[Strate Egg] Philosophy Argument Questions and Advice

[Illuminatus Primus]

1. "...but moving back to your analysis on empiricism, I think Hume pretty acurately answered Locke's analysis on learned experience with his introspection experiments that found posit cognitive faculties with characteristics that cannot be traced back to experience. Like, the problem of induction totally kills Locke. Like, even Kant who tried to use empiricism, showed that it is enabled by faculties that cannot themselves be derived from experience."

Explain this to me, someone. I'm ignorant.

2. What is "metaethical realism"?

3. What does ethics and natural law have to do with debating valid approaches for determining truth and my postulation that it is empiricism?

4. "Okay, but like any idea of moral validity exists only in the metaethical realist plane."

What?

Editor's note: the discussion between Darth Wong and Kuroneko on Hume is largely a tangent, but I felt it was too small to justify splitting into its own thread. It may be split out at a later date.

[Darth Wong]

Simply ask him to define the terms he's using. People like that are trying to bludgeon you with "I KNOW MORE PHILOSOPHY TERMINOLOGY THAN YOU DO! HA HA!!!!" but philosophy isn't like particle physics. You don't actually need years of cumulative training in order to understand any particular concept. All philosophy concepts can be explained directly.

PS. Hume is the idiot who claimed that it's irrational to think that you need to eat food in order to survive (because, technically, that theory is based on experience and you can't be absolutely certain that the future will follow the same patterns as the past ).

[Strate_Egg]

PS. Hume is the idiot who claimed that it's irrational to think that you need to eat food in order to survive (because, technically, that theory is based on experience and you can't be absolutely certain that the future will follow the same patterns as the past ).

Actually, he did not really believe that. He said that people have a bad idea of causeality. He is not an idiot. He obviously thought it was rational to eat, since he did not starve to death. He used that as an example. IT was a bad one.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, he did not really believe that. He said that people have a bad idea of causeality. He is not an idiot. He obviously thought it was rational to eat, since he did not starve to death. He used that as an example. IT was a bad one.

Au contraire. In his own words:

Rationally, I can never know that the loaf of bread that nourished me yesterday will nourish me today, hence I can never be rationally motivated to eat.

He might have known that it's rational to eat, but he insisted the opposite in his writings. It's always a bad sign when a philosopher's personal behaviour directly contradicts his own arguments.

[Strate_Egg]

To say that no food is needed for survival is kinda stupid, but he did not mean to believe that any more so that Descarte belived he was controlled by an "evil" genius.


Yes, his exampe seems stupid, but it follows the principle of experience. Therre are endless metaphysical reasons why food would nto be necessary in theory. Talking about metaphysics is stupid anyway, just like Hume said. THe only thing you SHOUlD use, if you have to, is Empircal evidence, even if it cannot explain reality to the fullest

[Strate_Egg]

Rationally, I can never know that the loaf of bread that nourished me yesterday will nourish me today, hence I can never be rationally motivated to eat.

Yes, i know. I have read that too. Like i said, he didnt believe that anymore than Descarte thought he was under mind control or that math didnt work.

Sucky-ass example on his part, but it is relevant to other things. you are right on that part.

[Strate_Egg]

I like his views against god, the causality argument works well there.

[Kuroneko]

Au contraire. In his own words:

Rationally, I can never know that the loaf of bread that nourished me yesterday will nourish me today, hence I can never be rationally motivated to eat.

He might have known that it's rational to eat, but he insisted the opposite in his writings. It's always a bad sign when a philosopher's personal behaviour directly contradicts his own arguments.

Hume's eating behaviour does not contradict his own arguments; you're simply taking the quote out of context. Yes, he thought that belief is not rational, but first look at the larger picture. The problem is the principle of induction (e.g., 'bread has been nourishing in the past, therefore it will continue to be so'), which he argued is not based in reason, since it is not possible to justify it without circular reasoning. However, Hume goes on and assumes the principle of induction regardless (and, at least implicitly, that he should believe that bread will nourish him), but with recognition that his reasons for doing so were not fundamentally rational [*]. This is actually in full support of his philosophy that there are faculties of knowledge not grounded in reason (the core empiricist claim), not contradictory to it as you state.

[*] He calls it `custom', but it is actually more broad than that. A better label would be `human nature'. As Hume says, we do it because it is simply `our way'.

[Strate_Egg]

Hume's eating behaviour does not contradict his own arguments; you're simply taking the quote out of context. Yes, he thought that belief is not rational, but first look at the larger picture. The problem is the principle of induction (e.g., 'bread has been nourishing in the past, therefore it will continue to be so'), which he argued is not based in reason, since it is not possible to justify it without circular reasoning. However, Hume goes on and assumes the principle of induction regardless (and, at least implicitly, that he should believe that bread will nourish him), but with recognition that his reasons for doing so were not fundamentally rational [*]. This is actually in full support of his philosophy that there are faculties of knowledge not grounded in reason (the core empiricist claim), not contradictory to it as you state.


Exactly. It is the meaning behind the comment, rather than the comment itself. The whole point of his argument was to counter rationalism. You cannot use reason to determine that bread will nurish if you use induction.
His skeptic claims work well when used to fight the rationalism claim that most things can be known a priori.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, she claimed Occam's Razor is an "unwarrented assumption" so I've placed the debate on hold. Any further thoughts on the above questions?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Any help?

[Kuroneko]

Any help?

Oh, I thought this was on hold. In regards to your original questions,

2. What is "metaethical realism"?

Moral statements can be true, and are statements about real things. In particular, "good" and "bad/wrong" are real categories. I know this is pretty vague, so just think of positions like logical positivism to contrast it with. For example, "murder is wrong" expresses a truth about the act of murder, as opposed to it being just another way of saying "I dislike murder" (preference), or "don't murder" (imperative), or "murder is unacceptable" (sociatal norm), et cetera. Furthermore, the truth of moral statements exists in some sense.

3. What does ethics and natural law have to do with debating valid approaches for determining truth and my postulation that it is empiricism?

The objective (mind-independent) existence of moral truth is directly contrary to empiricism. It goes hand in hand with the Platonic Forms and rationalist doctrine in general. Take care not to confuse this meaning of `objective' with moral objectivism (aka absolutism)--the position that morality of actions is independent of sociatal or situational factors.

4. "Okay, but like any idea of moral validity exists only in the metaethical realist plane."

The irony here is that your interlocutor is using his personal preferences as an argument.

[Strate_Egg]

moral objectivism (aka absolutism

Moral objectivism isnt the same thing as moral absolutism.

[Darth Wong]

Hume's eating behaviour does not contradict his own arguments; you're simply taking the quote out of context. Yes, he thought that belief is not rational, but first look at the larger picture. The problem is the principle of induction (e.g., 'bread has been nourishing in the past, therefore it will continue to be so'), which he argued is not based in reason, since it is not possible to justify it without circular reasoning.

Only if one assumes absolutism, which is the philosopher's downfall. Any idiot can see that given observation of the effects of food, the "bread is nourishing" principle is more likely than not. Therefore, it is hardly irrational to conclude that food is nourishing; if one substitutes "most likely explanation" for "absolutely certain" in a typical philosopher's arguments, they tend to collapse down to a typical scientist's arguments.

However, Hume goes on and assumes the principle of induction regardless (and, at least implicitly, that he should believe that bread will nourish him), but with recognition that his reasons for doing so were not fundamentally rational

Precisely the problem; his mindset is that one cannot be absolutely certain of anything based on observation, but that one should use it anyway ... why? He doesn't even seem to know. Perhaps because it doesn't occur to him that absolute certainty is not necessary for a rational analysis of the information at hand.

This is actually in full support of his philosophy that there are faculties of knowledge not grounded in reason (the core empiricist claim), not contradictory to it as you state.

So? Nothing is "grounded in reason"; reason is only a way of analyzing the information at hand, not of providing a source of information.

He calls it `custom', but it is actually more broad than that. A better label would be `human nature'. As Hume says, we do it because it is simply `our way'.

Or because the consistent accuracy of the "food is nourishing" theory makes it a more rational conclusion than the "food is useless" theory.

[Kuroneko]

moral objectivism (aka absolutism

Moral objectivism isnt the same thing as moral absolutism.

Are you sure you're not confusing moral objectivism with the misnamed (imho) `Objectivism' of Ayn Rand? Never let it be said that I equate the two.

[Kuroneko]

Hume's eating behaviour does not contradict his own arguments; you're simply taking the quote out of context. Yes, he thought that belief is not rational, but first look at the larger picture. The problem is the principle of induction (e.g., 'bread has been nourishing in the past, therefore it will continue to be so'), which he argued is not based in reason, since it is not possible to justify it without circular reasoning.

Only if one assumes absolutism, which is the philosopher's downfall. Any idiot can see that given observation of the effects of food, the "bread is nourishing" principle is more likely than not. Therefore, it is hardly irrational to conclude that food is nourishing; if one substitutes "most likely explanation" for "absolutely certain" in a typical philosopher's arguments, they tend to collapse down to a typical scientist's arguments.

Oh no, it's worse than that. Of course you can conclude that "bread is (and and will be) nourishing" if you have the principle of induction, but the validity of arguments from probability depends on the principle of induction itself--the claim that past behavior is predictive of future behavior. The principle of induction is actually the starting point of all arguments from probability (which are also called, suprise suprise, `inductive arguments'), so using arguments of probability to justify it is simply begging the question.

Precisely the problem; his mindset is that one cannot be absolutely certain of anything based on observation, but that one should use it anyway ... why? He doesn't even seem to know. Perhaps because it doesn't occur to him that absolute certainty is not necessary for a rational analysis of the information at hand.

That's not Hume's mindset at all; in fact, it is almost complete opposite: according to Hume, knowledge is only possible through observation. His relevant claims are:
1. We need the principle of induction--the claim that the future is conformable to the past.
2. There is nothing to justify the principle of induction but itself.
3. Circular reasoning is bad reasoning.
4. Therefore, we must obtain the principle of induction through means other than reason. Those means are, in a word: experience.

The faculty of experience is clearly distinct from the faculty of reason, although the latter can be used to make sense of the former. Pure experience (sensation) `just is', in the same way a sensation of the color blue `just is'. Hume's position is that this is where knowledge is ultimately grounded in (foundationalism). And as to why humans tend to automatically conclude the principle of induction from their experience, instead of, say, its negation--well, that's simply human nature (custom, in Hume's terminology).

So? Nothing is "grounded in reason"; reason is only a way of analyzing the information at hand, not of providing a source of information.

Which has been Hume's point all along, since one of his prime objectives is to demolish the rationalist claim that reason is the basis of knowledge. His argument about induction is a solid counterexample against which the rationalists don't even have the wiggle room of "well, it's against our theory, but it doesn't disprove it." Hume shows that experience is where it knowledge ultimately comes from, in fact must come from in order for there to be any hope of having any knowledge at all.

Or because the consistent accuracy of the "food is nourishing" theory makes it a more rational conclusion than the "food is useless" theory.

But yet again, to make the projection from past performance of the theory to the future performance (i.e, that it will continue to be pretty much like it was), one needs the principle of induction.

Well, actually, I'm not being completely fair to you; there is a way out, but it is subtle and denouncing Hume for not seeing it is like denouncing Newton for not inventing relativity. That's why I'm peeved at your painting Hume as an idiot.

[Darth Wong]

Oh no, it's worse than that. Of course you can conclude that "bread is (and and will be) nourishing" if you have the principle of induction,

Why do you need to generalize from specific examples (induction) in order to conclude that a theory (involving an underlying mechanism to explain a set of specific phenomenons) makes more sense than any competing theory (in which case there are none) and then deduce a conclusion from that underlying hypothetical mechanism? That is the entire scientific method, is it not?

That's not Hume's mindset at all; in fact, it is almost complete opposite: according to Hume, knowledge is only possible through observation. His relevant claims are:
1. We need the principle of induction--the claim that the future is conformable to the past.

What we need is to recognize that one can theorize underlying mechanisms to explain the past, and then deduce from these mechanisms.

2. There is nothing to justify the principle of induction but itself.
3. Circular reasoning is bad reasoning.
4. Therefore, we must obtain the principle of induction through means other than reason. Those means are, in a word: experience.

I have no problem with deriving information from observation; what I have a problem with is the notion that one must necessarily adopt an arbitrary assumption in order to form conclusions from the resulting data.

Which has been Hume's point all along, since one of his prime objectives is to demolish the rationalist claim that reason is the basis of knowledge.

Who but philosophers have ever seriously claimed that?

His argument about induction is a solid counterexample against which the rationalists don't even have the wiggle room of "well, it's against our theory, but it doesn't disprove it." Hume shows that experience is where it knowledge ultimately comes from, in fact must come from in order for there to be any hope of having any knowledge at all.

Of course experience is where knowledge ultimately comes from. How does this change the fact that once one accepts that all of the information at hand comes from observation, one CAN make rational conclusions from it?

Well, actually, I'm not being completely fair to you; there is a way out, but it is subtle and denouncing Hume for not seeing it is like denouncing Newton for not inventing relativity. That's why I'm peeved at your painting Hume as an idiot.

But Newton's conclusions were completely accurate to the data at hand in his era.

[Kuroneko]

Oh no, it's worse than that. Of course you can conclude that "bread is (and and will be) nourishing" if you have the principle of induction,

Why do you need to generalize from specific examples (induction) in order to conclude that a theory (involving an underlying mechanism to explain a set of specific phenomenons) makes more sense than any competing theory (in which case there are none) and then deduce a conclusion from that underlying hypothetical mechanism? That is the entire scientific method, is it not?

Quite right. The scientific method is the way out. You're completely correct; we don't need the principle of induction to do science. Instead of induction, we only need deduction, via falsifiability.

Only... Hume's idiocy still doesn't follow.

What we need is to recognize that one can theorize underlying mechanisms to explain the past, and then deduce from these mechanisms.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I have no problem with deriving information from observation; what I have a problem with is the notion that one must necessarily adopt an arbitrary assumption in order to form conclusions from the resulting data.

Well, I do too. But in the absense of scientific falsifiability, there is nothing else but the principle of induction to rely on. It is arbitrary, but there was no way of doing science without it at the time.

Which has been Hume's point all along, since one of his prime objectives is to demolish the rationalist claim that reason is the basis of knowledge.

Who but philosophers have ever seriously claimed that?

No one, and they've been doing it since before there was any distinction between philosophy and [proto-]science. But to be fair, no one else even cared where knowledge comes from. Besides, philosophers are also the ones responsible behind the very same scientific method you described above.

Of course experience is where knowledge ultimately comes from. How does this change the fact that once one accepts that all of the information at hand comes from observation, one CAN make rational conclusions from it?

It doesn't, and Hume does not claim it does. He's all for using reason to sort through experience. His only transgression is the claim that the principle induction is, as you put it, an arbitrary assumption, which is really the only reasonable conclusion one can make after his anti-induction argument. He then prescribes using reason to its utmost extent, and being mindful of things like induction, the justification for which is purely customary. (Again, this is in the absense of scientific falsifiability.)

Well, actually, I'm not being completely fair to you; there is a way out, but it is subtle and denouncing Hume for not seeing it is like denouncing Newton for not inventing relativity. That's why I'm peeved at your painting Hume as an idiot.

But Newton's conclusions were completely accurate to the data at hand in his era.

And so the comparison becomes straightforward. No Newton, no Einstein. No Hume, no Popper. Hence without Hume, there would be no high tower of scientific method from which you view Hume as the feeble mind he surely is. Is an early-eighteenth-century man really an idiot simply because he failed to think up mid-twentieth-century idea, particularly one written as a direct response to the ruckus his own work created?

Yes, Hume's "solution" to his own problem of induction looks naive to modern eyes. But then so does Newton's mathematical foundations, which involve so much hand-waving that theologicians could (and did) argue that the natural sciences have no more logical groundwork than religion. He even sacrificied internal consistency, because if he stayed true to the principles he positied in the beginning (Galileo's principle of relativity in particular), his physics (the parts that he knew at the time) would have been Machinised. But he couldn't, so he introduced an absolute frame of reference instead. But it's not that bad, as people like Cauchy, Weierstrass, and Mach filled those gaps later.

So why the double standard for evaluating Hume's intelligence?

[Strate_Egg]

It doesn't, and Hume does not claim it does. He's all for using reason to sort through experience. His only transgression is the claim that the principle induction is, as you put it, an arbitrary assumption, which is really the only reasonable conclusion one can make after his anti-induction argument. He then prescribes using reason to its utmost extent, and being mindful of things like induction, the justification for which is purely customary. (Again, this is in the absense of scientific falsifiability.)

Hume did claim that all knowlege came from Empirical means of experience or senses. That is why he delved into limited skepticism. Because he said all "knowledge" came from experience/senses, it didnt mean you couldnt "use" reason to organize information. It only meant the genesis point couldn't be reason.

[Darth Wong]

And so the comparison becomes straightforward. No Newton, no Einstein. No Hume, no Popper. Hence without Hume, there would be no high tower of scientific method from which you view Hume as the feeble mind he surely is.

So your entire argument simply boils down to me overstating my irritation at Hume being quoted today as an authority? I suggest you search for my previous posts on Hume; I've admitted in the past that it's probably excessive to call him "an idiot", but the fact is that no one in his right mind should be quoting the man as an authority on the validity of the scientific method when he obviously hadn't thought of it. This is, after all, what the bona-fide idiot Strate_Egg himself has done in the past on this very board, hence my over-aggressive reaction to it in any thread where he happens to be participating.

Would you prefer I said "ignorant and wrong" instead of "idiot"? The point remains that people who quote Hume in an attempt to disprove the rationality of science piss me off, hence my reaction.

[Kuroneko]

So your entire argument simply boils down to me overstating my irritation at Hume being quoted today as an authority?

Yes. You misconstrued Hume on several levels (particularly in that no empiricist in absolutist in hir requirements for knowledge), so I felt the need to defend Hume for such pejorative remarks.

I suggest you search for my previous posts on Hume; I've admitted in the past that it's probably excessive to call him "an idiot", ...

Probably in the Archimedes thread, so I'll simply take your word for it, as there is no way I'm going there ever again.

... but the fact is that no one in his right mind should be quoting the man as an authority on the validity of the scientific method when he obviously hadn't thought of it. This is, after all, what the bona-fide idiot Strate_Egg himself has done in the past on this very board, hence my over-aggressive reaction to it in any thread where he happens to be participating.

Actually very understandable circumstances, so I apologise for making a mountain out of this issue. You're right; anyone who uses Hume against science today is ignorant of the scientific method. It is ironic for those who use philosophy against science is that there is an answer within philosophy--for those who are interested, Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Basic Books, 1959, particularly pp.27-34.

Would you prefer I said "ignorant and wrong" instead of "idiot"? The point remains that people who quote Hume in an attempt to disprove the rationality of science piss me off, hence my reaction.

Yes, I very much would. Hume presented a very large problem to how science was conceptualised at the time. His only fault in regard to science is his failure to outhink two centuries of human investigation into that very problem, which is not such a damning failure as to deserve that label.

[Strate_Egg]

what the bona-fide idiot Strate_Egg himself has done in the past on this very board, hence my over-aggressive reaction to it in any thread where he happens to be participating.

Hmmmm you can call me an idiot, but my grades will say otherwise. You can think what you want as a i take my check to the bank. As well, you can live in your little shell and pretend that you have the only important job...you know, since you have no respect for non-science majors. If it's not science/engineering its useless and stupid.


And i never said Hume was perfect as an authority. I said "rather" that i liked a lot of his ideas. I do remember saying some were stupid. Then again, many philosophies say stupid things at points. Maybe if you would use correct defintions and not ony ones that YOU want to, there would be no problem.

Oh well, i am not going to argue with some stupid know-it-all foreigner who thinks he is somehow better because he can win over a troop of mindless zombi-sheep children. Hmm ill stick to talking to professors. At least they do not pretend to know how to discuss history.

[Strate_Egg]

Yes. You misconstrued Hume on several levels (particularly in that no empiricist in absolutist in hir requirements for knowledge), so I felt the need to defend Hume for such pejorative remarks.

Yes, Wong does that a lot. He takes something, twists it, and then makes his own defintion behind his little bubble and accepts no other interpretation. WHy? Because he is naturally right because...well...he is. It is HIS board afterall.

[Strate_Egg]

Probably in the Archimedes thread, so I'll simply take your word for it, as there is no way I'm going there ever

I think it is ironic how all you "intelligent" people think greeks invented geometry in that thread. That's real good. That is your level of intelligence.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. You misconstrued Hume on several levels (particularly in that no empiricist in absolutist in hir requirements for knowledge), so I felt the need to defend Hume for such pejorative remarks.

Yes, Wong does that a lot. He takes something, twists it, and then makes his own defintion behind his little bubble and accepts no other interpretation. WHy? Because he is naturally right because...well...he is. It is HIS board afterall.

I like the way you snipped out the part of his post where he agreed that I was right about your idiotic ideas. Whenever someone demolishes your claims, just ignore all of the reasons given for his argument and scream that he's bullying you with his admin power, eh?

Please find one example of me using my admin power to oppress or shut down any of your claims or ideas, you little self-important whining fucktard. If you can't, then either shut the fuck up or I really will use my admin power against you, and in a much more permanent manner than simply slapping a title on you. If you're going to fucking whine as though I'm doing it anyway, there's no penalty for me if I do it, is there?