The Existential Crisis

[surreptitious57]

How do you know that you understand ?

I use the tools for understanding such as logic and reason and convey this through language
This is so that others who share that language can also understand what I am trying to say

[Skepdick]

I use the tools for understanding such as logic and reason and convey this through language
This is so that others who share that language can also understand what I am trying to say

Are you sure you understand how to use those tools?

[surreptitious57]

Are you sure you understand how to use those tools ?

I know the difference between thinking logically and thinking emotionally
I know when my reasoning is flawed and how those flaws can be corrected

[uwot]

... show me an asymmetry (information).

This is a philosophy forum.

If you actually grok the computational framework, you might even understand that I am asking you for a Proof net.

Try a computer science forum. Someone there might give a fuck.

[Skepdick]

This is a philosophy forum.

So what? Are philosophers exempt from answering questions?

How does it go again... Why should you get a free pass?

About formalisation? Yep, don't give a fuck.

An informal one would suffice.

You don't give a fuck about formal answers.
You don't give a fuck about informal answers.

Do you even know what you give a fuck about?
Can you even tell me what it is that you fucking want?

That's a simple, informal question and you have been avoiding it like the plague!

Try a computer science forum. Someone there might give a fuck.

Computer science is philosophy - it's the metaphysics of problem-solving through the invention/engineering of new languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalingu ... bstraction

In computer science, metalinguistic abstraction is the process of solving complex problems by creating a new language or vocabulary to better understand the problem space. It is a recurring theme in the seminal MIT textbook, the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, which uses Scheme as a framework for constructing new languages

History repeats itself. New science spins off and philosopher needs to find something new to play with...

Have you considered a poetry forum? Somebody there might give a fuck about what you have to say.

[uwot]

Computer science is philosophy...

Yaaay! Welcome to the dumb philosophers club Skepdick.

History repeats itself. New science spins off and philosopher needs to find something new to play with...

Absolutely, did I mention that I have an MSc in this shit from UCL? Anyway, certainly in the western tradition that's the pattern. - Start with a question you don't know how to answer - Look at it from all sorts of angles until you find a way to answer it - Turn that method into a science. Great to see that philosophy is still producing results.

Have you considered a poetry forum? Somebody there might give a fuck about what you have to say.

Aw now Skepdick, that's just sour grapes. You know perfectly well that I write articles that people give a shit about.

[Skepdick]

Absolutely, did I mention that I have an MSc in this shit from UCL?

Did I mention that I worked myself into my position empirically?

Having an MSc too (recently attained) I can tell you it was a waste of time/money/effort...

Look at it from all sorts of angles until you find a way to answer it

Is that what you paid the UCL for?!?! Consider asking for your money back!

What if the question is undecidable? Surely you want to be able to discern useful questions from useless questions before you begin chasing your own tail?

If you didn't acquire the skill to identify stupid questions - it doesn't sounds like you learned much.

that method into a science.

The method IS the "science".

Decidability IS computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Great to see that philosophy is still producing results.

Great to see philosophers taking credit for all the work they didn't do...

[uwot]

Did I mention...

Frankly Skepdick I can't be bothered to separate what little philosophy there is in your post from the playground insults. The great thing about philosophy is that you don't have to be a philosopher to do it. Creating a coherent narrative to account for one's experiences is philosophy. So is challenging deluded individuals who insist their coherent narrative is special. I've made a few enemies, but more often than not they'll repeat something I have said as if they owned it. For instance:

that method into a science.

The method IS the "science".

Which leaves me thinking ah well, at least the silly twat learnt something.

[Skepdick]

Did I mention...

Frankly Skepdick I can't be bothered to separate what little philosophy there is in your post from the playground insults. The great thing about philosophy is that you don't have to be a philosopher to do it. Creating a coherent narrative to account for one's experiences is philosophy. So is challenging deluded individuals who insist their coherent narrative is special. I've made a few enemies, but more often than not they'll repeat something I have said as if they owned it. For instance:

that method into a science.

The method IS the "science".

Which leaves me thinking ah well, at least the silly twat learnt something.

Rinse, repeat... how do you know that your narrative is coherent?

What's your testable, reproducible and falsifiable method for determining "coherency"?

It's almost as if you have no scientific criteria for such things...

[uwot]

Rinse, repeat... how do you know that your narrative is coherent?

What's your testable, reproducible and falsifiable method for determining "coherency"?

It's almost as if you have no scientific criteria for such things...

Skepdick, you clearly have no idea about Feyerabend given that you can keep banging on with your dreary questions about which I have made it abundantly clear that I could not care less. Here is the conclusion to the article you claim to have read:

Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) was one of four people personally thanked by Kuhn in the Preface to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Feyerabend had turned down an offer to be Popper’s research assistant. Having started his academic career as a physicist he was well qualified to make that judgement. As the history of gravity shows, explanation, demonstration, and usefulness have all played a critical role in science; and Feyerabend was concerned that any reductive scientific method, such as Popper was advocating, would have ruled out some part of that history. No one likes being told what to think or do, and scientists are no exception. Rather, Feyerabend thought that the only prescription for science that could accommodate every stumble and leap is methodological anarchy, or as Feyerabend put it, anything goes. He took the view that by far the most important criterion is that a theory should be useful – it didn’t matter to who, or what for. Feyerabend gave this insight: “Having listened to one of my anarchistic sermons, Professor Wigner exclaimed: ‘But surely, you do not read all the manuscripts which people send you, you must throw most of them into the wastepaper basket.’ I most certainly do. ‘Anything goes’ does not mean that I shall read every single paper that has been written – God forbid! – it means that I make my selection in a highly individual and idiosyncratic way, partly because I can’t be bothered to read what doesn’t interest me – and my interests change from week to week and day to day – partly because I am convinced that humanity and even science will profit from everyone doing their own thing” (Against Method, 1975). Whatever anyone thinks should or shouldn’t qualify as science, the fact is that science is done by people. Some of those people are rationalists, some are empiricists, and some are pragmatists; and no matter what rules are imposed, people break them. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

If you still don't get it, it is because you are an idiot.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, you clearly have no idea about Feyerabend given that you can keep banging on with your dreary questions about which I have made it abundantly clear that I could not care less. Here is the conclusion to the article you claim to have read:

If you still don't get it, it is because you are an idiot.

Well. Clearly you don't fucking "get it" - and you wrote the fucking article.

Feyerarbend is speaking from the 3rd person perspective. He is making a general statement about general application of epistemology which says nothing whatsoever in particular about any particular epistemologist. Feyerarbend doesn't even say anything about his own motivations or criteria for "usefulness".

From a 1st person perspective surely YOU-the-epistemologists have some notion of "utility", "usefulness" and "coherence"?
Surely you-the-epistemologist have some mechanism which informs you when your work is NOT useful even to you; when something is NOT working; when something is NOT coherent? You must have such things - you have criteria for self-falsification. Otherwise literally anything goes! Even if it's wrong, useless and incoherent to you-the-epistemologist!

Why can't YOU-the-epistemologist say ANYTHING about those things? Oh, I know why!

Because you aren't a fucking epistemologist! You only TALK about epistemology (3rd person) - you have never DONE epistemology (1st person).

I'd explain to you why this is the difference between ensamble averages and time averages... but you don't care about shit stuff.

[uwot]

From a 1st person perspective surely YOU-the-epistemologists have some notion of "utility", "usefulness" and "coherence"?
Surely you-the-epistemologist have some mechanism which informs you when your work is NOT useful even to you; when something is NOT working; when something is NOT coherent? You must have such things - you have criteria for self-falsification.

Well Skepdick, if I build a boat and it sinks, it's a crappy boat. The thing is any criterion is only useful in a particular context. As Feyerabend said: "there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other."

Otherwise literally anything goes!

Which is literally what Feyerabend advocated: "The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."

[Skepdick]

Well Skepdick, if I build a boat and it sinks, it's a crappy boat.

Which is literally what Feyerabend advocated: "The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."

Anything goes! Even boats that don't boat.

Surely you can tell that what Feyerabend advocated for was woefully incomplete?

As Feyerabend said: "there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other."

All the more reason for you to catch a statistical wake-up call.

A rule that holds more than not is still a valid rule, but epistemic rules aren't supposed to be communicated (not that you can anyway) - they are simply supposed to be applied consistently - ceteris paribus is about strict control over your own reference frame.

[uwot]

Surely you can tell that what Feyerabend advocated for was woefully incomplete?

I support Feyerabend 100%.

[Skepdick]

Surely you can tell that what Feyerabend advocated for was woefully incomplete?

I support Feyerabend 100%.

And? It's just a contradiction.

Surely you can navigate around it in the context of the conversation progressing?