Frederick KOH

I suspect this autonomy is the autonomy that computer designs at the logical level have. It just happens that economics and technology has determined ...

Isn't is simpler to ignore my posts and as you say "Find a hobby, meet some people, do something else."

Do the following have these non-reductive features 1) Protein production 2) Plant conversion of sunlight into starches 3) Macroscopic properties of ga...

Pointless is not impossible.

Using your way to describe autonomy, is it then still possible to also reduce the same explained phenomena into lower level structures?

Before reduction is attempted, is there a way to tell if the theory was autonomous?

Philosophy is inconclusive, but some of it is insightful despite that. They made genuine scientific discoveries. But they also speculate on the border...

So the answer is no. In case you forgot the simple direct question I was asking here it is again:

But you are using the wrong measure in your estimation of him. Suppose we have an empirically adequate theory at a certain level. Does an "emergentist...

It's borderline and inconclusive irrespective of the people involved.

But at that level you either do borderline science or inconclusive philosophy.

Suppose we have an empirically adequate theory at a certain level. Does an "emergentist" have any theory to determine whether that theory is autonomou...

Because he isn't doing philosophy. I repeat here what I said in another comment: In the case of Weinberg, he faces what I consider an insurmountable d...

No I don't. Either there is such a naturalism and people opposed to naturalism in general are all incapable of reasoning or there is none. I am inclin...

It's quite a jump to get from me saying "How does one reject reductionism without making naturalism as vulnerable." to

In the case of Weinberg, he faces what I consider an insurmountable disadvantage. Even when he engages philosophers, he engages as a scientist. He mak...

Then how can any denial of super-naturalism be "mere"?

This does not erase the flaws of naturalism.

Accepting a position does not mean you are indifferent to its flaws. Similar flaws exist in other positions. The tactic Weinberg used is particularly ...

When you deny the "super" of something, how do you avoid talking about the something first?

There isn't one.

No. Please give me exact quote.

The arguments against naturalism are respectable philosophical arguments. If we accept naturalism anyway, does it mean that it matters not at all that...

In a way, you argued with yourself. You were challenged on your naturalism and your position shifted noticeably. I even juxtaposed/quoted the change i...

"They" referred to naturalism and reductionism. How did my "they" turn into your "my"?

All non-trivial philosophical positions have respectable arguments against them. What does "false" mean? As I keep saying, they have the same flaws, s...

They don't have to be aligned and I am not saying they are. I am saying analogous arguments can be made against naturalism.

I did. It's just that you find them in an inconvenient form. How does one reject reductionism without making naturalism as vulnerable.

If you say a similar argument can be made against naturalism, I am happy to concede.

Twice. You need new tricks. Laughing at solipsism does no imply one is doesn't care one bit about arguments.

Nice try. Laughing at solipsism does no imply one is doesn't care one bit about their soundness and validity.

You can offer rational arguments, but in many areas of life they are never airtight. People at the caliber of Weinberg know this. The gaps that can be...

The similarity of his arguments to ones that would be used to defend naturalism.

Naturalism is also defective. But you are still going to choose the soup. He is pleading at a court that doesn't have philosophers in the jury. The sa...

If the defects are the same as those of naturalism, he would not consider them defects. There is no conclusive argument against solipsism but we feel ...

Wrong. Not entailment. Structural similarity. Naturalism suffers from the same structural defects as reductionism.

BTW, I think this is what Weinberg was trying to do with the soup and touch story.

Is naturalism any better defended?

This suggests one. It doesn't need a defence for the same reason that naturalism doesn't.

I don't know what your defences are. They changed enough that I felt a need to ask for a synthesis.

Showing that something is a presupposition doesn't make the opposite true. It only makes the burden of consistency heavier.

What if I was using naturalism as a way to probe what counts as a valid defence in your eyes and do the same for Weinberg's reductionism?

:-O Laying bare your presuppositions is all I did O:)

How did it resolve the difference between this: It is the lack of confidence that there might be a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanation of...

So it could turn out that the culture that does not recognize the naturalistic/non-naturalistic distinction might end up convincing you of its point o...

We have gotten from this: To this: Would you agree that they are different enough for a synthesis to be helpful?

Instead of a reply why not reformulate your response to Weinberg's chicken soup and the king's touch based on what has been exchanged so far.

How do you apply a distinction to practices within culture that does not recognize it (the distinction) without privileging you own?

No, there is a chain from this that leads all the way to chicken soup and the king's touch. That is one of the ways Weinberg explained his reductionis...

Presuppose rather than claim.