Religion

[Immanuel Can]

You already have the instrument required!

Name the instrument that scientifically and accurately quantifies "mind" or "morals" or "meaning." Go ahead.

Hume claimed that we can't traverse the is-ought gap.
Yet... you make choices somehow.

You've misunderstood Hume there. Hume isn't criticizing the ability to choose, but the legitimacy of converting a factual observation into a moral one.

Now I'm really interested. What "first principles" do you base your conclusions upon?

Like every scientist: my experiences.

Scientists don't trust their subjective experiences: they test them, through the scientific method. First principles are, by definition, untested suppositions...and if they're not, then they're by definition not the first of the principles being accepted...for then there's something prior to them.

A priori (expectations) and a posteriori (validations).

That's not what those terms mean, actually. A priori implies "known without and independent of experience" and "a posteriori," is "from or following experience." It's from Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction. They refer to different sorts of items of knowledge, not to expectations and validations of the same ones.

How disappointing to find out you didn't actually have any first principles in mind at all. Oh well.

[Univalence]

Name the instrument that scientifically and accurately quantifies "mind" or "morals" or "meaning." Go ahead.

THE MIND quantifies "mind", "morals" and "meaning". Have you heard of recursion/self-reference?

This is how it works. The English word "I" exemplifies the notion.

You've misunderstood Hume there. Hume isn't criticizing the ability to choose, but the legitimacy of converting a factual observation into a moral one.

No. I haven't misunderstood Hume. You haven't figured out how fundamental human values are to the PROCESS of choosing. Choosing what? ANYTHING?

Choosing between two different languages to talk about anything. Even philosophy.
Choosing between two scientific models which predict the same observations, but SAY different things about the actual causes ( Newton's theory of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity).
Choosing the language you USE to talk about deities (Christianity vs Islam).
Choosing how to categorize the world when you think about it.

Scientists don't trust their subjective experiences: they test them, through the scientific method.

Scientists trust their subjective experience enough to perform actual experiments! If they didn't - why would they even bother?
Which is what I said. I predict ( a priori ). I do experiment. I validate result (a posteriori). Science!

I predict that if I drink water the thirst will go away.
I drink water.
Thirst goes away.

Science!

I predict that if I buy my wife flowers she will smile.
I buy flowers.
She smiles.

Science!

That's not what those terms mean, actually.

You are telling me what my words mean to me now? Are you a mind reader?

A priori implies "known without and independent of experience" and "a posteriori," is "from or following experience."

What a stupid definition. The second you pop out of your mother's **** (and perhaps even much earlier than that) you can no longer tell the difference between "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge. Because you ARE experiencing, and you are learning - whether you want to or not. Is 2+2=4 a priori or a posteriori knowledge? Is your taste in music "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge? Is your name "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge?


What a scientist calls "a priori" is just GUESSING! Based on intuition. A hunch. Prediction ahead of time.
And "a posteriori" is validation - after the fact.

It's from Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction.

The same distinction Quine dispatched with in 1951?

They refer to different sorts of items of knowledge, not to expectations and validations of the same ones.

How disappointing to find out you didn't actually have any first principles in mind at all. Oh well.

But do observe you making my previous point for me. You have CHOSEN Kant's language to speak ABOUT knowledge.

Why haven't you chosen Popper's language; or Pauli's language; or Feynman's language; or Bayes' language; or Wittgenstein's language; or Quine's language; or Kierkegaard's language.

HOW and WHY did you CHOOSE Kant's language?

[Immanuel Can]

THE MIND quantifies "mind", "morals" and "meaning". Have you heard of recursion/self-reference?

I have heard of circular answers.

That's not what those terms mean, actually.

You are telling me what my words mean to me now? Are you a mind reader? [/quote]
No. I'm a guy who has a dictionary. https://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

[Univalence]

I have heard of circular answers.

It's not circular. It's recursive. Can you tell the difference?

No. I'm a guy who has a dictionary. https://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

Appeal to authority. The dictionary doesn't prescribe how one ought to use language.

The scientific meaning refers to time. The time of the experiment.

Before the experiment is "a priori" equivalent to the English meaning of "prior".
After the experiment is "a posteriori" equivalent to the English meaning of "posterior"

Which is also the jargon used by Thomas Bayes: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/po ... bility.asp

And probability theory/Bayesian inference happens to be The logic of science.

[Immanuel Can]

I have heard of circular answers.

It's not circular. It's recursive.

I have heard of circular answers. That's recursive.

No. I'm a guy who has a dictionary. https://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

Appeal to authority.

Yes. The authority of PhD's in a peer reviewed source. Shame on me.

Well, the impulse to lapse into irony is strong upon me, and I've found that's rarely profitable. So perhaps we shall part company. Thanks for your time.

[Univalence]

Yes. The authority of PhD's in a peer reviewed source. Shame on me.

And your point is? Does being a "PhD in a peer-reviewed journal" grant one the authority to prescribe language to others?

[Immanuel Can]

And your point is? Does being a "PhD in a peer-reviewed journal" grant one the authority to prescribe language?

Again, thanks for your time. Be well.

[Univalence]

And your point is? Does being a "PhD in a peer-reviewed journal" grant one the authority to prescribe language?

Again, thanks for your time. Be well.

Ok.

I shall simply draw attention to the fact that you have CHOSEN Kant's language to speak about epistemology.

But you think that has nothing to do with the is-ought gap even though "Which terminology OUGHT we CHOOSE to speak about epistemology?" would be a valid objection to your linguistic prescriptivism