The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.

[Eodnhoj7]

A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

Hence - the problem of induction. We use past behaviour as predictor for future behaviour. Because we have no better way.

But to avoid Russel's inductivist turkey problem we employ counter-factual reasoning.

The problem of continual reduction is that it ends up cycling back to generalities. I can reduce x phenomenon to the relations of y and z, but this reduction results in a generalized state of the phenomenon's y and z through "x".

[Logik]

A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

Hence - the problem of induction. We use past behaviour as predictor for future behaviour. Because we have no better way.

But to avoid Russel's inductivist turkey problem we employ counter-factual reasoning.

The problem of continual reduction is that it ends up cycling back to generalities. I can reduce x phenomenon to the relations of y and z, but this reduction results in a generalized state of the phenomenon's y and z through "x".

Induction not reduction.

Analysis/reductionism and synthesis/holism are the two extremes of the same pendulum - systems thinking.
They are different but inseparable.

Hence the notion of emergence and "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

[uwot]

If it is a question of "taste" or a question of "language"; then your science is not really truly objective now is it?

Well, the experiments and the maths can be done by anyone; so it's objective in that sense at least. It is the interpretation and language that people use to describe the results that is subjective.

[uwot]

I think we are agreeing in the most unexpected of ways.

If there is no such thing as "failure" or "wrong" then divorcing ethics from science MAY be an error.

Well yeah, that is unexpected, because I don't remember saying anything about ethics in this context.

Post-modernism is a blessing in disguise. In showing us that all narratives are equally meaningless it forces us to confront the actual problem.
Human values and morality are more fundamental than narratives or knowledge!

Given the range of values expressed by humans, do you not think that they are themselves narratives?

If there is no such thing as "error" then anything goes! There is absolutely no mechanism to filter out the good ideas from the bad...

I dunno; falsificationism has its merits.

Which leans towards the realm of Model-dependent realism in that the predictive utility of a model is the only criterion for its validity.

Hence the human problem - 50 models with equivalent predictive utility leads to silly arguments.

Yup, broadly agree with that.

[11011]

post-modernism is anti-knowledge and cultural genocide, and is pretty much ushering in a second Dark Ages

the limitations of science do not merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater; that said, science isn't going anywhere, most of what is being talked about in this thread is only going on at social/cultural level, behind closed doors the scientific method still reigns as far as basic and applied research is concerned

however, i fear there is no 'philosophy behind closed doors' and the institution are very much failing in this department, literally

[Eodnhoj7]

Hence - the problem of induction. We use past behaviour as predictor for future behaviour. Because we have no better way.

But to avoid Russel's inductivist turkey problem we employ counter-factual reasoning.

The problem of continual reduction is that it ends up cycling back to generalities. I can reduce x phenomenon to the relations of y and z, but this reduction results in a generalized state of the phenomenon's y and z through "x".

Induction not reduction.

Analysis/reductionism and synthesis/holism are the two extremes of the same pendulum - systems thinking.
They are different but inseparable.

Hence the notion of emergence and "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

No I do mean "reduction". If I reduce a phenomena continually:

X is reduced to Y and Z
by default "X" is an inductive state of by Y and Z.

Second continual reduction effectively observes a regressive continuum. This regressive continuum is an inductive state itself as not only is it a summation of the reductive state but effectively the reductive state is a general state in and of itself.

[Logik]

No I do mean "reduction". If I reduce a phenomena continually:

X is reduced to Y and Z
by default "X" is an inductive state of by Y and Z.

Second continual reduction effectively observes a regressive continuum. This regressive continuum is an inductive state itself as not only is it a summation of the reductive state but effectively the reductive state is a general state in and of itself.

Infinitism. Turtles all the way down.

If you want answers you need to go the other way. Holism.

[Eodnhoj7]

No I do mean "reduction". If I reduce a phenomena continually:

X is reduced to Y and Z
by default "X" is an inductive state of by Y and Z.

Second continual reduction effectively observes a regressive continuum. This regressive continuum is an inductive state itself as not only is it a summation of the reductive state but effectively the reductive state is a general state in and of itself.

Infinitism. Turtles all the way down.

If you want answers you need to go the other way. Holism.

False, holism is grounded in a continuum of infinitism. The whole must be "timeless" and hence "infinite" otherwise it exists as a successive series of parts and therefore is not whole.

Try again.

[Logik]

False, holism is grounded in a continuum of infinitism. The whole must be "timeless" and hence "infinite" otherwise it exists as a successive series of parts and therefore is not whole.

Try again.

You can't ground anytihng on infinitism because the concept of infinity is not realizable in practice.

Shoe me an infinitely long number.

[surreptitious57]

Plenty of infinitely long numbers with pi being the most obvious one [ I think you meant an infinitely
long integer or whole number but as you didnt specify then irrationals can be included here as well ]

[Logik]

Plenty of infinitely long numbers with pi being the most obvious one [ I think you meant an infinitely
long integer or whole number but as you didnt specify then irrationals can be included here as well ]

Pi is not infinite. Pi is irrational. It's only infinite in theory.

In practice it's as finite as your best approximation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47524760

[Eodnhoj7]

Plenty of infinitely long numbers with pi being the most obvious one [ I think you meant an infinitely
long integer or whole number but as you didnt specify then irrationals can be included here as well ]

Pi is not infinite. Pi is irrational. It's only infinite in theory.

In practice it's as finite as your best approximation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47524760

But you claim infinity is irrational.

Second pi is claimed as a transcendental number relative to certain "fields" in mathematics.

Third, finiteness is a contradiction in terms. If all phenomenon are finite, then by default time is a continuum and this continuum is infinite. If time does not continue; then "finiteness" eventually both as a concept and as an empirical reality cancels itself out and you have no grounding for finiteness.

Fourth, you assume "finiteness"; therefore you do not define it except as an assumption. As an assumption it exists as "is" and as such is formless; hence "infinite" as a concept considering all assumptions are absent of form. One assumption relative to another results in form; where one axiom is connected to or seperated from another. This necessitates all finiteness, through the assumptive nature of the axiom as multiple infinities.

Assumption is formlessness and fundamentally irrational.

[Logik]

But you claim infinity is irrational.

I claim that infinity is not a useful concept for a finite mind.

You want me to define "finiteness"? Limits.

Limited time.
Limited energy.
Limited observations.
Limited decisions.
Limited samples/experiments.
Limited sets.
Limited number of integers.
Limited precision.

Bounded rationality.

[Eodnhoj7]

But you claim infinity is irrational.

I claim that infinity is not a useful concept for a finite mind.

You want me to define "finiteness"? Limits.

Limited time.
Limited energy.
Limited observations.
Limited decisions.
Limited samples/experiments.
Limited sets.
Limited number of integers.
Limited precision.

Bounded rationality.

And describe "x" (with "x" observing all the "axioms" the axiom of "limit" is connected to...rofl; law 2 and 3) without going into an limited regress.

Second, are these the only "phenomenon" which have limits? If they are not, then your finite definition is irrational.

[Logik]

But you claim infinity is irrational.

I claim that infinity is not a useful concept for a finite mind.

You want me to define "finiteness"? Limits.

Limited time.
Limited energy.
Limited observations.
Limited decisions.
Limited samples/experiments.
Limited sets.
Limited number of integers.
Limited precision.

Bounded rationality.

And describe "x" (with "x" observing all the "axioms" the axiom of "limit" is connected to...rofl; law 2 and 3) without going into an limited regress.

Second, are these the only "phenomenon" which have limits? If they are not, then your finite definition is irrational.

Nonsense. If you insist on completeness then the prime triad is also incomplete.

If there are infinite axioms, please go ahead and list them. Not some of them. All of them.

I'll drink some wine while you get on with it.