge” probably means something different to a pragmatist than to other people. There have been many discussions of knowledge. Most of them have focused on truth rather than usefulness. My purpose here is to lay out a more pragmatic way of thinking about knowledge, by looking at my experience as a civil and environmental engineer.
Most of my work as an engineer focused on cleaning up soil, groundwater, and sediment contamination from industrial processes. Here's how I've come to think about knowledge after 30 years as an environmental engineer:
- First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.
- Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.
- Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.
- Fourth - collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.
- Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.
- Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.
For me, that sets the groundwork for how to see knowledge. You start with data - unprocessed observations, measurements, counts, photographs, and recordings. The data is then processed to be put in a more usable form, e.g. tabulation, graphing, and statistical analysis, what we call information. Information does not become knowledge until it has been further processed to be put in the context of a conceptual model of conditions of interest. Conceptual models are not true or false, they are accurate or inaccurate.
I would like if this discussion doesn't become a general discussion of knowledge but rather focuses on the view I've presented here. That doesn't mean you can't bring up other ways of seeing knowledge, but I'd like to do it in the context of the discussion I've set up here.
Comments (259)
Quoting fdrake
In other words: insofar as possible, isolate the piece of world you wanna investigate, hold it against or in bright light, turn it upside-down, inside-out, vice-versa, squeeze it, pull it, throw it, heaten it up or cool it down, while you mentally paint a picture of a state of affairs. Try to write up your mental model, by every means possible. Repeat the process until the desired level of understanding suffices for the use of the piece of world.
An ontological commitment though can't exist before you have had pragmatic confrontation. The ontological commitment is based on a knowledge of the object/subject in question. It has to be admitted though that there seems an a priori knowledge of, and an accompanying ontological commitment to most objects/subjects one approaches. These might be innate or gathered by myriads of (unconscious) encounters one has during life from which a new (conscious) approach can follow.
I think it's clear from what I've written that I don't agree.
Engineering is nothing special. It's mostly just figuring stuff out and then deciding what to do. I'm using it here as a stand-in for all the regular stuff all people do every day. People need to know things in order to make decisions about what needs to be done. It bothers me that all the philosophical talk about knowledge and truth never gets around to the reason we need knowledge in the first place. We need it because we need to know things in order to do things. The knowledge we talk about here on the forum has very little to do with the knowledge I use, all of us use, on a day to day basis.
Quoting tim wood
If what you're getting at is that the knowledge we gather that seems useless may have a use we don't know of yet, I agree. Curiosity is a very pragmatic drive. It helps us build an understanding of the world beyond our current needs. That context helps make what we know more robust and provides additional information for when conditions change.
I don't think my list starts far back enough to be a general guideline. Most questions aren't even precise enough to get numbers associated with them!
I didn't mean to imply the processes you and I described were the same. I was using it to show that the way I was presenting things was not limited to just one kind of knowledge.
Ah I see. Sorry. Do you have a reference for a Site Conceptual Model?
I'm not sure that we do disagree. You presumably agree that modelling assumptions , which are ultimately causal or logical, aren't empirically verifiable, and that on the other hand, unless modelling assumptions are made, to speak of learning from data is meaningless.
It isn't clear to me how to philosophically distinguish epistemological pragmatism from a supposed anti-thesis. I am under the impression that epistemological pragmatism is being defined here in terms of the practicality of the problem pursued, rather than in terms of the method of inquiry which at every step hangs upon intuition regarding non-verifiable assumptions of causality.
Here's a link to where you can see a copy of U.S.EPA's "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA." CERCLA is the law that created the Superfund program. This really is the source for all the work we did doing site cleanup. I always thought EPA did a good job with this guidance. States and other agencies often wrote their own guidances, but this provided the model for much of that. EPA called it Conceptual Site Model. I don't know why we always called it Site Conceptual Model.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/10001VGY.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986+Thru+1990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C86thru90%5CTxt%5C00000003%5C10001VGY.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL#
What did you engineer?
So what you are describing in the method you set out presupposes that we already know stuff.
I assume the process is iterative?
I'm not sure if I understand. A site conceptual model is just a description, image of the site which lays out all the information gathered during the investigations. To me, the most useful way of presenting a SCM is visually, using figures. Data tables are also needed. There will also be calculations e.g. groundwater flow direction and velocity, contaminant degradation rates, averages. On the figures, you can show the locations of the sources of the contamination and how it has moved and is presently distributed across the site. You can also show the expected distribution of contamination in the future based on groundwater and fate and transport modelling. You can also show the locations of existing and potential human and environmental receptors.
There are certainly assumptions that go into calculations and computer based modelling. Is that what you are talking about? There are also assumptions required by the fact that most of what is going on takes place underground and the number of data points we can provide is limited. Typical data points include boring logs; analytical results of soil, groundwater, and sediment samples; visual observation of site conditions; topographic and bathymetric surveys; geophysical surveys; and wetland surveys. Going deeper, there are assumptions associated with laboratory analytical methods. Which in particular are you talking about?
Quoting sime
The distinction that's important to me here is the one between one way of seeing knowledge and another. Typically, knowledge is defined based on the truth value of a proposition. Except in relatively simple situations, that type of knowledge isn't adequate to deal with practical problems. For that, information has to be incorporated into a comprehensive summary, what I called a site conceptual model. As I noted, SCMs aren't true or false, they are accurate or not.
Quoting sime
Please explain.
At a contaminated site, we generally know stuff before we really start a formal investigation. We observe the site, look at historic maps and aerial photographs, and talk to people living or working at the site. We check government databases to see if there have been any reports of environmental issues on the property or nearby ones. That limited information can be used to prepare a preliminary SCM which gives us enough to get started in planning additional investigation activities.
So, yes, it is an iterative process.
My degree is in civil engineering. I worked for environmental engineering companies investigating and cleaning up contaminated properties.
Great! How was philosophy useful then? Ah. It's in your question!
Strikes me as simply good method. What is it that makes it specifically pragmatic?
You articulated well your experience as a civil and environmental engineer and how it formed your view about knowledge.
It appears like you're describing knowledge in the context of a single individual. I would add that when it comes to collective problem solving, it's important to articulate thoughts promptly and succinctly. Knowing something well means being able to effectively explain it to others. It's also important to challenge others to help them solidify their own knowledge. I'll go ahead and challenge some of the ideas in the OP.
"Pragmatic Excellence" is one of the engineering values at the company where I work as a software engineer. I endorse pragmatism a lot. To me, being pragmatic means making decisions despite the lack of knowledge or sometimes even against what I know. Knowledge and pragmatism can conflict. This makes me wonder if it's safe to combine the terms "pragmatic" and "epistemology" together.
It's easy to arrive at a contradiction with "pragmatic epistemology". If we all adopt a pragmatic attitude towards knowledge, then we will stop pursuing the knowledge that is far removed from our everyday lives. However, if we look back at the past, we will see that our modern everyday world is grounded in the scientific projects that didn't offer any practical value at the time they were carried out.
A good example of this is the discovery of quantum physics in 1920s. Some of the smartest physicists in the world were devoted to probing the behaviour of matter on the smallest scales. At the time, you could critique their fascination with atoms and claim that nothing could be more useless to you than what they were doing in the laboratory. But their work led to the invention of the digital computer. It's hard to think of anything less transformative of our everyday world than that.
I like this definition of "pragmatism," which is from Wikipedia:
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.
My example shows one way that knowledge can be used for "prediction, problem solving, and action." The most important issue here for me is the different definitions of "knowledge" required for the two approaches. When we talk about knowledge here on the forum, we usually talk about truth, with truth defined as something that applies to propositions, statements. The famous, maybe infamous, example of that is justified true belief. Again from Wikipedia:
[i]The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
I've always found this view of knowledge unsatisfactory. It's misleading and doesn't reflect how people really use knowledge. The fact that the definition can be undermined by something as silly as the Gettier problems shows me how weak it is.
As I stated previously, the definition of knowledge I prefer is information incorporated into a conceptual model that reflects the phenomena of interest. I think you could argue that this is similar to a coherence theory of truth. I have no problem with that. The important difference is that a pragmatic theory of knowledge always focuses on the use knowledge will be put.
To summarize, again - Philosophers mostly talk about knowledge as a proposition that can be true or false. In a pragmatic view, knowledge is a conceptual model that can be accurate or less accurate.
:up: Is Wikipedia good (enough)?
It doesn't have to be true, it's got to be useful.
[quote=Deng]It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.[/quote]
In my work, all of the activities described are typically performed by a project team of from three to 10 people. The process is specifically planned to use collective problem solving. One of the really good things about a well developed conceptual model is that it is very useful presenting a comprehensive vision of the problem to people who are not familiar with it, often including non-technical decision makers.
Quoting pfirefry
I don't know much about software engineering and how it compares with what I did for a living. If what you are saying is that sometimes you have to make decisions based on limited and uncertain knowledge, then I agree. If you mean something different than that, then I don't understand.
One thing I haven't discussed is how the information we incorporate into the conceptual model is evaluated, justified. Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:
Quoting pfirefry
I don't see how that is a contradiction of anything, but I do think it is a valid criticism. I addressed it in a fairly half-assed way in a previous post. I said that curiosity is a pragmatic drive that leads us to try to gain a wider understanding of the world so we can address changing conditions. That's true, but weak. Here's the important point for me - even when scientists and others are studying phenomena with no known practical use, they still use methods similar to those I've described. The goal of any research is to develop conceptual models of the conditions being studied. Quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, and relativity are all conceptual models.
But one does not have to drop the notion of truth in order to act in accord with your six methodological points. Indeed, it is clear from the first point that some things are to be taken as true in order to get the process started.
It would not do in your example to doubt the existence of groundwater and soil. These are presumed as constitutive of the activity in which you are engaged.
But further, it would not do to doubt that one can keep accurate records, that one can make measurements, that one can communicate these with others, that one's actions can make a difference to the environment.
There is always soem stuff that is taken as fundamental.
I'll let what I've already written stand as a response to this. I've tried to be clear about my understanding of these things and I think I've succeeded. You're a smart guy. It's not that hard. You just like being contrary. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me.
Quoting Banno
That's it? That's what truth is needed for - to tell us the world exists? That's more metaphysics than knowledge.
1. To help the author solidify their knowledge. Oftentimes when I start writing a design doc, I feel that I already understand the problem and the solution. But in the process of writing I discover significant gaps in my knowledge, which lead me to change the details of my solution.
2. To reach an alignment between stakeholders. A design doc needs to be approved by all stakeholders before the actual work can begin. Peer-reviewing helps evaluate the solution from a diverse set of perspectives.
A good design doc will clearly outline a problem, set a concrete goal, provide a solution, and evaluate the solution from various perspectives (how does it compares to alternatives, what are the performance and security implications, any assumptions made, main risks and unknowns).
I like this practice and actively promote it to others. Here are some of the problems that commonly occur:
Overall, my stance is that knowledge exists in our heads. We use processes such as SCM and design docs to solidify our own knowledge and to align our knowledge with the knowledge of others. The artefacts of the process, such as SCM and design docs, don't fully capture the knowledge that we have, but they help their readers to form their own knowledge. Obtaining knowledge and sharing it with others requires investing time and effort. A pragmatic person knows how to balance the time spent researching and the time spent doing.
Intuitively, we think that sharing knowledge is an altruistic act, because it takes away someone's time for the benefit of others. But I think oftentimes it is not the case. For example, this comment is an artefact of knowledge sharing. I expect that 90% of the value generated from this comment is for my personal gain, from organising my thoughts on this topic, and I can only hope that it will generate at least some value for others.
Unless you mean to exclude pragmatics like Dewey and James, in a pragmatic view. knowledge is a conceptual
model that can be more or less USEFUL.
You mentioned forms of philosophy reliant on truth propositional logic as not pragmatically meaningful, but I assume you would also include many Continental philosophers. There is a danger that ‘normal human beings’ becomes synonymous with ‘ human being who can understand the philosophy’. But the greatest works of continental philosophy, from Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Nietzsche, were initially and for the most part still to this day meaningful to only a small segment of the population. But such ‘useful’ philosophies became the basis for interpretations by mathematicians and scientists (Newton, Frege, Gauss, Heisenberg, Godel, Turing, Darwin, Freud) who produced models influenced by these ideas which in turn led to new technologies, therapies, sciences. So the usefulness doesn’t happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. The general concepts that led eventually to the computer you are using were first formulated by ‘useless’ philosophers 200 years ago. The concrete technology is just the final stage in a long process of the spread of an idea. As we speak there are a handful of philosophers generating the conceptual basis of what will constitute the next technological revolution 50 or 100 years from now. Only then will ‘normal human beings’ likely recognize its value, and only in a more narrowly engineered form.
The design docs you are talking about seem like what we call basis of design memoranda (BDM). BDM are usually prepared when data collection is complete, although design investigations required to gather specific additional information my be described. The BDM summarizes all the information required to complete the design including the goals of the design; performance requirements; required data analyses and modelling; a data summary; the SCM; and operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements for the completed design.
Quoting pfirefry
In the kinds of designs I have worked on, professional standards and standard engineering practice require that the basis of the design has to be documented in writing to justify design decisions that are made. The same is true of all subsequent design documents. At any time I should be able to answer the question "Why did you do it that way?" and provide backup for the decision.
Quoting pfirefry
What goes on here is really different from what goes on in the design process. During design, sharing knowledge, or at least documenting it, is a fundamental requirement. It's not altruistic at all.
Yes, it is a requirement, and some people treat it as an inconvenience: "I understand the problem, and I have a solution. Why should I be wasting my time on writing it down for the sake of bureaucracy?" Software engineers are free-spirited and they despise inefficient processes. A part of my job is to teach them to embrace this process, because I'm convinced that writing design docs benefits the author even more than the reader.
Agreed.
Quoting Joshs
I'm not familiar with the works of those philosophers in more than a casual way, so I can't comment specifically. Are there any philosophers other than the pragmatists who focus on the usefulness of knowledge rather than truth? Or, I guess, who define truth in terms of usefulness.
Quoting Joshs
That certainly isn't how I mean it. I mean Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, John Doe, John Q. Public, Hugh G. Rection, Ben Dover, Harry P. Ness.
Quoting Joshs
Good point. How to respond... How about this - The scientific method is about as pragmatic as you can be. It was the model for the process I described in the opening post. I was never claiming that all the philosophers before Peirce and James weren't of value.
Good post.
Civil engineers are not so different. Not so much free spirited, maybe, as lazy. If you want to be an artist, sometimes you have to clean the paint brushes.
I don't remember seeing it before. I'll take a look.
Most fields of study, especially science based fields have well established methodologies.
Some are top down others are bottom up. One from software development is 'the waterfall method' or ADITDEM. A cyclical methodology.
Analyse-understand the problem
Design-plan a solution
Implement-code your solution
Test-test your solution, error report, return to previous stages depending on the nature of the errors found
Document-memorialise every stage of the project
Evaluate- assess the success/impact fo your solution (be pragmatic)
Maintenance-apply corrective, adaptive and perfective maintenance techniques.
ADITDEM can be used to deal with day to day problems an individual might face in their life and it has a pragmatism, built-in, in my opinion, but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments.
Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day.
That's the most elegantly written version of 'your model is flawed' I've read for a while.
Nicely put.
Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. Nevertheless, I like your general drift. I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined. But I do have a sense about what can help me to manage my environment and this appears to be measurable and evidence based and can generally be shared by a community.
To answer Josh's general point, we are all essentially dependent on the creativity, meaning and perspectives made by others and Christ only knows how deep this goes? Do we care? Some philosophy considers unpacking this to be a most significant nature of enquiry. I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why?
Engineers tend to be pragmatists, both because it's required for the job and because engineering tends to attract people with a predisposition. That being said, I don't think pragmatism's reach is in any way limited to such technical issues. I used an engineering example because it is something concrete I am very familiar with.
Quoting Tom Storm
As you know, I have a strong interest in Taoism, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about the ineffable. I don't see that, or any other presupposition, as being in conflict with a pragmatic way of seeing things.
World view vs. philosophy? I'm not sure I know the difference. I think pragmatism is as much a full-fledged philosophy as anything thought up by Kant, Plato, or any of those other old guys. I admit, when you get into some of the more esoteric subjects, the pragmatic response might be "who cares?" But it's a very philosophical "who cares." If a pragmatic way of thinking tends to avoid "deep dives," maybe that says something about the value of diving that deep.
Dewey famously wrote that we only really begin to think when we encounter a problem, broadly defined as a question raised in the course of life or situation we find dissatisfying and wish to alter. He called the methods by which we successfully resolve problems "inquiry" which would include the scientific method and logic (Russell, who thought the only real logic was what he wrote of, found this objectionable). Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything.
So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. The problem defines the ends in view--what is to be resolved, and why we wish to resolve it. It also defines the circumstances and suggests the method by which a resolution may be reached.
The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say).
Sure, but to me, much of what calls itself epistemology is not useful at all. Exhibit A - justified true belief. Exhibit B - the Gettier problems.
Quoting universeness
I try to hedge my bets on that. As you can see in the opening post, I said "I call myself a pragmatist." I don't like labels, but I don't want to look like I'm afraid to take the rap.
Quoting universeness
I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me.
Quoting universeness
I'm not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, and I'm not really sure what he was trying to say. A death camp guard loving their work seems like a really bad example. Pragmatists can be horrified and terrified. It's not how they feel that's different, it's what they think you should do about it.
You make it hard to respond, since I agree with everything you say. Philosophy's fascination with Decartes and doubt are one of the things that set me off. I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven.
Quoting Ciceronianus
It always does.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Yes, "It doesn't make any difference" is my favorite philosophical proposition.
If only he had done something for the law, I might forgive him too.
I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight.
I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism.
I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one?
Quoting Tom Storm
If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. As this thread shows, I also claim to be a pragmatist. I'd like to say the more self-aware you are, the more likely you are to be a pragmatist, but that's just my vanity speaking. I'm not sure they're related.
Ok, but pragmatists accepting the existence of emotional extremes was not my issue. I was suggesting that a purely pragmatic approach to finding a solution or even a coping mechanism when dealing with extreme emotions from others is a poor strategy.
Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. The instinctive reaction will probably save you much more than pragmatism will.
Quoting T Clark
Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's
No idea - just responding to the other guy. Well, perhaps that the acme of pragmatism is to know that the low road is more likely to be the one people take....
Quoting T Clark
I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness?
In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses, depending on the specific situation? Pragmatically, if the guy is 350 pounds and has a knife, I run. If I can't get away, I fight. I think strong emotion is more likely to lead you to making the wrong decision about what to do than clear thinking.
Quoting universeness
That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making.
Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are?
Does such not provide you with the personal judgments that you make before you act?
I am not a Peterson advocate as he is a theist and I am an atheist but I find him interesting when he says things like "it would take me 10 hours to even start to explain to you why I believe in God"
Peterson often tries to 'put himself in the shoes of another,' and is correct in that he does not consider the 'easy' shoes.
I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on.
Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that?
It was hatred that was the motor behind one of the most effective decision making in history: "Der Endlösung" at the Wannsee Konferenz.
Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic.
I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over
Quoting T Clark
Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave?
I've flagged your post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision."
For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend...
I agree, the comment from HKpinsky is a concern and the reason for using it as an example should have been clearly explained. Nazi hatred was effectively responded to, as they were destroyed.
It's not unpragmatic, insensible, or illogical, but I don't know if being more self-aware makes it more likely you will be pragmatic.
Quoting universeness
Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism.
Quoting universeness
Reacting to a highly emotional fight or flight response without thinking is understandable, but it's not likely to lead to the best outcome. That's the pragmatic standard.
Quoting universeness
Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about.
There's a pretty good chance you're going to be banned just based on what you've written so far. I suggest you PM a moderator if you want to clarify what you're saying before they do.
I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in, for instance, phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention...
Quoting HKpinsky
Fortuitous typo, friend...
I was just trying to give a little more on my understanding of Peterson. He may well laugh at how far away I am from his actual psyche, I don't know.
Quoting T Clark
Ok. Here they are again:
[i][b]Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's[/b][/i]
I've never understood - How can you turn something as simple as my own experience of the world into something so complicated and convoluted. Whenever I start to read something about phenomenology I say "No! No! How does it feel?"
There was the decision made to continue the death camps. It was a decision based not on rational thinking but on booze, ego, hatred. It was even a pragmatic decision. How to get rid of jews as fast as possible. How difficult can it be: a decision that had effect. Like the decision to beat the nazis. Based on a feeling of compassion.
From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences.
Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit! :wink:
This is a bit of an aside to the OP but I have some commonality with you here, I think. In the sense that my natural territory would be science and politics and I do understand why the 'philosophers' would get a little impatient with me at times because I don't have the depth of knowledge of the philosophical theories which are presented in some of these threads in quite 'flowery' terms. I suppose every field of study has its language and those outside may consider such terminology, 'elitist.'
I am just interested in the philosophical aspects of science and politics. Hence my presence on this site.
Ha! Good one, my find!
Agreed.
I flagged you!
Oh, I don't think I have ever suggested to you that individuals should not employ pragmatism in general terms, whenever they are able to. My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority. You said earlier you did not like labels. Philosophy is built on labels. They then debate the validity of each and every label, exhaustively and then they come up with a whole bunch of new labels to replace some of the ones they think don't fit well enough. Philosophers LOVE labels.
I know you will probably answer with....but I'm not a philosopher...and I accept that but. They do prioritise labels based on their importance and I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority. But its just my opinion.
I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences.
You are being a bit cryptic or you are saying something very simple.
If your hungry and you eat food then the reality becomes 'I'm not hungry any more.'
If you burn the food then the reality becomes 'Still hungry but have some ashes beside me.'
Is that all you mean by using different instruments results in different realities?
Well, at the end of the day, if we all saw the world the same way then there would be no need for TPF.
Thanks for the exchange of viewpoint :smile:
Sorry! I was referring to the multitude of scientific instruments used in experiments. In experiments reality is litterally molded to fit the theory. Scientific reality is litterally created.
Others might not be interested in honor, like to take it easy, and don't mind negative consequences or even welcome them.
Just to put things in perspective. :smile:
I think I get what you are trying to type.
I think you are trying to claim that Science uses current technology to produce experimental results which confirm their theories and their intention is to deceive. If I am correct then I would say that though this may be true in a very small number of cases, it is in general absolutely untrue.
This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." I gave what I consider a good example of such an approach in the OP. Several other people have provided additional examples.
In opposition to that, I described the justified true belief approach to knowledge, which focuses on the truth of individual propositions rather than development of conceptual models.
Ah, so the purpose of the thread is to invite others to share pragmatic approaches to knowledge. Initially, I thought it was about the benefits of the pragmatic approach over other "non-pragmatic" approaches. My bad.
.
Knowledge informs and causes related human action. You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel.
"the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action."
But human actions can be instinctive or intuitive, which in my opinion is not pragmatic but is just as valid in many circumstances.
Here are two examples:
Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
Another example of the kind was referring to in my opinion is:
'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'
Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.
You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in.
Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful?
Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right.
I never said that.
Quoting universeness
There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?
Quoting universeness
I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism?
I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read?
I want to step in here to defend @Tom Storm. He is not a bully.
One uses you-language when one states one's feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions about other people (or things) as if those feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions would be objective facts about the other person (and that the other person is wrong, bad, evil, delusional if they don't see themselves (or some thing) that way).
I-language:
"I like you."
"I don't like you."
"I appreciate how you painted that picture."
"I don't appreciate how you painted that picture."
You-language:
"You're a good person."
"You're a bad person."
"You painted a good picture."
"You painted a bad picture."
I perhaps need to think more carefully about what exactly you've said, but philosophically, doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? Then you're right back in the epistemic trenches with the rest of us, asking 'what can we know? and, how can we know it?'
Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel.
Quoting T Clark
Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge?
Here is a description of William James' definition of truth from an article I found on his book "Pragmatism.
Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”
So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism.
Quoting universeness
Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters.
I have some symapthy with your perspective on a human level, it's true because it's useful and useful because it's true. But then, what do you mean by useful? And so you resort in the end to Malsow's heirarchy of needs, in the same way one might resort to asserting the existence of an objective reality. As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism - than to admit, we might all be brains in jars being fed electrical impulses the brain interprets as reality, but so long as one cannot see the join, truth qua Truth is irrelevent?
Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. I don't think any epistemology 'cares' where data or information comes from.
Quoting T Clark
So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase?
Perhaps we are now just discussing the perceived semantic rules, associated with certain terminology.
Probably a boring area for both of us.
Here's what I wrote in the OP.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting karl stone
I said this in an earlier post in this thread:
Quoting T Clark
I would ask these questions about whatever information I am using. The relevant ones here are the last two. How uncertain am I of the information I am using? What happens if I'm wrong. Those considerations would determine whether any assumption is reasonable or not.
William James, pragmatism, and I don't care which mechanism is used to obtain the information.
Quoting universeness
I don't know what this means.
Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion?
Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.
You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning?
It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact.
Quoting Cornwell1
I'll let @universeness respond to my post and see where we go from there.
So you base your philosophy on fairy tales rather than on solid fact?
This was your response when I offered a scenario where new knowledge may be gained due to an instinctive act. Perhaps something like:
'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. Pragmatism may now be employed to prevent future harm to the child but the initial learning was through an instinctive act and not a pragmatic one. You said there is no philosophy here.
I asked if 'The philosophy of instinct' was an incorrect phrase.
You responded with
Quoting T Clark
I typed 'philosophy and instinct' into google and got hits with titles like
"what are the current theories about instinct in philosophy of the mind?"
"The role of instinct in David Hume's conception of human reason"
"William James - what is an instinct - The information Philosopher"
"The philosophy of Instinctualism (almost what I typed)"
"Peirce on Intuition, Instinct & common sense"
I did not read all of the associated material to pick out statements that would support your position or mine but I did quickly find:
Hume said 'human reason is nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct'
Based on the above findings, I would suggest that your comment that there is no philosophy in instinctive acts was inaccurate. I would imagine the same follows for intuitive acts or acts of inspiration. I simply suggest that such acts have very little to do with pragmatic thought, especially during the time of the event. You can have a pragmatic analysis afterward, which informs future action, but that's not my point.
So would it be just as valid to suggest, a 'Pragmatic/Instinctive/Intuitive epistemology?'
Is that a recommendation or a question?
This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior.
Quoting universeness
It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it.
I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics. Try "An Essay on Metaphysics" by RG Collingwood.
Have we not covered this already? Does knowledge not inform behavior? They are strongly linked!
Quoting T Clark
There are two separate and parallel streams of discussion here.
In one stream, you posit that pragmatic epistemology is not just a valid strategy for dealing with the experience of living a human life. You are suggesting, it seems to me, that it is the best strategy for living a good human life, as an individual, and it is also the best method of assisting other humans in their lives. I disagree and I propose that mere pragmatism is an insufficient epistemology to achieve such goals. You yourself state:
Quoting T Clark
I am saying that pragmatism alone will not furnish you with the level of 'truth and knowledge' needed by people in their everyday lives.
The second stream comes from my counter, that instinctive or intuitive acts which are not pragmatic can provide very valuable new knowledge to help people make decisions. You introduced a parallel line of discussion by suggesting that instinctive acts and intuitive acts have no basis in philosophy. I think I demonstrated through my internet search results that they do.
You then conflate the two streams and say there was no 'philosophy' in my scenario about the child.
I didn't introduce the example of the child to demonstrate a 'philosophy', I introduced it to exemplify an instinctive act which would result in very useful new knowledge that would assist future decision making.
(Such new knowledge may even save the childs life, if the coffee table danger is dealt with).
This is just as important as new knowledge gained from pragmatic thought.
You did not respond to the question is Pragmatic/instinctive/intuitive epistemology more accurate than just pragmatic epistemology as a guide for how to approach optimum decision making?
Wow, I see that your arrogance buttons are easy to activate. If all philosophies are based on fairytales then does that not make 'Pragmatic Epistemology' based on a fairytale. Off the cuff remarks like that can cause a politician's position to be no longer tenable. Many learned people believe that the metaphysical does not exist. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that we can all learn more about......
There is no need for anyone to go away and come back when......
Perhaps you can just decide to improve your level of politeness when debating others.
Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics.
I just wanted to say that in my opinion, you should disregard this advice...... :smile:
When you have a system with hundreds of database tables and millions of rows, it becomes hard to understand all the data points and how they relate to each other. E.g. you have data collected about users, vendors, products, categories, brands, ratings, discounts, inventory, suppliers, open issues, shipments, recommendations, subscriptions, etc. The number of data points becomes too large to comprehend.
This raises a question about the practical ways to dealing with complexity and organising knowledge.
One of the best methodologies that I know is Domain-Driven Design (DDD). DDD suggests that in order for information to become useful, it needs to be put in a context (BoundedContext). A bounded context is usually centred around a specific problem, e.g. presenting product information to users; accepting payments; managing product inventory; fulfilling orders; shipping fulfilled orders to customers. Each context defines which data points are useful and which aren't, resulting in smaller, comprehensible sub-models.
As an example, the information that the sales department knows about products is very different from the information that the inventory department has. The concept of a product is the same, but the details are different. DDD advocates that in this scenario we have two BoundedContexts, so we create two sub-systems for managing each of the aspects while also connecting them by preserving the identities of products across them.
I think I explained this relatively poorly, but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. This speaks to the pragmatic approach to knowledge described in the OP.
My reading of the argument, with which I largely agree, is that you need to get past the fairy tales and see how the beliefs are used in practice and what happens. I think what distinguishes the pragmatism of @T Clark is its efficacy, as opposed to other fairytale derived systems.
Richard Rorty (who has no particular bearing here except that he is a self described neo-pragmatist) says we can say nothing about the true nature of reality but we do know something about how to justify beliefs. This latter is the significant part of the project.
Quoting Cornwell1
No. It's the path I've taken. I find it's useful. I present it here. Pragmatism is a metaphysical position. It's not true or false, it's just more or less useful in a particular situation. Which is a very pragmatic definition of metaphysics. You disagree? I have no problem with that.
As for pragmatic epistemology being a strategy, it's not, at least not as I've laid it out here. It's a philosophy, a way of seeing reality, the whole shebang. Ontology, epistemology, yadda yadda yadda. It has all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy.
@cornwell1 was a snotty little twerp and I slapped him down.
Yes. And that's why I slapped him down. Should I have? Of course not. Would I do it again.... Maybe. By which I mean yes.
??? I need to get past the fairytales? I did not say all philosophies were based on fairytales, T Clark did.
I am not suggesting that T Clark is the only person on this forum that could improve on the phrases they choose to employ during a dialogue.
This is a pretty good summary of what I think this thread is about. People work in different disciplines with different problems and different language, but we all need to use and manage knowledge.
I certainly don't need the fairy tale book of Collingwood to base my science and actions on. I can learn of the brothers Grimm even more, and I know their wicked fairies "fairly" well. :smile:
Be careful, his big brother might decide you are a snotty little twerp and decide to slap you down a lot harder. All vendetta starts this way. Turn it off and that way, it does not grow.
Fair enough, again I appreciate the exchange of viewpoints.
:100:
My field is Computing Science so I am familiar with the type of system you are describing.
The electronic information systems used in Artificial intelligence and Natural Language Processing based on Neural nets and distributed and relational database storage and retrieval systems is a fascinating area. As are the algorithms used to simulate human decision-making. One point I would raise with you however, based on:
Quoting pfirefry
and it's a point you probably already know based on your software engineering background. Its only at the front end of software that we get information. Information comes through the screen or the printer etc as a result of the HCI or human computer interface. The system only processes raw data. Information has as you say, context and therefore meaning but that 'meaning' is only apparent to the user. It is not apparent to the computer system so I think your example does speak a little to the OP but I think it's a low whisper of limited relevance
Strong emotions are intended to produce quick decisions, like "get the hell out of town before the 350 pounder buries the knife in your gut". (As you already know) that's the function of the limbic system -- to save us from immediate danger (the knife, the snake, the spider, the snarling dog...) The limbic / emotion system, as you say, can disrupt clear thinking. This has been proved to me over and over again in my life.
But still, strong emotions arise for a reason. If you have anxiety attacks when thinking about selling your house, you should probably rethink the reasons for the sale. Same for buying a house. Or for quitting a job, taking a job, going on a second date, or getting married.
Our particular emotions are one of the elements we do well to know about, understand, and manage. Sometimes emotions have nothing to do with thought: Leaping away from the snake in the grass has nothing to do with our thoughts on snakes. But for less primitive responses (like feeling nauseated when thinking about taking the questionable job offer) one's emotional response is a piece of data that should be taken account of.
Maybe not, but my guess is that you agree with my take on emotion. We want to direct our lives by relying on reliable knowledge, clear perception, logical thinking, and settled emotions. In order to achieve this happy result, we have to take the volatile aspects of our brains into account.
I'm a big fan of emotion, but I guess you know that. We can't think or make decisions without emotions. It is an inextricable part of how we think. As I've said quite a few times, this thread is not about behavior, it's about knowledge. How we know things.
I agree....
Ok...... :smile:
Ha ha......aint it the truth! But nah, life is wonderful!......mostly
As if we could know anything at all without information-acquiring behavior first. I don't want to suggest that "emotion" is either a way of knowing, or knowledge in itself. The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. But that is not 100% true: the pleasure we experience in figuring out how the gadget works, or how the squirrel builds its nest, or how a chemical reaction takes place, is colored by pleasure--positive experience is attached to the fact.
This fall I observed two squirrel nests that had fallen out of trees. I always assumed that a squirrel nest was just a flimsy cluster of leaves intended to hide the squirrel. Not so. It is a tightly packed roll of leaves, at least 12" in diameter, with a small hole in the middle. It would hide a squirrel, but more, it would also keep it dry and warmish (if it's -25ºF as it will be tonight, the squirrel will not freeze -- but it won't be "warm". It is clear that IF a squirrel loses its nest in the winter, it might not survive because it would be hard pressed to rebuild the nest without an abundance of green leaves.
Learning this was a pleasure. After noticing distant squirrel nests in trees all my life, I finally know new information about local squirrels.
I've always thought that for the most part we are drawn to philosophy and ideas through emotional needs. We don't select using reason, for instance, unless our emotions have made us privilege a rational approach, perhaps because we are afraid of chaos and crave order. But in general, because our culture privileges reasoning, most of us indulge in post hoc rationalisations for the choices we make. It's expected that we justify our theories and views with evidence and from a calm base even if those views are selected to support how we feel emotionally about being in the world.
As Schopenhauer said, "'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants'? I take to mean "we can not choose to desire something". We desire it, or not, but not by choice.
Is that what you mean?
A lot of amateur philosophers, at least, seem to avoid the emotions in their thinking. They have as many emotions as everybody else, maybe more, but they don't want to include them in their system of thinking.
Quoting T Clark
The whole thread up to the point where I made my first post and all you've done is repeat yourself saying:
Quoting T Clark
How does that answer my question? Seems to me that your level of conviction woukd indicate that you'd be able to easily come up with an example instead of becoming defensive.
Quoting T Clark
So that's literally what is done. SCM is a fairy tale. It's nor true nor false. Just a tale. It contains six chapters:
[b]First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.
Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.
Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.
Fourth - collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.
Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.
Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.[/b]
Let's examine the chapters and offer some rational critique.
chapter 1
Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.
Okay, let's do that. On a golf terrain, a brown circular stain surfaced on the grass. Probably broken barrels, illegally dumped, as we have cleaned a similar site not far away from here too. Measurements and observations of the case at hand show similarities and differences. There are barrels buried. Contents are different and partially known.
Chapter 2
Set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.
We have cleaned up hundreds of polluted terrains where barrels were illegally dumped. We know what poisons we encountered, how to take out the barrels safely, how to transport the barrels safely, remove the poison from the barrels later on (though this is done by other agencies), we have a list of toxins we are likely to encounter, we know their consequences when we are exposed to them, we know their properties, etcetera, etcetera. We also know the uncertainties, approximations made, limits of applicability, etc. We have a full inventory of the equipment used in the battle. We know the universe of illegally dumping barrels with poison and it's shortcomings. It's just a universe, not true or not true, but it just exists. A The sum total of the knowledge about the poison barrel universe and the knowledge of what is unknown. Kind of like the universe the EOD assesses, but more complicated (more or less dangerous). This is a long chapter. The title of this fairy: SCM.
Chapter 3
Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.
In chapter 3 the characters described in chapter 1 and 2 meet, and in an intense romantic affair they exchange juices. We can see this happening in many fairy tales. Universal knowledge, found in the poison barrel universe of the SCM, is positively adjusted by the case at hand and the SCM offers a great a priori guide for the investigation at hand, after establishing poisoned barrels are involved.
Chapter 4
Collect more data. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.
The characters continue to make love and the come to know each other better the more they engage, the more they know each other, if necessary. They fill each other in and even give each other meaning. How romantic!
Chapter 5
[/b]Use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.[/b]
We can start solving our local problem. We start digging on the firm base of the adjusted SCM.
Chapter 6
[b]Based on the results of your attempts to meet
your goals, repeat the third and fourth steps if necessary.[/b]
During digging, no doubt we meet new challenges and new difficulties. To find a solution we can invoke the SCM, but it's unlikely we will find solutions as the arisen challenges, unknowns and difficulties were not part yet of the known part of the universe the SCM addresses. Again, a romantic encounter follows, untill enough juices have been exchanged. Then the digging continues, untill one fine day a perfect digging will be possible. No more love making will be involved except to exchange tiny bits of fluids, so only a small kiss will suffice. Happily ever after...?
This philosophy is a realism about a metaphysical universe guiding and pulling through our observations and actions. We get to know this reality bit by bit, and it gets modified every time we investigate. We converge on reality by recursive relation (last chapters of your fairy tale, as you, unwillingly, admitted it to be). It's naive realism. An exciting fairy tale!
But that is likely to be accepted as true by many non-pragmatists.
Am I right in suspecting that what you are actually protesting about is the artificial distinction between theory and practice that classical philosophy has been prone to insinuating?
Of course, not only philosophers but mathematicians, scientists and engineers are prone to thinking dogmatically in holding certain propositions, models or techniques to be infallible, lending to occasional calamities such as financial crises. One of the modern culprits of dogmatism is statistical and probabilistic modelling and deep learning for making implicit the assumptions of their respective models. The joke called Bayesian epistemology, which can encourage the delusional practice of smuggling assumptions into a model in the name of not making any assumptions, further adds fuel to the fire.
Quoting T Clark
Note that James appealed to such arguments when justifying the beliefs and practice of religion, and Richard Rorty has given pragmatic arguments for increasing the cultural prioritisation of the humanities (including Continental philosophy), relative to the natural sciences, by arguing that different communities in different subjects get to decide their own criteria of truth.
Pragmatism can encourage the identification of truth with what is expedient to believe, in line with post-modern cultural relativism, which I'm pretty sure you don't agree with. Something far from being an ally of the enlightenment values embodied by modern engineering.
I can use valid data to generate knowledge even if the data was not collected in a pragmatic way.
Quoting Bitter Crank
People who have had the portions of their brain strongly involved in emotion damaged sometimes have trouble making decisions, even very simple ones. My point is, emotion is not an adjunct to thinking, it is a fundamental part of it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
As I sometimes say, I am a recreational thinker. Just the act of using my mind is a pleasure.
I wasn't being defensive, I was being dismissive.
No. The SCM is a procedure. A method.
Quoting Cornwell1
You've clearly put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate it. All in all, it's not a bad summary of the process, with forgiveness granted for the erotic imagery. Most sites I've worked on are much more complex than this. This would probably be handled as an emergency response rather than a remediation.
In this case, the first step would probably be to just go out and dig the stuff up, put it in a drum or dumpster, and then collect samples of the excavated material and the soil remaining in the hole for lab analysis. The contaminant is unlikely to have migrated far in the short time since the stain was found. Then we would decide if we needed more information to close things out. In a larger site there would be another step between SCM development and cleanup - design.
As for realism vs. pragmatism - I think I could argue about the differences between the two approaches, but I don't think it would get us anywhere. You can be both a pragmatist and a realist. All at once or sequentially. They are not mutually exclusive. They are both tools to solve problems. Which is a very pragmatic approach to philosophical differences.
I don't think that's true. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what you call yourself. People who call themselves realists who subscribe to my statement have got some pragmatism in them.
Quoting sime
I'm not protesting at all. I'm presenting a philosophical position that I endorse. It's not about dogmatism, it's about how you approach questions about the nature of truth and knowledge.
Quoting sime
That's a very pragmatic approach, which I endorse. I never said that pragmatism is the only valid way of knowing the world.
Quoting sime
I'm not sure what to say about this... Well, I will say this - I don't see engineers as allies of enlightenment at all.
That's what I meant. A fairy tale. There is no scientist in the world who behaves and thinks obediently to a method. In fact, progress in science can only be achieved by breaking with the method and thus method is a hindrance to progress. It can serve as a guide in scientific practice but only for an imaginary scientist in an imaginary surrounding. In other words, for a fairy tale scientist in a fairy tale world.
Quoting T Clark
Which proceeds according the SCM. An approach following a method seems pretty dogmatic to me.
Just a follow-up question. Do you think the intensity/extremity of the emotional state experienced affects your above description? Psychedelic drugs for example? can they alter knowledge 'flow' and aid creativity? In autism, some individuals can express insight or 'unusual knowledge,' considering the difficulties they have. Do you think that in these more extreme emotional states, including horror, terror, ecstasy? That you're statement above still holds?
We see things differently.
The dogma of the scientific method
And so?
A method is a dogma. You have introduced a method, a dogma. You might not be dogmatic about it, but it's still a dogma. The dogma of scientific method. It's no promoter of knowledge but an inhibitor.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the intensity of emotion would play a role.
Quoting universeness
I don't know--no personal experience with psychedelics. I'm not a neurologist or psychologist. It is possible, I suppose. There is some current interest in using psilocybin in treating people with PTSD. Harvey Cox, a theologian, tried psilocybin; as I recollect, he thought the experience was interesting, but not an epiphany. The standard treatment for depression is an Rx for mood altering drugs that boost neurotransmitters. I've taken them for many years. They have helped. What helped even more, along with the anti-depressant, was a major change in circumstances.
I experience depression typically -- loss of focus, concentration, and memory. Mental function is "depressed". Reduced depression means better focus, concentration, and memory. So mood definitely affects thinking.
You and I see things differently.
I couldn't agree more.
And, judging from your posts, not a novel experience.
Quoting T Clark
The brain has lots of different parts but thinking and emoting both seem unitary. The physical basis of thinking and emotion is one of the critical things that computers can't have, without also having a wet body.
2+2=4 regardless of how one feels about it. Whether one cares that 2+2=4 is a function of emotion. I have been aware of eugenics for many years. I just finished Richard Overy's book on Britain during the inter-war period. The chapter on the eugenics and birth control movement in Britain was very exciting because the names of eugenics promoters and supporters were given, and the details of what they were proposing were shocking. Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, lamented that Britain was not emulating Nazi Germany in its approach to eliminating "defective" people. Some Anglican bishops were on board. Numerous Tory politicians were too. "Death chambers" were one of the methods proposed for disposing of the defectives (which wasn't, by the way, a very precise term).
All this was exciting because something very appalling was revealed. I finished the eugenics chapter with much more disgust than when I started it. I have the same experience in reading about Nazi Germany: fascination and intense interest because the working out of Nazi policy was so granular and awful.
By contrast, contemporary economic leaves me cold. It is not emotionally stimulating (well, a lot o it is vaguely repellant). A lot of political news is the same--more stultifying that stimulating.
If I don't reject the idea that emotion is an integral part of thinking, I can't parse out how they are integrated.
Very interesting stuff, and I respect your candor. I have never tried any non-prescription drugs either, so I also can't talk from personal experience of psychedelics. It's just the claims you hear about from artists/writers etc about their drug-induced state of mind, when they produced their 'best work.' or at least 'experienced elative clarity of thought' etc. I do find the area of 'State of mind,' interesting from philosophical and scientific respect.
This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper called "The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage." I haven't read the article, but the abstract summarizes my understanding of emotion's role in cognitive processes.
Most theories of choice assume that decisions derive from an assessment of the future outcomes of various options and alternatives through some type of cost-benefit analyses. The influence of emotions on decision-making is largely ignored. The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. Lesions of the ventromedial (which includes the orbitofrontal) sector of the prefrontal cortex interfere with the normal processing of "somatic" or emotional signals, while sparing most basic cognitive functions. Such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life.
Why do I need to use and manage my knowledge? I have no intention using it let alone managing it.
The quality of the build and materials mattered once upon a time when I was doing a lot of walking. I don't walk much anymore. A Target shoe would do, as far as adequately covering the foot.
But emotions are, I maintain, also a catalyst for thinking as well. The desire (emotion) to understand is the motivation to stick with the problem (of adding 2 and 2 together) until it is solved. Thinking is a pleasure. "Pleasure" per se does figure into the task of cooking (which must involve thought if disaster is to be avoided) because pleasure is one of the goals, aside from surviving for one more day of posting on TPF.
Pleasure in thinking about emotions and thinking is evaporating, fast.
But not according to any method, so certainly not to the fairy tale propagated here. I'm not bound to any method. I don't mind that someone wants to gather knowledge methodologically sound, why should I? We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality.
To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe...
"Of course you will use your knowledge." If I don't wanna use it I don't use it. I like knowledge for what it is. Knowledge. Falling in coma will indeed avoid me from experiencing that.
I love the absurdity of arguing against fairy tales and ignorance by telling fairy tales and embracing ignorance. Brilliant!
You should learn to read. I write:
"I'm more interested in the knowledge itself."
Doesn't sound like embracing ignorance.
Then I write:
"We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality."
By which I mean the method sold here. A fairy tale. Who tells fairy tales? Not me.
I got no beef with you. For someone who is interested in the knowledge, it surprises me that you actively disregard the knowledge of others (by calling it "fairy tales"), instead of absorbing it but not using it.
You certainly are welcome to keep posting here, but I suggest you start your own thread. That's a serious suggestion. You'll get more people to engage with your ideas.
Quoting Cornwell1
by which, just guessing, you mean "somebody else's system". You, your brain, your mind have a unique system of knowing things -- we all do -- and it works for you. If it didn't work for you you would either have changed, or you would have major problems. You don't seem to have major problems.
Quoting Cornwell1
Your knowledge includes things like an intuitive grasp of gravity. Infants exhibit this grasp. It's a piece of knowledge. You use it all the time. You know that ice is slippery, You can slide on it, sled on it, slip on it, skate on it, or chill a gin & tonic. You know that a hot stove burns. Therefore, you do no touch it. All very basic.
You have more complex information too. If you don't fill your car's gas tank, you will run out of fuel on the freeway somewhere inconvenient and will be attacked by a vicious gang of flashy lycra-wearing cannibal cyclists. You don't want that, so you fill your tank.
Yes. And there is no single methodology involved in any of the kinds of knowledge you mentioned. And certainly not one that's spelled out.
My "innate methodology"? Are you serious?
No, it doesn't. It doesn't need to be conscious either. But we all are conforming to "a methodology". Like we all are, consciously or not, obeying to the laws of God...
"THEY" at least thought they were. But then, their income depended on believing it.
They are above my pay grade.
I wonder which version of the laws of god you're thinking of. Some versions are definitely in your paygrade, B.C. But would anyone wish to engage with such a sad tale?
How do you know there is an innate methodology?
Artificial Intelligence is still very much in it's infancy. Most computer systems only produce INFORMATION as an output to a screen, a printer or through speakers etc. They therefore mostly process raw data, not information.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.
Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'
To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to truly think?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of thinking like a human? Could he/it philosophise for example
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be capable of to demonstrate the human thought process?
No, he is not. This is a returning banned poster.
Then you weren't accurate when telling me that you had already addressed the question I asked. Being dishonest and dismissive is the result of you feeling defensive.
Quoting T Clark
Yet this is what you wrote in your OP:
Quoting T Clark
What is decision making and human action if not behaviors? What is use if not a type of behavior? It appears that this thread is just the behavior of moving goalposts.
I don't remember writing that I had already addressed your question. Please remind me.
Quoting T Clark
I asked you to remind me of your part of the discussion that answered my question you couldn't do so.
The pragmatical approach to knowledge doesn't see things as true or false. In order to provide an example of a falsehood, it is necessary to make a judgement about trueness. This would defeat the point the OP.
In other words, consider the following alternative conversation:
A: God doesn't exist. We need to focus on what's good for humans.
B: Seems to me that for something to be good for humans it needs to be blessed by God. Have you provided an example where something not blessed by God was useful?
To answer B's question, A needs to presuppose that God exists, which would go against A's convictions.
Quoting T Clark
But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true".
The only distinction I can think of is in measurement. 'I can measure some things.'
That statement is true and is accurate but.
A measurement can never be true, it can only ever have a level of accuracy.
I think this is probably just the same as asking is there an objective truth or is every truth subjective? and I think there have been many threads on that.
I like all the fun paradox's in this area.
"The only true fact is there are no true facts!".... yeah.....that's a true fact....that there are no true facts!
Fun stuff!
Making contradictions is playing with words, not stating facts. Is it objectively true that every truth is subjective? In describing the world you're describing a shared world - one in which I exist as well, so what you are defining is what I am part of and would be describing not just you but me too. So if every truth were subjective then keep your truth to yourself because it wouldn't be useful to me in any way.
If a measurement can have a level of accuracy then that is the same as saying a measurement has a level of truth, which I would agree with. There are degrees by which some concept or proposition can be accurate/true based on how well it represents what is the case or not.
No its not because 'every truth is subjective' may not be true. Paradox is neither true or false.
To me, this just means that in propositional logic there are three states, true, false and paradox.
Nothing more exciting than that, at least for now.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Agreed, but it's something humans do regularly. The fact that such activity annoys some people, will not prevent it from happening.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Well if we all did that then conversation/debate would reduce. I don't think that would help.
The fact you might find something useless to you does not make it useful to all unless you are electing yourself a speaker for all in the same way you suggest I include you, due my deliberations.
Quoting Harry Hindu
agreed. So you agree, Level of truth(accuracy) and TRUE can be different, in concept.
Quoting Harry Hindu
An example - I go to work on a property where surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations. A previous investigation collected and analyzed three samples from the effected area. I create a SCM showing the area where soil is contaminated based on that data. Looking at the distribution and the number of samples, I decide that I don't have enough data. I find historic maps and aerial photographs that show where lead was used on site. Based on that, I revise the SCM and decide that 10 additional samples should be collected. I collect and analyze the samples and then revise the SCM again.
In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. Based on additional data, I revise it. The final SCM is more accurate than the original one. The original SCM wasn't false. The new one isn't true. One is more accurate than the other.
Like I said, I'm talking about the distinction between you-language and I-language.
You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions.
When, in contrast, they could use I-language and retain the sense that it is possible to know things and that there is truth.
Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future.
Why not demonstrate that there is ultimate truth?
Yes. But everyone thinks their truth is objectively true.
Quoting universeness
You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true.
It is objectively true precisely because what is objective is separated from our own personal feelings and knowledge of what is the case (subjective). What is objectively true is true regardless of what we know or feel about it.
Quoting universeness
The point wasn't to prevent people from playing with words. My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully.
Quoting universeness
No, that's what I'm saying the one that is making any claim about the world in which we live is doing. Sure, I'm doing it to, and you too. Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective?
Right and wrong only make sense in a realist world where there are states-of-affairs that are the case and what we say about those states-of-affairs is something else and they either represent what is the case or don't, regardless of whether we know it or not.
Quoting T Clark
If "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." was the conclusion after the original SCM and is the same conclusion reached after the additional samples were taken, then the conclusion is no more or less accurate. You just have more justification for that conclusion. You're confusing accuracy with justifications. The conclusion is either accurate/true or inaccurate/false regardless of how many samples are taken. More samples are taken to satisfy your skepticism of the conclusion.
If the original conclusion wasn't enough for the decisions needed, then the additional samples were necessary to reach a different conclusion for the decisions needed, not that the original conclusion was less accurate.
Either "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." or "a property's surface soil has NOT been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." One is not more or less accurate than the other statement. One is either completely true or completely false.
Someone else might not think that 10 samples would be enough and would rather see 20 to be more accurate. Someone else may want 100 to be even more accurate. If we can only attain degrees of accuracy, then how is that any different from saying that we have degrees of truth, or degrees of certainty of whether some statement is true or not?
I don't see why this should be the case. Every truth is both subjective and objective. There is objectivity in each truth, and there is an element of subjectivity in truth as well.
But on their own they make little sense. It's more appropriate to combine them. Every subjective truth is seen as objectively true by the people believing in it.
Your questions show that you haven't even tried to understand what I'm trying to describe. I don't expect agreement, but the ideas are not difficult.
Let's you and me not interact with each other from now on.
Ok, Snowflake, it's actually the other way around. My post was an attempt to understand what you are trying to say and your response is thinly veiled ad hominen because you are unwilling to try and understand my questions to clarify your position.
This is a philosophy forum for crying out loud - where most OPS and posts in general need clarification because of all the wild ideas that are propagated and terms that are misused. If you dont understand that then maybe you should not interact with anyone at all.
Besides, my responses to you aren't necessarily for you, who is obviously scared of continuing the conversation when the questions get difficult, but for readers to see that your ideas aren't all they are cracked up be. Your lack of a response is quite telling in itself.
More specifically, what decisions needed to be made? You're just moving the goal posts. You're saying that conceptual models are useful and accurate but then didn't explain what kind of decisions the concept is useful for, or which concept was even being used if not the concept of "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." You weren't clear about what concept was being used, nor what decisions it was being used for.
To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox.
'Every truth is subjective as an objective truth' is a state of paradox, which demonstrates that the state 'true' and the state 'false' are not the only two logical states in existence. It's got nothing to do with truths that we don't know are true.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Merely your opinion
Quoting Harry Hindu
If I say the Earth is round and another says it's flat, then we will both have our supporters and dissenters. Who would you support? whichever choice you make, would mean that you are calling the other group wrong. Someone being declared wrong by majority vote is good enough for me. If new evidence comes to light then perhaps the vote will change.
Really? Then please educate me on what the paradox says. Which state-of-affairs does a paradox describe? If what you say is true, then it is merely your opinion that it is merely my opinion of what is actually the case, which doesn't help either one of us, or anyone else.
I wasn't ignoring that paradoxes exist. I was explaining what a paradox is. You are free to disagree, but it would be helpful to know why
Quoting universeness
Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.
Using majority support as evidence is a logical fallacy (and you're educating me on logic? - go figure). It is commonly called, appealing to popularity or argumentum ad populum.
If every truth possesses the quality of subjectivity then you don't get to say that I'm wrong, or that what I'm saying isn't the case. You can and I can believe in completely opposite things and we would both be correct and no one would ever be wrong, or what we believe would always be the case, which is just nonsense. What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true?
Quoting Cornwell1
No. Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not.
You both would need to define how you are using, "objectively" and "subjectively" so that we aren't talking past each other and wasting each other's time.
Do you both agree with this proposition: "In believing opposite propositions we both can't be right, but we can both be wrong."
But what's the case depends on your theory. Or better, is your theory. Observations are not theory-laden, the observations are the theory.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
I never claimed I was attempting to educate you about anything. I am not attacking so you don't need a defensive posture, we are merely exchanging views with I hope, the intention to stimulate debate. I have little interest in being adversarial. No winners or losers, just dialogue.
All I can say about the state 'paradox' is what you yourself know 'its not true or false.'
I know that does not satisfy. Trying to explain something by stating what it is not, often does not satisfy but I for one, currently, can't do any better.
I think we agree that evidence assists in declaring a posit right or wrong, I think most people do.
Some people, don't need evidence, some theists for example.
Majority support as a democratic method is practical whether or not it's a logical fallacy.
What's your alternative?
I'm sure you would agree that a purely logical approach to every circumstance is, a flawed strategy.
Our exchange was based on the difference between 'accuracy' and 'truth.'
I maintain the position that there is some difference.
You have not changed my mind on that by what you have typed so far.
I'm sure my typings have not altered your position either.
We can both accept that without so much as a flutter.
Quoting universeness
Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful.
Quoting universeness
Oh, they use evidence, but only observational evidence that isn't integrated with logic. For instance they use the very existence of the universe and it's organized state as evidence of an intelligent designer. But they fail to acknowledge and/or commit logical fallacies when arguing against alternate explanations for why the universe exists and is the way it is. We all use evidence to support our beliefs, but how much and the integration of logic with observation (justifications) can be the difference between what is belief and what is knowledge.
Quoting universeness
You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress.
Quoting universeness
For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others.
.
No. There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory.
Observations coupled with logic and other observations is the theory. Theories are not made by observations alone. That is what a hypothesis is as opposed to a theory, or what a belief is as opposed to knowledge.
Do you agree with this, yes or no? If not, then why?Quoting Harry Hindu
Of course. Everybody wants his theory to be objectively true. Or be constantly falsified by observations. Or established in research programs. We observe the theory though. The theory is subjective. So what we observe is dependent on theory. There is no theory independent reality pulling the theory in the right direction. Well, there is, but only after the theoretical reality has been introduced in the first place. Where some see quark like point particles, I see triplets of geometrically extended structures.
I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system.
Quoting Harry Hindu
One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals.
Where is the theory we observe? Where some see quark like particles and you see triples of geometrically extended structures, are you saying that what you are seeing is a theory, or objects? If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other.
Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense.
Quoting universeness
Finally, some examples:
Barber's Paradox:
The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
Who makes statements like this? No one that I know. Hence it is an improper use of language. What is it that is even being said by such a statement? Nothing. If you can't answer the question then it is an improper use of language. What question does the statement answer if not the one above? If it doesn't answer any questions, then it is an improper use of language.
Liar's Paradox:
"This sentence is a lie".
Again, what questions can be asked in which this statement is an answer?
So again, what statements that are neither true or false (I'm asserting that paradoxes are false statements because they aren't useful and don't refer to what is the case, so I'm also asking which statements that are false are also useful) are useful, in that they can be the answer to some question or refer to what is the case?
Your examples help prove my point, not yours. If you can't provide an example of a question that either of these paradoxes answers, or which state-of-affairs they refer to, then that helps to prove my point.
Quoting universeness
And just as you used the fact that a majority believe something then that is evidence it is true, they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true. They are both logical fallacies - one is appealing to popularity, the other is appealing to authority.
Quoting universeness
You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules.
Quoting universeness
The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed.
The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities.
So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)?
There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...
Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives.
It is an exercise for you to answer. I'll leave my thoughts below.
[hide]
[/hide]
Quoting Harry Hindu
Exactly. Dealing with nonsense can be fun, but sometimes we want to escape it, so we need an epistemology that doesn't lead to nonsense. That's where pragmatism comes from. Looking at the problem pragmatically, it doesn't matter whether the proposition "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon" is objectively and undeniably true. What matters is whether the proposition is useful in a given situation or not.
Well, if we are talking past each other then we can try and correct that. I say you are ignoring the paradox state because you call it useless. It is useless because you and, me to, don't understand it? Does the Universe have a responsibility to explain its complexity to us? or is it one of our main purposes to 'decode' the Universe, despite the 'but it's impossible to fully understand and we never will' stance that some hold. I suggest we will progress more if you stop attempting to advise me on what I should do next due. I am quite willing to explain myself further until understanding is improved between us. Perhaps we can achieve that without too many 'cheap shots' from either side. I can get down in the shit with the best of them but I have never found the outcome of such exchanges particularly fruitful.
Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:
Quoting Harry Hindu
I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Your exasperation button is easily pressed. I had already given you the example of 'the only true fact is there are no true facts.' Your quick jump to exasperation, is a weakness in the teaching world.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No they don't, that's just in your head. The fact that you think the concept of paradox is not valid is mathematically, dead wrong. You can just dismiss paradox if your wish but If our exchange has now switched from truth versus accuracy to 'the validity of the paradox state.' then fine. You can read about paradox on wikipedia and debate, "a list of all lists that do not contain themselves, would contain themselves" and its clash with set theory and the many other logic challenges that the paradox state reveals, yourself. I am not too interested in trying to convince you of the mathematical validity of the paradox state.
Quoting Harry Hindu
They were not just 'told' in the 'matter of fact' and 'simplistic' way you suggest. Their compliance is born out of fear. Terror can make some people see three lights when there are only two. I am not suggesting that all theists are tortured into their belief, despite their ability to think logically or critically. But threatening people with the most henious punishments possible, for enternity, is quite close to mental torture if you ask me.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No I'm not confused (do you enjoy this kind of panto-style textual exchange? Oh yes you are! oh no I'm not!)
Allowing and airing minority views is a vital part of any democratic system as that is how minority views may become majority views.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The report is about what was observed. Do you simply mistrust all reporters?
Quoting pfirefry
The latter isn't about the state-of-affairs of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon (whether it actually occurred or not). It is about you. This is why we would be talking past each other. You're talking about you and your assumptions, while I'm talking about what potentially happened on the Moon.
Not only that but you create an infinite regress where your subjective truths are never about what it is that you are talking about - only your assumptions and your perception of your assumptions would also be subjective, meaning you never get at what it is you are thinking of or talking about.
How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?
You see, you keep making the same mistake of asserting that I am wrong while at the same time talking about subjective truths and what is accurate is what is useful. If truths are subjective, then I can never be wrong, and what is useful to me may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than what you believe to be the case. I don't think that you are following through with thinking about the implications of what you are saying because you keep saying one thing (all truths are subjective) and then doing another (accusing me of being inaccurate).
I'm having trouble picturing this. If there is no overarching world bubble, then what is the medium in which our subjective bubbles exist? What separates our subjective bubbles from each other to say that they are distinct entities?
Quoting Cornwell1
The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact.
Either it is true that we all live in one reality that is a certain way whether we believe or know it, or we live in our own realities causally cut off from each other so we only know our own truths and our perceptions of others is just a figment of our own assumptions.
It's confusing because it is confusing. All people, or more realistically, groups of people, see a reality which they think exists separately of them. Individuals can change it and the group reality influences the individual. Is there an all embracing reality, capturing and directing all these realities? No, because that would be a new reality believed to exist independently of us. Which is a justified belief, as anyone wants his beliefs to be objectively true. But this is only a story we tell, like the story of God being the one and only Truth.
Confusing indeed...
Let me add this. You can add everything to the story we tell without the need of proving it, as is asked for in the scientific story. I saw a discussion on this forum about the reality of electrons in the double slit experiment. Their reality as a particle. They can't be seen directly and it was conjectured that there were only lightening unicorns traveling between the emitter and screen and they don't like to be observed. Which is actually a pretty good description!
Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong, firstly on your assertion that truth and accuracy are synonymous and your assertion that paradox is useless. You seem to assign some priority to what you decide is useless to you regardless of its usefulness to others. God is a useless concept to me but I respect its usefulness to others and its status as fundamental to some.
I have never once claimed that 'all truths are subjective,' I stated the posit as part of a paradox.
I don't agree with your claim that there is a logical position that exists, within which, it's impossible for an individual to be wrong. The best that can be achieved is paradox, neither true nor false. You say this is a useless state. I think it's an intriguing state. You say I am not making sense, I say I am. So we reach panto stage. so hey ho, who cares? I will still dance with you, if you want to keep the music playing.
Good question. I would think 'truth' is a totalizing idea - 'useful in practice' is a way of measuring knowledge by its efficacy rather than its truth value - whatever that means.
I hope this isn't a silly question. Can accepting ideas which are useful be a potential problem when those ideas are applied in other contexts? I'm struggling to think of good examples but, let's say a belief in God may be useful to manage grief and loss following the death of a wife/husband, but what if this same belief allows you to disown your son/daughter because they are gay? Some ideas don't allow for much parsing and are kind of 'all or nothing' affairs.
Digression is annoying from the standpoint of the author of a thread. I appreciate that.
Digression is also so very common within human dialogue.
Thank you for your indulgence, I'm sure we will p*** o** to other threads soon enough,
or get back on topic or do both.
That's not how it works. If I, as OP, ask you to keep on subject you're supposed to do it. I'm not interested in having this thread cluttered up with irrelevant stuff.
Good question. Exclamation point. Here are some thoughts:
Quoting T Clark
This from Wikipedia - Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.
My underline.
Is that enough? I'm not sure.
I don't think it's a silly question. It gives me problems too. How about this - If it's not useful, it's not true; but that doesn't mean that if it's not true, it's not useful. I don't like that.
Good question. I think this is why so many people don't like a pragmatic definition of truth. They want to tweak it to make it less absolute.
I don't think it's friendly to shanghai my discussion.
Quoting universeness
This is from a few months ago:
Quoting Baden
How's that?
Exceptionally average.
The moderators have to judge on a case-by-case basis I'm sure, rather than wield big dumb blunt weaponry or they will lose good contributors to this forum. There are plenty of others available.
Perhaps they will see your approach as a bit too inflexible and decide you need to be less provocative in the phrases you have used against others on this forum and arrogant text example you have just responded to me with ('hows that')
I and I am sure others on this site are quite capable of going further than the authority or judgment of one or more online moderators for this site. I don't find you in the least bit intimidating.
I agree that effort should be made to keep an OP on track but don't get over-excited.
You started a wee thread on a discussion forum, your not a general in charge of troops.
Stay on topic, please.
Will try my best. Could you please ask T Clark to moderate his choice of phrase when debating others.
When I start a thread, I do it for a reason. I have a position I want to test, a question I want to answer, or some thoughts I want to put into words. I work to set up the OP so people can understand what I'd like the thread to be about. I define my terms, describe the issue, provide my position, and then lay out the terms of discussion. I am always surprised by how much I learn from other people's responses. The threads I start are important to me.
I try hard to show the same consideration for others that I desire for myself. I admit that I haven't always lived up to that goal, but I try. When someone calls me out on it, I apologize and try harder to keep on track.
It's just common courtesy.
I didn't find anything particularly harsh there. Let's not derail things any further. Either of you can send a PM if you're not happy.
I'm sure we all have similar or identical intentions. My only complaint with you, is you can be very insulting towards others. You come across as petulant at times. This is just my opinion and I am no angel myself but I try to be fair and just with everyone I communicate with.
Quoting T Clark
I agree. The golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Nuff said.
Well, I don't intend to copy and paste examples for you here, where T Clark has been very disrespectful towards others. I am not a moderator so I don't intend to invest the required time. I am not trying to derail anything and I am aware that if I have a complaint I can PM a moderator if I wish to. I would personally rather sort it out myself, amicably, with the other party but thank you for your reminder that I can 'PM a moderator, if I choose to.
Respect :smile: No offense taken and I will respect your OP's and try to contribute to them in a useful way, and try to stay on track. As you said...Nuff said.
I had similar issues with the pragmatic and coherence theory of truth. It's pragmatic to stick to the correspondence theory of truth (gravity, for instance, can't be wished away even if it makes a practical difference to do so). Plus, that which corresponds to reality is usually that which coheres.
No, it is not confusing, you are. Just go back and read what you wrote. "All people see a reality which they think exists separately from them." means that other people exist in a shared world, or else how could there be other people? Where would the other people be relative to you? You obviously don't know what you're saying and you have no compunction to correct yourself and speak in a coherent manner. So I have no idea what you're actually saying - if anything.
Quoting Cornwell1
Only to you, not to me.
Quoting Cornwell1
Again, I have no idea whether you're referring to your own assumptions, or what is potentially the case independent of your assumptions.
That is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity is a category error where you confuse talking about the world with talking about yourself.
Here you are wrong. That is not the function of thought. The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world, so we can walk in it with confidence. Which has a pragmatic aspect, obviously. But walking at night beneath the winter moon and stars in a sleeping city, shows the function of thought goes beyond its pragmatic function.
I totally agree there is an objective truth. I even know what it is at the physical fundament. Still, it's a story.
I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm interested in what is the case. Your opinion has no bearing on what is the case which is why it is useless to mention what your opinion is. If you can't talk about what is the case, then I'm not interested. You also have the problem of reconciling the fact that I have opinions that I am not wrong. So what do we do then? You trying to have your cake and eat it to in declaring that all truths are subjective yet implying that is only the case for you and everyone else's subjective truths are wrong.
Quoting universeness
No, that is what you are doing in asserting that you are right (accurate) and I am wrong (inaccurate), while at the same time asserting that all truths are subjective.
Quoting universenessThis makes no sense whatsoever. You make sense to yourself, but no one else.
Here you are again confusing what it is that we are talking about. You're talking about stories. I'm talking about what the stories are about.
That's a story also...
To me your are now just running in a circle. No way to make progress.
Thanks for the exchange.
You say "The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world..." How is that different from "...the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"?
I provided that quote as example of one of the underlying metaphysical assumptions for Pragmatism. Metaphysical assumptions, called "absolute presuppositions" by R.G. Collingwood, are not true or false. They are more or less useful in particular situations.
You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does.
Quoting T Clark
I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. The presuppositions, while not true or false, correspond to true or false actions, so important in pragmatism. The actions might even be absolutely true or false. If I use my knowledge to walk on the streets at night and experience the magic of reality, the pragmatic aspect of my knowledge is secondary.
You're right. I wasn't certain which assumption you were rejecting.
Quoting Cornwell1
I've read Collingwood and I find his ideas about metaphysics helpful.
Quoting Cornwell1
Pragmatism doesn't say anything about the truth of actions. How can an action be true or false?
If engineers develop a model on the basis of past experience, their words and actions assent to some notion of truth.
Yeah thought that myself too. But surely some knowledge must be true or false. When assessing a site, and another pragmatic epistemogist comes up with different knowledge as you do, are you both telling the truth?
That doesn't tell me how an action can be true or false. I get up, go into the kitchen, and get a glass of water. Is that action true or false?
Unless the action is related to context, a truth value isn't assignable.
Certainly in the context of predictive modelling, a truth value is assignable by definition of the context concerned. One can certainly be an anti-realist about truth in such contexts, but this isn't to deny the concept of truth or to identify truth with utility.
.
The point I've tried to make in this thread is that knowledge, from a pragmatic point of view, isn't made up of facts that are true or false. It's made up of conceptual models that are accurate or inaccurate.
On the other hand, "The capital of France is Paris," is a true statement and I agree that it constitutes knowledge. I do knock my head against that a bit.
Quoting Cornwell1
"Telling the truth" refers to whether or not someone is lying or not, which is not the issue. The question is whose conceptual model is more accurate. Whose will lead to the most successful action.
As I noted in another post, the Pragmatic understanding of "truth" takes some getting used to. I'm still working on it. Identifying truth and utility has it's problems. I get around that by saying truth and utility aren't the same thing, but utility is the one that matters. As I said, I'm still working on that.
If two different models are equally accurate then they are both true? There are domains in the world where two or more mutually excluding conceptual models lead to succesful interaction. Don't you want true stuff to interact with? Isn't assigning a truth value (instead of a pragmatic value) to you conceptual model a drive to investigate the world?
I'm pretty sure that at work, you had to have some mandatory seminars on "assertive communication" or something similar, had you not?
As I've said, conceptual models are more or less accurate, not true or false.
Quoting Cornwell1
I wouldn't think that two different conceptual models of the same phenomena would be mutually excluding, e.g. Newton's laws of motion are consistent with relativity at velocities less than about 0.7c. Above that velocity, relativity is a more accurate model.
Just an interesting twist..... If I said the capital of France is F, this would be true from the standpoint that F is the only capital letter used in the word France.
The capital CITY of France is Paris. Am I being more pragmatic here or more intuitive?
or would you insist on The capital LETTER of France is F.
It's a matter of interpretation but perhaps such nuances would be missed without the kind of 'out of the box' thinking that the emotional content of your personality might encourage.
General relativity and Newtonian gravity are conceptually different. General relativity doesn't consider gravity a force and space and time are relative. The numerical predictions are the same but the concepts are mutually exclusive. Likewise for statistical and classical thermodynamics (even phlogiston in certain areas).
I was talking about Newton's laws of motion and special relativity. I should have been clearer.
Also these are mutually exclusive.
I don't think you and I mean the same thing by "mutually exclusive." No need to take that up now.
Say you have a conceptual model of a site that uses different concepts as mine, but insofar pragmatics is concerned there is no difference. Your model is as accurate as mine. Does the pragmatic value equalize them?
Here's a link to an interesting video explaining why the speed of light in glass is different than in a vacuum. 16 minutes long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
After the presenter goes through his explanation, he says - oh, by the way, here are two other ways to look at it, and he briefly describes them. So, he has three apparently different ways of modelling the phenomenon, one classical and two quantum mechanical. He gives a very interesting description of the differences between the three models and the value of each.
But only one is right. Photon absorption and re-emission.
You got something different out of the video than I did.
There is only one speed of light. In the vacuum. The smaller speed comes in handy in using glass fibres, but the concept of speed of light in glass is weird.
You missed the point I was trying to make when I provided the link. Let's leave it at that.
What then is the point?
I don't think this line of discussion is getting us anywhere. Let's drop it.