Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:05 am I have but (academic) philosophy has certain standards just like mathematics. The problem is that "philosophy" is both an academic field and a colloquial term referring to pretty much any system of thought someone may have.
That's propably core of this topic - what are these standards, or what they should be.
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:05 am Right..its not. But if pure mathematics never has an application to the real world what value is it exactly? Its little more than a game at that point.
You may be just right :)
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:05 am "Truth" in the metalanguage isn't the same as "truth" in the object language. Also we have more than one notion of "truth", for example, the "truth" of a scientific statement is much different than a mathematical one. After all mathematical assertions don't hinge on observation so in what sense they are "true" isn't clear.
It's funny, since you can't really prove anything 100% in empirical sciences, and yet you claim that what's true in mathematics is not clear? Having total control on logic you use, premises (e.g. axioms of a given theory) and inference rules, how can it be more clear?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:54 am You could use that to justify any fallacious mode of thinking, no?
What do you mean?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:54 am True, but if we could, everything would surely be clearer.
True (maybe not for carnap :D), but we do what we can with the cards we are dealt.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:54 am The two are independent of each other. All good philosophers utilize good philosophy in a manner consistent with their values. Good philosophy derived it’s goodness from the afformentioned characteristics, independent of whether or not good philosophers choose to use it.
Which aforementioned characetristics? I ask, because you agreed(?) that "goodness" of a philosophy is blurry and depends on values of a philosopher (so how these two are independent?).
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:54 am Would you agree that this should only be true for philosophy dealing with the real world?
Propably to the point, where given philosophy doesn't really intersects with a domain of science. And I like brevity, no flooding, unless it's truly necessary.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote:
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:54 am
mkm wrote:I don't think it makes the science worse philosophy, it just means that the science has other goals and needs less limited tools.
You could use that to justify any fallacious mode of thinking, no?
What do you mean?
How do you justify a need for less limited tools? Can I call for the replacement of deduction in mathematics with my incoherent thoughts because incoherency is less limiting than coherency?l
mkm wrote:Which aforementioned characetristics? I ask, because you agreed(?) that "goodness" of a philosophy is blurry and depends on values of a philosopher (so how these two are independent?).
You’re right. I think what you said made me reformulate my definitions without realIzing it. The characteristic I was referring to was reliance and logic (and consistency).
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote:I have but (academic) philosophy has certain standards just like mathematics.
What are the standards of academic philosophy?
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:36 pm How do you justify a need for less limited tools? Can I call for the replacement of deduction in mathematics with my incoherent thoughts because incoherency is less limiting than coherency?l
Well, I personally have goals that involve interacting and interfering with "the outside world" (whatever this is, we can't really say anything about it), other people, objects, etc. Assumption, that inductive reasonings and experiments are sufficiently reliable, helps me achieve these goals, since that way I can for example communicate with you, via technology that was invented with similar assumptions in work. "Less limiting" isn't the only factor, and I don't think I become incoherent with such assumptions. Do you?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:36 pm You’re right. I think what you said made me reformulate my definitions without realIzing it. The characteristic I was referring to was reliance and logic (and consistency).
Alright then.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:09 pm That's propably core of this topic - what are these standards, or what they should be.
At least for analytic philosophy the standards are pretty much the same as mathematics. Concepts need to be clearly defined and arguments need to be provided that employ valid reasoning. Where the difference lies is that conceptual development in philosophy typically uses natural language so the notions are more fuzzy than in mathematics. Though there is so called "formal philosophy" where one uses symbolic methods as a tool to provide more concrete definitions and analysis. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_epistemology
mkm wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:09 pm It's funny, since you can't really prove anything 100% in empirical sciences, and yet you claim that what's true in mathematics is not clear? Having total control on logic you use, premises (e.g. axioms of a given theory) and inference rules, how can it be more clear?
That isn't what I claimed, what I claimed is that what it means for a mathematical assertion to be "true" is not clear. Inference rules preserve truth they don't define it. Axioms are, by definition, a statement that you assume is 'true" so they likewise don't clarify what it means for a statement to be "true" in the first place.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:37 pm What are the standards of academic philosophy?
I just answered that in my previous posts. I would add that for me "academic philosophy" really is just analytic philosophy which has the the persist form of philosophy since the ancient Greeks.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:35 am That isn't what I claimed, what I claimed is that what it means for a mathematical assertion to be "true" is not clear. Inference rules preserve truth they don't define it. Axioms are, by definition, a statement that you assume is 'true" so they likewise don't clarify what it means for a statement to be "true" in the first place.
In that way you may claim, that nothing is clear, since it's not only mathematics, that can't define truth, so I would say it's propably just a nitpicking.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:07 am In that way you may claim, that nothing is clear, since it's not only mathematics, that can't define truth, so I would say it's propably just a nitpicking.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I've never claimed that you "cannot define truth" but instead I said that its not clear what it means for a mathematical assertion to be true. That is, the concept is not immediately obvious.

I reckon a good deal of philosophy and mathematics would be considered "nitpicking" by most.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:15 am I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I've never claimed that you "cannot define truth" but instead I said that its not clear what it means for a mathematical assertion to be true. That is, the concept is not immediately obvious.
So, can you define truth in unambiguous way? If one swallows the concept of truth at the meta level, then I don't see how the truth in mathematics is not clear.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:15 am I reckon a good deal of philosophy and mathematics would be considered "nitpicking" by most.
If we agree upon some base, I would say no. I called your approach to truth in mathematics nitpicking, since if that concept is not clear for you in math, then it's clear nowhere.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Dispelling the notion that philosophy is magical

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:53 am So, can you define truth in unambiguous way? If one swallows the concept of truth at the meta level, then I don't see how the truth in mathematics is not clear.
If you're assuming that a theory of truth settles the case of mathematics then of course the issue would be clear. But that is the very issue, how do you make sense of mathematical truth in the context of common theories of truth? The answer isn't clear. For example the correspondence theory of truth asserts that a proposition is true if accurately describes a situation in the world. So does pure mathematics describe the world? What exactly does it describe?

One could reject the idea entirely here but than mathematics is little more than an elaborate game of symbol manipulation.
mkm wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:53 am If we agree upon some base, I would say no. I called your approach to truth in mathematics nitpicking, since if that concept is not clear for you in math, then it's clear nowhere.
But why would that be the case? An obvious counter-example is above, the correspondence theory of truth provides a "clear" notion of truth for the empirical statements but not mathematical ones.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Post Reply