Horses Are Cats
Or, The Problem of Talking Past Each Other in Philosophical Discussion.
Here's how the problem looks:
Horses are fun to ride!
No, horses are too small to be ridden.
What? They're bigger than us! Horse riding is a well known sport!
No, there's no such sport. Horses are little fluffy creatures we keep as pets.
Wait... fluffy? Horses aren't fluffy.
Yes they are.
Hold up. What sound do you think horses make?
They go "Meow!".
What?! What do you think horses are?
Horses are cats.
Facepalm!
Now, how many times do you think that this same problem has occurred on this very forum, and what can [I]you[/I] do to reduce its occurrence?
Here's how the problem looks:
Horses are fun to ride!
No, horses are too small to be ridden.
What? They're bigger than us! Horse riding is a well known sport!
No, there's no such sport. Horses are little fluffy creatures we keep as pets.
Wait... fluffy? Horses aren't fluffy.
Yes they are.
Hold up. What sound do you think horses make?
They go "Meow!".
What?! What do you think horses are?
Horses are cats.
Facepalm!
Now, how many times do you think that this same problem has occurred on this very forum, and what can [I]you[/I] do to reduce its occurrence?
Comments (191)
No, rocks are not always just rocks. And I'll thank you not to try that one on again.
Right. Sometimes they're cats.
Delete the posts in question. It's inevitable you'll get posters talking past each other especially as a lot of posts here are likely written while multi-tasking or in haste. Ideally, we should just all slow down. But, realistically, that's not going to happen.
But it can be way[/I] more subtle than the example I gave in my opening post. It can, in some cases, look a lot like an intelligent and meaningful philosophical discussion, when in reality it could be a pointless dead end. If we're using the same terminology, then initially it might go on undetected. I might not realise that the other person is actually talking about cats, not horses. But of course, they could simply insist that they [i]are talking about horses - horses are those fluffy things that sit on your lap, and I'm an idiot for not realising this, and I need it repeated to me [I]ad nauseam[/I], or I need you to point out to me the logical consequences of what I'm saying if misinterpreted in accordance with your own meaning: horses can't be ridden, stupid! They're too small!
A real example would be that an hour is a measurement, and a measurement is a human activity, or that meaning is a mental activity. That wasn't what I was saying at all, and bringing these interpretations into the discussion without proper justification caused big problems.
Look for definitions of the words before you answer?
Of course it can be sometimes really ignorance, but unfortunately a lot of words mean different things to different people. The worst thing is that many words that you thought had exact definitions are used as adjectives not in their original definition. Just think about 'fascist', 'capitalist', 'maoist', 'racist', 'liberal',,,
Quoting Terrapin Station
And sometimes this is circumvented, especially those lecturing on German philosophy, with not daring to translate the words to the language they are using, but use only the German word (like with dasein). I guess with French philosophers they use it too. Plus it's a great way to exclude others from the debate!
No, no, no. I shouldn't really have to provide a definition for the word "horse". Assume that words are being used in the ordinary way, or examine and consider the context or usage, or, if you're still not sure, then ask for clarification. Assume that I'm talking about horses, as in actual horses. We all know what they are! Don't bring your horses as cats nonsense into the discussion without being very explicit about it, and without it being accompanied by a very good explanation.
So in reality we live ideal lives? Way to settle that long standing debate.
Those are ontological analyses of what the terms are conventionally referring to. People are naturally going to disagree on such things. There's no way to demand that others use the same ontological analysis that you believe is correct, or to demand that they just ignore ontological analyses altogether.
Oh my goodness. I'm not suggesting that people aren't going to disagree, or that they shouldn't do so. I'm suggesting that they should do so [i]in the right way[/I]. When a dead end is reached, then that should be the end of it. You have a responsibility to be as clear as possible about dead ends, and to deal with them appropriately. But instead, what I've seen happen is that some people will just keep pushing their own ideas and going around in circles, and then all I end up doing is identifying the reoccurring problem while the other person just keeps pushing on. If you're either unwilling or unable to engage in a more productive way with an idea, because it clashes with an idea of your own that you won't let go off, then you should just come out and say so, and let that be the end of it. Why have we been unduly dragging things out?
I'm not demanding anything at all, let alone what you suggest above. I'm appealing to people to stop and think about these kind of problems, and think about what they themselves can do to reduce them from occurring in future.
The point here would be that one thinks that the idea in question has things factually wrong, so "engaging in a productive way" with it would involve trying to correct the error.
It's fine to try correct what one believes to be an error; again, so long as one goes about it in the right way. The problem has been an apparent obliviousness of what going about it in the right way would look like. Don't just assert that a horse is a cat. Don't just assert that horses are fluffy. I get that you might well think that [I]I'm[/I] the one making an error, but you're not helping. You're not doing anything productive by doing that.
Sure. So what would be "the right way"?
Either try to reasonably support the controversial assertion or be explicit about what it is and what you're doing.
Who gets to decide what's a reasonable support, though?
Depends on the OP, but certainly more effort in writing with clarity and precision there would help offset the issue. For example, a couple of lines anticipating misunderstandings, definition-based or not, could probably benefit most OPs.
If the issue is the problem of talking past each other in a philosophical discussion and the issue isn't a misunderstanding, then it's simply not a debate, but just people saying what they want to say and not caring what others are talking about, like:
A) I want to talk here about horses.
B) I love cats. I have a cat. Many people in the Forum have cats. Have you known that? It's interesting they don't have dogs. Why is it so?
C) Dog owners are fascists.
A) But the issue was horses. Horses are big.
B) Oh I agree, C. They are fascists.
Do you think reason is completely relative? That valid reasoning can be different for different people?
So do you go by consensus or something?
Lol, you crack me up. Just answer the question man, or have the decency to tell me to fuck off
;)
You responded to my question with a question.
Ah, returning the favour are you? My fault, apologies. I didnt intend my question to be a (non) answer to your question as it wasnt directed at me, rather your question to the other dude prompted me to inquire as to your basis in asking the question. My question was sincere, not meant to be leading or anything other than an elaboration on your own views, which im interested in.
Reasonable people.
If it's talking past each other, then it's a misunderstanding, namely that they're talking about the same thing. What you gave as an example could be an example of people talking past each other, although it's clearer in my example. Yours is more implicit. Technically, it doesn't rule out that the others just deliberately changed the subject, which is a different thing.
I love cats. [I]Black Beauty[/I] is one of my favourite films.
I sympathize. But it's probably the case that the other side also experiences your pushing on as missing the already identified problem, while also seeing themselves as just pushing on. It gets more tricky than horses vs cats quickly.
So what's to be done?
Well, to give another example which has happened to me here recently: if I've identified where the problem seems to be stemming from, like a controversial premise, and clearly point it out, and point out that it is unsubstantiated, then it's really unhelpful to read that as something completely different, like "I want you to construct a valid formal argument containing that same controversial premise", or to think that that will do anything towards resolving the problem. The premise would need to be turned into a conclusion, with the preceding premises made explicit.
Simply incorporating that controversial premise into an argument is a bit like constructing a game of Jenga with a broken block holding it all together, so that the stack is really unstable, and then inviting me to play. Except that if I easily cause the entire stack to collapse by pulling out the broken block, then [i]I[/I] haven't lost, [i]they[/I] have.
Another way of responding to this that I've experienced is to constantly set aside the problems I'm pointing out, and instead to deflect the focus back on me, or to change the subject in subtle ways. That only delays the inevitable, as we end up coming back to the same unresolved problems I've previously raised, or I eventually get too distracted from the original problems I identified and they get left behind.
There's only so much I can do. I try to make these problems clear in the discussions themselves, and I try to make clear what needs to be done in order to move towards a resolution.
The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.
So now what do we do?
I like that idea. It would be good to see who is off topic by examining what each person was talking about and comparing it to the specified topic in the OP.
Just might be that several people have egg on their chins. Or mustaches.
I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light.
It's not a matter of feeling. It's reasonableness we're talking about here. Reasonableness is not like morality. An appeal to emotion here is itself unreasonable. It is a known fallacy.
We can use logic and our own eyes and our own brains to assess whether or not a claim is a bare assertion. If I were to publicly make the claim that one of your claims is a bare assertion, then yourself and others have the opportunity to point me to the supposed support of it, and then we can take it from there, once again using logic to determine whether or not any supposed support I might be pointed to really does support your claim.
The discussions in question were my own discussions. You think I could have been the one going off topic in my own discussions? :brow:
They began to talk past me as soon as they tried to criticise my argument by merely assuming their own definition or premise. My argument never had that included, and I made that very clear, and I made it very clear that I rejected their definition or premise. That's where it should've ended if they had nothing else to offer. But the problem was reoccurring.
I can't be bothered to go back through pages and pages of discussion in order to find and quote what I'm talking about.
The fish are starting to bite.
I specifically asked you to be polite and refrain from answering my posts. So now we know that your are not polite I suppose that I could be charitable and reply so that you do not think that I am not respectful.
Did you think that I was talking about you specifically? God forbid that I would stoop so low as to do such a thing. Did you know that vanity is one of the silent killers of the century? A billionaire died the other day just because he thought he needed a bigger dick.
But anyway time to move along. Here's another representation of an object for you to think about.
Is it really a mug, or is it really a message? Does reality allow it to be both? :wink:
Sorry about that.
Sorry again I forgot to answer.
No.
As the dead billionaire found out, more is not always better. :cool:
Oh, by the way, I found out why there is no middle finger emoticon.
Sorry, I forgot to say thank you for the [s]sarcastic[/s] nice compliment.
I agree this problem happens all the time, most of the conversations I have with you, in fact, you tell me I'm an idealist even though I argue/explain that I'm not, I didn't even realise that you were referring to at the times you first labelled me with that. I've had instances where I am guilty of making incorrect assumptions about people as well. I agree with @Hanover about the development of terminology but I also think that we interpret what people are saying in ways that include more than just what they said. That might include their tone, a connection drawn between a larger belief system, their intent and etc.
That's when we're playing with fire and it can lead to a lot of confusion. I've talked with you and the whole time you were talking to me as though I believe reality is mentally constructed. I can't imagine what your perspective of that conversation must have been like but it can't have been similar to mine.
To stop it, we must limit our dealings with only what has been said as much as possible and when we think miscommunication has occurred, being able to identify that and put a stop to it. It's not as easy to do that as it sounds, when that same miscommunication may have already produced a lot of irritation and negative feelings.
Some of us do try, unfortunately some others that consider themselves more as Oracles than participants try to force us into believing that their way is always right and that they are never wrong.
It is frustrating for some to have their ideas brushed aside without anything more of an explanation than, "I have already addressed that, you are wrong, go back and read it again, I cannot be bothered to explain, you should already know that, that is why you have to learn to use google".
But as in the thread about "Why we do jobs we don't like?", here we have the question "Why do we continue to argue with a brick shithouse?" maybe the answer is the same.
Because someone has to.
I should be humble like you. :rofl:
Nothing says humble like, "That's 'Sir' to [I]you[/I]!".
Quoting S
It certainly would not harm you to try. :smirk:
Or would it go against your very basic nature? :worry:
If anyone looks for me, tell them to piss off.
If no one looks for me, they can piss off as well
That expression suits me better. You should use this one: :fear:
I said that if no one looks for me they can piss of.
And stop being childish and going back to edit your posts.
Do what you always do and add another post.
Oh, by the way, did you happen to notice how far off topic you have taken this thread. You should be ashamed of your self.
Bonus time.
And I know precisely what the topic is about. It's about crocodiles. That's what I've been talking about this whole time. The rest of you have been talking past me.
Too late, you missed the bonus.
You were given an opportunity to play your favorite role, Grammar Nazi, and you missed it. You must be getting old or maybe you just spend too much time not proof reading.
You can't kid a kidder.
Sorry, but if you want to talk about goats you will have to address YOURSELF to Banno.
Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. It doesnt matter what each of them feel about the reason, there is a fact of the matter about if the standard is being properly applied. It depends in how exactly you define reason, but that is one way that is useful and meaningful.
And how's that going? Can you give me a single example from the whole of academic philosophy where one of two competing ideas has been rejected by the majority of epistemic peers in the field by the application of reason?
They are both applying reason, though. Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.)
Ya, people can disagree. Some things are more (or less) difficult to sort out. That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable.
No, but that's irrelevant if we can't access that fact reliably. I'm not saying the concept is useless. Complete nonsense can be dismissed this way, but when it comes to the really interesting stuff, it is almost inevitable that the very reason it is interesting is that the competing ideas in the field have not proven to be decidable by any means of argumentation we have.
Since I'm someone who I'm sure comes across that way at times, I can tell you that:
(1) Sometimes I don't read a whole post, especially:
(a) if it's long and rambling, and the person is broaching what I consider to be 5, 10, 20 . . . different issues--both are more typical on this board than not, because unfortunately there is a belief that the value of posts is proportional to their length (fostered by this being a problem in "philosophy culture" overall)
(b) if it's in the midst of someone going back and forth with me, where it's clear they just want to argue with me, and where no matter how brief and focused I make my posts to them, they type a lengthy, less focused response. My goal in that situation is to tackle one small thing at a time, bit by bit, in a focused way, with the aim of "settling" that bit so that we can move on from it,
(2) If I agree with most of a post but see an issue with part of it, even if it's just a tangent or aside, I'll just quote and comment on that part. I agree I should announce more often that I agree on the other stuff,
(3) Sometimes I won't be interested in the bulk of a post, even if it's not very long, so I'll just quote and comment on the part I'm interested in, even if it's just a tangent or aside,
(4) There are some posters where I feel it's more or less futile for me to read and interact with them, because they're either not capable of or they're not going to bother communicating with me in a manner that I can understand --this is primarily folks who are most enamored with continental authors such as Heidegger, Derrida, etc. It's great that some people enjoy that stuff, but I never could really make heads or tails out of most of it, and I was never amenable to pretending about it or just glossing over big chunks of it (which I'd have to do otherwise) . . . but occasionally those folks will say something I comment on, in an irrationally optimistic hope that now I'll start communicating with them; and sometimes they'll respond to me.
I never respond to "win" anything, and I don't think it's possible to "win" in any significant sense. I come from the tradition of responding to folks' arguments with objections and constructive criticism, where the aim is to help them find the potential problems with their arguments, so that they can meet the objections, shore up the problems, and have a better argument, even if I don't agree with it.
And usually the parties on each side are adamant that the fact of the matter about what is reasonable is on their side. ("But it really is on my side" is usually the response to that.)
Not “a” standard, a specific one, the standard of reason. For example, if a person is contradicting themselves then they have failed to properly apply the standard. Obviously, to apply a standard the basis of those standards must be accepted but in the case of reason this is the most basic way we make sense of things. Saying a circle is also a square makes no sense, is not valid reasoning. If you do not accept that then ok, but you have taken yourself out of the ballgame. If you aspire to be reasonable, you have chosen to accept certain basic standard.
Sure, there are varying degrees of reliability depending on the case in question. It doesnt seem like we are sugggesting mutually exclusive things here.
So the guy who is contradicting himself says that he is being reasonable. You and almost everyone else says he is not, and says that he's not following "the" standard.
So once again, the question is whether "the" standard is determined by consensus.
It is not determined by consensus, as the rest of what I said is intended to illustrate but you have left out for some reason. That seems strange to me, seeing as how it has more to do with your question than the part you DID quote. Whether or not a person thinks they are being reasonable, there is a fact of the matter of whether they actually are. Do you think a circle is a square? Yes? Then you have chosen not to make any sense, a refusal to abide by the standard of reason. No? Great, then make sure you apply that standard to everything else too and of course, there other parts to that standard. ( for example, other logical fallicies)
So if it's not determined by consensus what is it determined by? You say that some claim doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable. The other guy says it does make sense; it is reasonable. You say that it's a fact that it's not reasonable. He says that it's a fact that it's reasonable. Now what do we do. How do we figure out who is right?
There is no other standard, but rather, various theoretical speculations on its possibility.
You use the standard. What you are talking about is accepting the standard. Im not saying anyone must accept reason, only that should they choose to do so, they are accepting a particular standard, some basic rules that govern what is reasonable. If they do not follow that standard, regardless of whether or not they claim to be doing so, then they are not being reasonable.
The consensus would be in deciding whether or not to BE reasonable, it is something you agree or decide to do. The creation of that standard needs no consensus.
Someone creates a mile, a certain length of distance that they call a mile. If another person says “i just walked 10ft, a whole mile” then they are not correct according to that created standard of a mile. They claim its a mile, but there is a fact of the matter about what a mile actually is and 10 ft isnt it. No consensus required. This person can claim they are using miles, or they can use km instead, or feet instead or whatever..they could get a million people to call 10ft a mile. Doesnt matter, it doesnt change the created standard and when they claim 10ft is a mile they are wrong, they are just calling something else a mile that is not. They have not accepted the standard of the mile, but have rejected it or redefined it into something else (ergo, not a mile).
This is like saying you use the rules of mathematics to work out what to have for dinner, they just don't apply to the type of problem we have here when people don't agree on certain arguments. There's nothing in the standards (aristotlean or otherwise) which makes the kinds of judgements that need making.
Yes, if someone literally says "a circle is a square" then you could say "according to the rules you agreed to play by, one thing cannot be another", but that's hardly ever what's going on. What usually happens is some long trail of premises and conclusions, some deductive, some inductive, some assumed, all containing dozens of terms all of which could be defined in various ways (the arguments for which themselves being another long chain of propositions). All of this wrapped up in yet another long chain of propositions arguing exactly how we should apply the previous long chain of propositions to the current long chain of propositions. If you think there's any hope of untangling that lot using some very limited set of rules then you haven't been paying attention to the last few thousand years of philosophical debate.
Sure, there is more going on in this forum, and its complicated. I wasnt addressing the OP, that certainly seems to entail some personal feuds and discussions and disagreements about approach from other threads that I was following somewhat but wasnt that interesting, philosophically speaking. What Im discussing with Terrapin (and that you have inserted yourself in), is. To me at least.
Applying reason is insufficient. Being reasonable is what matters. There's a difference.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I don't need a consensus to know, for example, if someone has presented an invalid argument. If the standard was validity, then they're being unreasonable. That's how this works.
Validity is just one example. Any claim or argument put forward can be reasonably assessed on a range of different things which can either count for or against it. Things like explanatory power, intuitiveness, consistency, strength of evidence, and so on. There are pros and cons, and you weigh them up.
No, of course it isn't determined by consensus! If he contradicted himself then he contradicted himself! It doesn't matter what he or anyone else says or agrees to about it. What a silly thing to suggest.
You need to adjust your ranking to your level of contribution. You have grown beyond "Amateur".
None of this answers any of the questions I asked you. Do you need me to go into detail why it doesn't answer the questions I asked?
So the standard isn't established by any consensus. What's it established by?
(Note that I'm not arguing pro consensuses or anything like that. The aim here is to get folks to think more about just what they're claiming re how this stuff works.)
I do not. Your question has been answered, just not in the way you would like me to answer it. Im not going to be restricted to answering you the way you need me to in order to go through the motions of your argumentation. If you are interested in how the standards of reason are established then that is different than reference to the standard afterwards.
I'll remember that in the future for posts back and forth with you. I can type anything and claim that I answered a question you asked, "just not in the way you would like me to answer it."
Well true, it is a claim anyone can make. Like being reasonable. There is a fact of the matter of whether or not its actually true in both cases.
You asked me “what now” at the end of your case example. The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. That doesnt require an address of where the standard comes from, not in the case of reason, because reason is our most basic function of making sense of things. If you do not accept it, if logical fallicies seem fine to you for example, then no sensible or worthwhile discussion can be had. Conversation over. (“You” is intended in a general sense here, not “you” as in Terrapin).
The problem is that in the example at hand, both sides claim to be applying reason and claim that they are correct.
So if there's no other arbiter, we can't get beyond being at loggerheads like that.
The standards of reason arbitrate. Thats all you need. I tried to illustrate this with the “mile” example.
This isnt like morality, where sensical alternatives are available to any given moral view. Reason isnt like that, for what I would hope are obvious reasons ;)
If we discover the standards of reasoning by reasoning, how does that help us in the example, because again, both sides claim to be reasoning, claim to be correct, etc.--they're just reaching very different conclusions about that with respect to the exact content at hand.
This isn't just a hypothetical example. I've had more than a handful of conversations over the years with people who claim to reason to "true contradictions" for example, where they seem to understand the issues involved, claim to not be equivocating, etc.
And I frequently run into conversations on this board where I think that people aren't thinking very reasonably, but they sure don't see it that way--they see it rather the opposite of me. For example, positing things that I believe are incoherent.
Re the mile example, you explained someone stipulating something by fiat, and then seemed to suggest that there's something normative about that. But multiple sides could do the same thing to different ends. One guy stipulates "This is a mile" and the other stipulates, "No,this is a mile."
“I like cauliflower” is not an opinion, it is a persuasion, grounded in feelings, and cannot be false.
“Califlower is a healthy vegetable” is not a persuasion, it is an opinion.
“Cauliflower is really good with salt, pepper and a ton of butter”, or “Califlower is awful compared to carrots” is not a conviction, it is a belief.
Reason has no say in the first, has the subject’s reason to say as arbiter in the second, and has all concerned subject’s reason as collective arbiter in the third.
That's one sense of the term "opinion."
True enough. I was going more for the sense of reason as arbiter than anything else.
I would call those examples, and ive seen exactly what your talking about between you and others, cases of reason being improperly applied. Is it so hard for you to believe that you are meeting the standards of reason and they are not? Maybe you think they are being incoherent because they are are in fact saying something incoherent? Not to get personal, but you have a particular way of interacting with people on here and that might be a factor as well. Plus, im sure you are the one making the mistake at times as well.
To the “mile” example, if someone or some persons invent the mile, then thats what it is. If someone else comes along and says “no, a mile is ten feet” then they are full of shit. As with morality, they might be able to provide alternate measurements and there my analogy fails becuase reason isnt like that but thankfully thats not what the analogy is meant to illistrate.
A note about coming to reason via reason. This is slightly different territory but I would put it “coming to reason by necessity of making sense of things” or something like that. Its a by-product of noticing that things have..well that they have reasons for the way they are and how they happen etc.
(Sorry for the clumsy use of language using “reason” there...not sure how else to put it)
What kind of ontology is that, though? Why would naming/defining rights fall on temporal priority, so that that act determines what something is in perpetuity? What if someone names/defines something on August 10, 1985, but no one except for that person and their best friend know about it, then someone else comes along on May 16, 1992, uses the same word, defines it differently, but it winds up being relatively well-publicized or given some official stamp of approval (like BIPM adoption). Do we have some means of changing what the word refers to if we learn what the guy in 1985 did--because ontologically, that's the correct definition/usage of the term (it turns out the BIPM is full of shit) since it was temporally prior?
Im not sure, I hadnt widened the scope to include those sorts of things. Its an analogy right, so its meant only to illustrate a specific point rather than perfectly map or correlate.
A seperate matter I think, which I will give some thought to.
What you're doing isn't very clever, in my opinion. It's just like a child who keeps asking why. The standard is just the standard. If you act in accordance with it, then you're reasonable, and if you act in violation if it, then you're unreasonable. That's it.
:up:
lol at the idea that it has to remain a mystery and it's somehow off-limits to investigate it.
No, it's not that, it's a fundamental disagreement about appropriate lines of enquiry. I'm a foundationalist, and as such, I think that some lines of enquiry are misguided. This is one such case. That's why I don't think that it's very clever to keep asking, "Oh yeah, and what establishes [I]that[/I]?". As often seems to be the case with you, the problem is your question itself. It presupposes that there's a certain kind of answer.
Why is dog? What colour is Tuesday? Who invented rain?
So you don't think that if there's a standard, it has to be something, it has to have become the standard through some particular means, etc.? It's just unanalyzably present?
You could take the three fundamental laws of logic as an example. You either get it or you don't. The vast majority of people simply get it. They get the law of noncontradiction. It works.
I think they learn by observing thats how everything works. I think thats the basis of it. Its fundamental to reality and is observable.
Indeed. It's ultimately untenable to argue against reason. Anyone who does so is [i]using[/I] reason to argue [i]against[/I] reason. And the alternative to that would obviously be unreasonable. It is one of the silliest positions in philosophy. There's a reason why we apply reason: it works, things make sense, and this is [i]very[/I] evident.
Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. :lol:
It isn't [i]me[/I] that needs to change, it's [i]everyone else[/I]. :lol:
Quoting Hanover
The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. Imagine if there was a discussion where everyone involved was skilled enough to avoid or keep to a bare minimum the occurrence of fallacies in their reasoning. Wouldn't that be so much more productive philosophically, where it's about the issue itself instead of our own reasoning and our own critical thinking skills?
Quoting Hanover
I've already explicitly acknowledged that my example in the opening post was exaggerated and that it can be much more subtle in the discussions on here.
I don't demand an absolute meaning. But I do encourage common sense and self-awareness.
Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form. Quoting S
While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there?
As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
I don't think so. With respect to logic, it's designed to jettison [i]bad[/I] arguments and limit [i]unreasonable[/I] discussion. I use it with the intent to improve. You can't improve if you don't even take the first step of identifying faults. It would be somewhat [i]absolutely wrong[/I] to take that as a message to just shut up and stop trying.
It's generous, just not in the nicey-nicey sense of offering a smile and a pat on the head for managing to tie your shoe laces up correctly, even though you forgot to get to dressed and turned up completely naked besides your shoes.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, there are. But the way which I find the most pleasing is to skin it alive whilst it squeals and writhes around in great pain.
Quoting Hanover
Yes! Heaven here I come.
As an example from a while back, someone posted that color irrealism is a challenge to direct realism. The argument went on for a while and devolved into direct realism meaning how things appear to us, which is not what realism means, but that's how it got redefined.
Is that to say there is nothing extra-mental to speak of?
Not at all. It’s just impossible to speak of it.
Then what am I speaking about when I tell you the burger I just ate was maybe the worst excuse for a burger I ever had?
Then how did I come to call it a burger? And to qualify its awfulness?
Maybe, but doesn’t it follow from that that I can speak of extra-mental things?
As for what it is like......dangerous ground there. Step truly or the fanatical realists will get you.
Agreed. I give the name “burger” to the material presented to my senses, but the label is no more than a certain group of conceptions experience tells me belongs to that kind of sensory material, arranged in that certain way, and no other.
Still, I don’t think you’re going to get away with the notion that “...talking about what the matter that is being “eaten” is extra-mentally is a confusion of how perception works....”, without making some claim about the confusion.
I think I can speak of things extra-mental, even though my experience of them is mental. I think that's confusing the experience itself with the thing being experienced, or what the experience is about. Just like the word "rock" is different from specifying a rock that one kicks.
But that does bring up a frequent issue that philosophical debates often involve terms like perception and mental that people don't agree on.
So can we think the extra-mental apart from perceiving?
“The thing being experienced” presupposes a mind experiencing it.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the thing presupposes a mind experiencing it.
Nothing. Drilling down for a sense of how you think, is all. What it means to say “...As if you can even speak of something extra-mental....”
I don't see why not. If I tell you there's a busy highway there, and to look before crossing, you could reply that I'm not speaking of the extra-mental highway but a mental one. That doesn't change the fact that crossing without looking can get you killed, which would be an extra-mental state for you. Therefore, I must be referring to something extra-mental about the busy highway.
Would it matter if nobody observed your death? You'd still stop experiencing.
Problem with that is explaining how it is that I can predict your likely death if you cross without looking, if it's just something material that perception does not tell us about. More broadly, how is it that we can navigate the world, make technology and do science if our perception isn't somewhat accurate?
Unless you mean something else by that. I can agree that colors are not properties of things themselves, but our ability to experience color does give us information about those things.
That information is also a conceptual framework which requires minds.
Yes and no. Information can also be thought of as physical. The lightwaves bouncing off objects into photoreceptors is a physical exchange.
What is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking, in your opinion?
There ya go. Sorta what I was looking for.
...ok. So what is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking?
Nothing. It’s just high-faluting philosophy. :lol:
Lol, alright then.
No need. I’d argue differently, but we’d arrive in the same place.
Same team, different parts to play.
Some light reading for you:
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/consc1/consc1.html
Does this mean that no physical theory can be complete because it will always fail to account for the mental component in deriving the physical theory?
So physicalists fail to take that into account?
I’d say that about covers it. And all from the absolutely strictest human perspective.
Certainly an alien being would have different mental phenomena, but his maths should correspond to our maths. We would both have minds perceiving the same matter.
I'm pretty sure you can find a few on here. @Terrapin Station
Just because we cannot even conceive the fallibility of math isn’t warrant for suppositions concerning other things that are merely possible.
That’s true. I mean I think I agree, but what exactly do you mean? Could you expand?
Only the mental conception, though.
Reflecting back to the strictly human perspective. It’s the ground of all we think we know, and it’s impossible to know anything at all except from that perspective. Still, there’s nothing given in all we know, that suggests we know things as they actually are. We don’t know of any other minds, and if there are any that they will do our kind of math based on our kind of logic or even arrive at our conclusions.
We think it means something that dolphins rub on rocks, surf, and hang upside down. It seems like it should have meaning, but we actually don’t have any right to think that, except to suit our expectations.
Presumptuous bunch, we humans.
Based on what you've been arguing, Terrapin cannot speak of himself extra-mentally.
Why does it feel like you won the point?
I don’t understand.
In my mind, it seems like you proved your point. Horses are mental cats.
Oh wait, mixing things up with the OP.
To Terrapin Station, his own mind is the “given”. To speak of himself is the mental.
Sort of, but I was conceding your argument. For now.
The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived.
Then you ask me a silly question like, "But what does it look like?", and I reproach you for asking a silly question like that.
That's usually how this goes, anyway.
Then it is being conceived. That also requires a mind.
What I should have said was that a burger is always perceived or thought about when spoken of. What it is like without a mind perceiving it or thinking about it (a mental picture for instance or the memory of its taste) is nonsensical. Matter is always either thought about or perceived when people speak about it. In this sense, it is impossible to speak of something extra-mental.
That's either obviously false or obviously irrelevant, although it isn't clear which, because you're playing on the ambiguity. But it's still lose-lose.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Doesn't address the point. The point had nothing to do with someone speaking of a burger.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
No it isn't. I just made sense, and an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Doesn't address the point. The point had nothing to do with someone speaking of matter.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
No isn't. I just did so.
What properties must a thing have to be "like" a burger?
The idealist will likely say that these properties are experiential in nature, i.e. to have a particular look, a particular smell, a particular taste, etc., and that it doesn't make sense to say that something can have a look, a smell, and a taste when not being perceived.
Presumably you disagree with the idealist's position that a burger's properties are experiential in nature? What properties, then, must a thing have to be "like" a burger (or more simply, to be a burger)?
This is correct, from both a rational and epistemological point of view. It is true a human can never speak of that which is not present in thought, or present to perception. There simply is no other way for humans to speak of anything.
——————————
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Perhaps “....impossible to speak of something not first mental”, would be a more favorable thesis. Impossible to speak of something extra-mental carries the burden of implying the extra-mental is unavailable to us, which we both understand as not being the case. THAT the extra-mental is available to us is always given; WHAT the extra-mental is, that is available, may be susceptible to discussion, hence not given necessarily.
I agree.
Well, yes, to be clear, I certainly didn't mean qualia just because I used the word "like". I don't mean what it looks like, or tastes like, and so on. If that's what I had meant, I would have made that clear.
When I said that the burger is like a burger when it is being perceived, only the burger wouldn't be being perceived, I meant that they have some things in common. Both consist in a bread bun with a cooked meat patty made of a meat such as beef in between them. That's what a burger is. It is an object with properties. It is composed of particles.
Nothing I've just described about the burger would magically change from when it is being perceived to when it isn't being perceived. That's not how the world works. That is a fundamental misunderstanding which involves confusing our perception of the burger with the burger. That's like confusing the mashing of the potato with the potato. Both involve the same logical error of conflating two different things.
The error is confusing what we're doing with what would be going on in the hypothetical scenario. We are talking. We are thinking. We are perceiving and conceiving and so on.
That wouldn't be happening in the hypothetical scenario though, would it? There is a subtle connection that you and Noah are making or suggesting which isn't actually logical or warranted. You are both under the idealist illusion. You think that you're saying something logically relevant, but you're actually not.
None of your speaking about speaking actually addresses the point. The point was not about speaking. I spoke of a burger, I didn't speak about speak. That's another finger/moon failure right there. Another [i]de re / de dicto[/I] failure.
That's certainly the materialist's position. But the idealist disagrees with this. They are probably going to be instrumentalists rather than scientific realists when it comes to talk of particles.
I don't doubt that they'd disagree, but they don't have good sense on their side. What is a burger? It is as I described it. It is a bread bun with a cooked meat patty made of a meat such as beef in between the bun. And that is made of particles, as the wealth of scientific evidence strongly suggests.
Note that I haven't said anything about what the burger looks like, or tastes like, and so on. I've just described what it is.
It wouldn't cease to exist. It wouldn't cease to be a burger. It wouldn't cease to have any of those properties.
And I don't buy for a second that scientific research amounts to some sort of fairytale. That particles are just a fiction, like magic beans.
I'm not suggesting that idealism can't come up with an answer. I'm saying that it's bollocks. And I'm saying that because it is. Its only value is as a quirky way of getting someone to think critically about things they might not otherwise have thought about. It is not valuable as a serious philosophy.
I think that Berkeley was one of the worst philosophers of all time. Locke was better. Kant was better, but still wrong. If you take away the veil of perception, there's still a burger.
I don't think it right to saying that there's empirical evidence for scientific realism. Realism and instrumentalism are two different ways to interpret scientific evidence.
Okay. And there's a plausible way and an implausible way to interpret scientific evidence. It's implausible to interpret all of the scientific evidence for particles as just a fairytale about magic beans.
History would suggest that instrumentalism would be the more reasonable approach. Or are you saying that we have good reasons to believe that we've finally figured things out for real? But then which theory has it correct? Are particles excitations of a quantum field, as quantum field theory says, or are they one-dimensional strings, as string theory says? Is gravity the curvature of space-time, as general relativity says, or is it a force mediated by gravitons, as quantum gravity says?
No, history would suggest the very opposite, in spite of the fact that we haven't worked everything[/I] out. Whatever problems you raise, I can match with problems that have been solved. Entire encyclopaedias can be filled with what we've learnt about reality through science. Do you doubt that we evolved from apes? That we [i]are apes? Even when you look a chimpanzee in the eyes?