Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Locked
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1391
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 23rd, 2020, 12:50 pm

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am
creation wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 6:12 am


Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



I have not heard of this one before.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Are any of those arguments actually sound and valid arguments?

If any are, then they are actual proofs of the God-concept.

But because of what God, Itself, actually is, then God can be proven to exist.
"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.
For logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."

Atla
Posts: 582
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Atla » January 23rd, 2020, 1:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 3:53 pm
Atla wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 3:05 pm

Yep, that's about right.

Look, I've nothing to gain from such a conversation, I left the refuted school of Western "philosophy" behind long ago. I'm out
Okay, but why ask a question if you're not even willing to clarify it?
Something as basic as that shouldn't require even more clarification. Again: there is no known way to measure qualia and the first-person-view. Fact. There is no known measurable mechanism binding them to animal brains. Fact. People who automatically subscribe these things to animal brains and mentality, understand little about existence.

We don't have self-aware machines yet, so only organisms with advanced brains are capable of reporting such things, but then to make the jump and assume that therefore qualia and the first-person-view are connected to animal brains, is a big fail in logic.

We would also have to explain by the way, why certain configurations of matter would acquire such extra abilities. And I really hope someone won't scream "emergence out of complexity" now because that's what they heard from philosophically equally ignorant scientists.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2847
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Consul » January 23rd, 2020, 1:13 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 9:54 am
Consul wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 9:51 pm
If classes and sets qua extensions are different from mereological aggregates or sums, they are abstract and thus nonmental objects
There are no abstract nonmental objects period.
My point is that if classes/sets exist, they are abstract objects (in the platonistic sense). Whether they exist is another question.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1391
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 23rd, 2020, 4:27 pm

Consul wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 1:13 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 9:54 am
There are no abstract nonmental objects period.
My point is that if classes/sets exist, they are abstract objects (in the platonistic sense). Whether they exist is another question.
They exist as concepts. It's fine to say they're abstract objects. It's just that abstracts only occur as a particular type of mental phenomenon.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 998
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 23rd, 2020, 4:53 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 12:50 pm
h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am


"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.
For logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."
What's your source for that? Sounds a bit like Aristotle, who is of course the inventor of logic.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1391
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 23rd, 2020, 5:37 pm

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 4:53 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 12:50 pm


For logic, which is the only context in which I normally use the term, validity has a set conventional definition: validity obtains when it's impossible that premises are true and the conclusion is false. "And" there is traditionally treated as an inclusive "or."
What's your source for that? Sounds a bit like Aristotle, who is of course the inventor of logic.
It's as standard a definition in philosophy as "justified true belief" is for "(propositional) knowledge."

At any rate, here are a few places where you can check this:

https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... sound.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/answers.htm

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2847
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Consul » January 23rd, 2020, 6:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 4:27 pm
Consul wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 1:13 pm
My point is that if classes/sets exist, they are abstract objects (in the platonistic sense). Whether they exist is another question.
They exist as concepts.
Classes/sets are extensional items, whereas concepts are intensional items; and no item can be both extensional and intensional, so classes/sets aren't concepts.

QUOTE
"Intensional entities are such things as concepts, propositions and properties. What makes them ‘intensional’ is that they violate the principle of extensionality; the principle that equivalence implies identity. For example, the concept of being a (well-formed) creature with a kidney and the concept of being a (well-formed) creature with a heart are equivalent in so far as they apply to the same things, but they are different concepts. Likewise, although the proposition that creatures with kidneys have kidneys and the proposition that creatures with hearts have kidneys are equivalent (both are true), they are not identical. Intensional entities are contrasted with extensional entities such as sets, which do satisfy the principle of extensionality. For example, the set of creatures with kidneys and the set of creatures with hearts are equivalent in so far as they have the same members and, accordingly, are identical. By this standard criterion, each of the following philosophically important types of entity is intensional: qualities, attributes, properties, relations, conditions, states, concepts, ideas, notions, propositions and thoughts."

("Intensional Entities," by George Bealer. In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig. London: Routledge, 2005. pp. 452-3)
/QUOTE
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 4:27 pm
It's fine to say they're abstract objects. It's just that abstracts only occur as a particular type of mental phenomenon.
Abstract ideas in Locke's sense aren't platonistically abstract, because they are mental objects resulting from abstraction as a psychological act, "whereby ideas taken from particular beings become general representatives of all of the same kind; and their names general names, applicable to whatever exists conformable to such abstract ideas." (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690, Bk. II, ch. XI, §9)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1391
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Terrapin Station » January 23rd, 2020, 6:53 pm

Consul wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 6:40 pm

Classes/sets are extensional items, whereas concepts are intensional items; and no item can be both extensional and intensional, so classes/sets aren't concepts.
What happened to where I explained above how extensionality only obtains via mental phenomena? You didn't directly address it. So I'd need to basically write out the same thing again. But why should I have to do it again? Why not simply address it the first time I explain it?

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 998
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 24th, 2020, 4:49 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:37 pm
h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 4:53 pm


What's your source for that? Sounds a bit like Aristotle, who is of course the inventor of logic.
It's as standard a definition in philosophy as "justified true belief" is for "(propositional) knowledge."

At any rate, here are a few places where you can check this:

https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... sound.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/answers.htm
I do like Stanford's lists.

I have referred to them a time or two as well, especially their fallacies list.

creation
Posts: 610
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 2:05 am

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am
creation wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 6:12 am


Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



I have not heard of this one before.



Already been answered, and thus already been resolved.



Are any of those arguments actually sound and valid arguments?

If any are, then they are actual proofs of the God-concept.

But because of what God, Itself, actually is, then God can be proven to exist.
"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.
If people are not interested in discovering what actual 'validity', or not, others have and hold, then so be it. But there is no use someone expressing how the validity holds up if others just believe there can not be any anyway.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 998
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am

creation wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 2:05 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 10:19 am


"Validity" is always in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Like "beauty" in aesthetics, it is hard to get a grip on.
If people are not interested in discovering what actual 'validity', or not, others have and hold, then so be it. But there is no use someone expressing how the validity holds up if others just believe there can not be any anyway.
Enlightenment cannot be force fed. A person must be seeking truth before they can actually find it.

creation
Posts: 610
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 9:01 am

h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am
creation wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 2:05 am


If people are not interested in discovering what actual 'validity', or not, others have and hold, then so be it. But there is no use someone expressing how the validity holds up if others just believe there can not be any anyway.
Enlightenment cannot be force fed.
True, but I do not work that way.

I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.

I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.

People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am
A person must be seeking truth before they can actually find it.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.

Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.

(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)

Atla
Posts: 582
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by Atla » January 25th, 2020, 9:35 am

creation wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 9:01 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am


Enlightenment cannot be force fed.
True, but I do not work that way.

I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.

I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.

People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am
A person must be seeking truth before they can actually find it.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.

Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.

(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
If you want to preach about your childish hallucinations which you consider 'truth', open your own topics.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 998
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by h_k_s » January 25th, 2020, 10:02 am

creation wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 9:01 am
h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am


Enlightenment cannot be force fed.
True, but I do not work that way.

I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.

I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.

People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.
h_k_s wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 7:17 am
A person must be seeking truth before they can actually find it.
Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.

Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.

(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
One thing of many that Robert M. Pirsig (technical writer, author, and philosopher) wrote about in his books is that truth is always just stumbled upon.

We then only afterwards use inductive and deductive reasoning to explain it, mostly to ourselves, as it were.

creation
Posts: 610
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Magical thinking in science and philosophy

Post by creation » January 25th, 2020, 10:18 am

Atla wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 9:35 am
creation wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 9:01 am


True, but I do not work that way.

I do not argue anything to 'convince' anyone.

I want people to see, understand, and accept things for, and by, themselves. I certainly do not want people to accept anything I say if they cannot see and understand it for, and by, themselves.

People do not truly accept things, anyway, unless they can fully see or understand it themselves.



Not necessarily. But it can help, that is; as long as the 'truth' they are seeking is not a 'truth' just to back up and support a previously held assumption, view, and/or belief that they have.

Personally, I found, or more correctly stumbled upon, or across, 'truth' completely unintentionally and accidentally. I was not seeking 'truth' at all. I was just in the process of doing something else.

(If what I stumbled across, though, is actually 'the truth' or not, is still yet to be determined?)
If you want to preach about your childish hallucinations which you consider 'truth', open your own topics.
What brought this on?

This appears to be in direct contradiction of what I actually said here, and have been saying all along.

My WHOLE point is that 'truth' is relative to the observer, if this was not noticed, or not yet already known.

I have absolutely NOTHING I want to preach. I thought I made that clear by writing that I do not want to convince anyone of anything.

Locked