Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm Don't be ridiculous. The amount of information you're trying to play off as limited is vastly more than any individual can comprehend and is for philosophical purposes indistinguishable from infinite.

What part of "finite data is described by infinitely many stories" do you not understand?

ALL the available information is finite.
A subset of ALL the available information is still finite.

So any view formed upon incomplete information could be falsified by simply examining the remaining-but-available evidence.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm It is not limited relative to how much someone can reasonably do with it in their short life-span, which is the problem that a solution rectifies.

Sure. So how do you choose a story a priori examining ALL the available evidence?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm There are infinite possible stories that explain some minor part of the universe, obviously.

No. that's a strawman.

IF the universe is finite, there are infinite possible stories that explain ALL OF IT.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm That's also obviously not what we're discussing here. "The Solution" ties them ALL together.. That's the contention, and it holds up.

What do you mean by "ties them up"? If you mean that the solution recognises that all stories are equally likely and therefore equally valid- sure.

If you mean that "the solution' assigns them relative value" - nope.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm Under-determination isn't relevant but the solution explains why it's not. It's not relevant because there will always be missing information and there's no way to know IF you are under-determining until after the fact.

Exactly. Which is why scientists understand that multiple theories can explain exactly the same set of facts.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm In the moment if you had Reason to believe you were under-determining you'd look for more information. In other words, it is a concept that attempts to incorporate future hypotheticals. This is the same problem with "justified true belief". The "true" part can't be known with the evidence available or there would be no question of validity to be discussed.

It doesn't address observational equivalence.

100 stories. Different stories - all making the same observational predictions. What then?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm Or to dismiss it from a different perspective, we have to work with what we've got. Saying an answer is insufficient for Any purpose because it does not account for unknown unknowns is absurd. Only by knowing whether those unknowns actually exist can you know if they're effectively accounted for.

I consider myself quite the pragmatist/self-skeptic in this regard. How would I act in the world IF all of my knowledge was wrong unbeknown to me?

Counter-factual reasoning...

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:39 pm It's nothing to do with me. If you'd judge a solution based on it's ability to answer questions, that's the proper criteria. Anything else really isn't doing philosophy. And no, before you say it, any random answer cannot be "the ability to answer questions" in this context.

A coin can answer questions. With the caveat that 50% of the time it's wrong.

This is the principle upon which science is built. Predictors need to beat coins.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:39 pm Stop being so particular. It's not helpful.

The person who insists on actionable certainty despises particularity.

I guess you do very non-particular things in very non-particular ways.

>What part of "finite data is described by infinitely many stories" do you not understand?

>ALL the available information is finite.
>A subset of ALL the available information is still finite.

"ALL the available information is finite." is identical to "ALL the finite information is finite." GTFO

>So any view formed upon incomplete information could be falsified by simply examining the remaining-but-available evidence.

ALL views are formed upon incomplete information. That doesn't relate to whether it's complete Enough "for all intents and purposes", and positing future hypothetical information that refutes it isn't meaningful.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm It is not limited relative to how much someone can reasonably do with it in their short life-span, which is the problem that a solution rectifies.

>Sure. So how do you choose a story a priori examining ALL the available evidence?

I don't examine all the available evidence the way you mean, i examine all the evidence available to me, then look for exceptions. You can define new problems for my story into existence all you want but they remain irrelevant and the story remains the best summation of all knowledge ever compiled. Why do you want so hard for there not to be an answer? Or don't you have criteria that allow it? If you can list your criteria with reasonable specificity, and they're actually relevant, they can be met.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm That's also obviously not what we're discussing here. "The Solution" ties them ALL together.. That's the contention, and it holds up.

>What do you mean by "ties them up"? If you mean that the solution recognises that all stories are equally likely and therefore equally valid- sure.

At this point i don't think you're really trying to engage with what i've said. I mean it explains how they fit together. That's basic English now, not even logic. You really don't care about philosophy at all, do you? You're really Only a skeptic, aren't you?

>...scientists understand that multiple theories can explain exactly the same set of facts.

That's only true at the cutting edge of science where we know that we know the least. The Answer is a meta-story that goes well beyond that.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:36 pm In the moment if you had Reason to believe you were under-determining you'd look for more information. In other words, it is a concept that attempts to incorporate future hypotheticals. This is the same problem with "justified true belief". The "true" part can't be known with the evidence available or there would be no question of validity to be discussed.

>It doesn't address observational equivalence.

>100 stories. Different stories - all making the same observational predictions. What then?

Then they're all equally as true/real/warranted/etc. Those wouldn't be different stories at all, they'd be the same story told with different words. If you check out https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ (The Prime Metaphor), you'll see i've integrated the ones i've found.

If you want to dismiss my version of the story, you'll also have to dismiss at least six other major philosophers whose stories substantially agree. (to a point, their stories are incomplete)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:43 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:39 pm It's nothing to do with me. If you'd judge a solution based on it's ability to answer questions, that's the proper criteria. Anything else really isn't doing philosophy. And no, before you say it, any random answer cannot be "the ability to answer questions" in this context.

A coin can answer questions. With the caveat that 50% of the time it's wrong.

This is the principle upon which science is built. Predictors need to beat coins.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:39 pm Stop being so particular. It's not helpful.

The person who insists on actionable certainty despises particularity.

I guess you do very non-particular things in very non-particular ways.

There is a level of understanding that provides insight and there is a level of understanding that is all trees, no forest. I've dealt with the infinite regress of "prove it" many times. It never goes anywhere or convinces anyone. If basic reasoning and common understandings aren't sufficient, philosophy is useless. More to the point, the particular particularities you raise Aren't Relevant!

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:01 pm There is a level of understanding that provides insight and there is a level of understanding that is all trees, no forest.

That's precisely the kind of answers I find valuable. Strategy over tactics.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:01 pm I've dealt with the infinite regress of "prove it" many times. It never goes anywhere or convinces anyone. If basic reasoning and common understandings aren't sufficient, philosophy is useless. More to the point, the particular particularities you raise Aren't Relevant!

Sufficient for what purpose? Relevant for what purpose?

Without a criterion for sufficiency or relevancy we can disagree about stuff eternally. Err. I mean - we can do philosophy eternally.

Philosophy is generally useless, but appearances must be maintained to avoid the moral panic.

>Sufficient for what purpose?

To provide meaningful insight (at least) to all philosophical questions.

>Relevant for what purpose?

To increase actionable certainty (for which some deconstruction is necessary, but not sufficient).

-

One reason philosopy goes nowhere is that people more often than not do Not try to stick to the central point and wander off in some direction that doesn't lead to insight. Any thought can be taken in infinite directions. It takes "true wisdom" to see the difference.

I'm not interested in debating the particulars because my answers Being with fully deconstructing those ideas and address the particulars that matter as a matter of course. In other words, intellectual advancement requires Closing ones mind to various ideas that don't hold water as a prerequisite for progress. Continuously debating fundamentals is the antithesis of pragmatism and it's not even idealism.

If the conversation isn't of a kind that can approach what to do about it, it's useless speculation. If i say someone isn't reaching their full potential it isn't useful to mention negative potential since that's obviously not what i mean in common English.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:02 am

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:55 am If it is a solution then it cannot be rejected on grounds of logic or experience.

It can be rejected on any grounds. If you run out of grounds to reject it on, then reject it on aesthetics alone - I don't like your solution!
Least you insist aesthetics is not valid philosophical grounds.

It can only be rejected on grounds of logic and experience. If it passes both tests then in philosophy it cannot be rejected. [/quote]

The burden of rejection is significantly lighter than the burden of proof.

I'd say not, but it seems this way because all but correct theory is wreng and won't withstand analysis, meaning that almost all theories may be rejected. .

But lets not pretend that philosophy has any clear notion of what a "solution" would even look like. Least we solve the problem of criterion by accident.

It constantly amazes me that so many people believe this. It's as if they have no idea what lies beyond the walls of the Academy. This is my complaint about the magazine, and I suppose this parochial approach is bound to be reflected on the forum.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:43 pm It constantly amazes me that so many people believe this. It's as if they have no idea what lies beyond the walls of the Academy. This is my complaint about the magazine, and I suppose this parochial approach is bound to be reflected on the forum.

I've tried having a discussion about what the proper criteria for the best world view would be but got nowhere. :/ I'm in this forum because i haven't found another one that sucks less.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:43 pm It can only be rejected on grounds of logic and experience. If it passes both tests then in philosophy it cannot be rejected.

If philosophy doesn't allow me to reject things on aesthetic terms then I reject philosophy.

What now?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm To provide meaningful insight (at least) to all philosophical questions.

You haven't addressed the question sufficiently.

What is the purpose providing meaningful insight to all philosophical questions?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm To increase actionable certainty (for which some deconstruction is necessary, but not sufficient).

You haven't addressed the question sufficiently.

What is the purpose of increasing certainty (for which some deconstruction is necessary, but not sufficient)?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm One reason philosopy goes nowhere is that people more often than not do Not try to stick to the central point and wander off in some direction that doesn't lead to insight. Any thought can be taken in infinite directions. It takes "true wisdom" to see the difference.

The point is in your face.

Your answers are insufficient.

But lets not pretend that philosophy has any clear notion of what a "solution" would even look like. Least we solve the problem of criterion by accident.

My world view solves that "problem" easily - no problem. Knowledge is justified belief. (I'm using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem ... _criterion as my base understanding.)

We "know" according to a set of evidentiary criteria that provide more or less actionable certainty. But this isn't an epistemology post.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:48 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm To provide meaningful insight (at least) to all philosophical questions.

You haven't addressed the question sufficiently.

What is the purpose providing meaningful insight to all philosophical questions?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm To increase actionable certainty (for which some deconstruction is necessary, but not sufficient).

You haven't addressed the question sufficiently.

What is the purpose of increasing certainty (for which some deconstruction is necessary, but not sufficient)?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 pm One reason philosopy goes nowhere is that people more often than not do Not try to stick to the central point and wander off in some direction that doesn't lead to insight. Any thought can be taken in infinite directions. It takes "true wisdom" to see the difference.

The point is in your face.

Your answers are insufficient.

You said my first answer wasn't sufficient because it didn't address the points in the second answer and vice versa. You're just an asshole.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:52 pm You said my first answer wasn't sufficient because it didn't address the points in the second answer and vice versa. You're just an asshole.

Your "vice versa" is a non-sequitur.

NEITHER of your answers addressed their respective questions sufficiently.
BOTH of your answers failed to sufficiently tackle an over-arching telos. But lets not get bogged down with big philosophical words.

You failed to tackle "Why?".

I am a dick, not an asshole. It's put in my name (Skepdick) so it doesn't surprise you - it's a form of intellectual honesty.

And yet you are surprised.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:51 pm My world view solves that "problem" easily - no problem. Knowledge is justified belief.

Just as soon as you justify your justifications, you'll be on your way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa%27s_trilemma

But on less formal grounds, I have to call you out on your bullshit.

If your world-view "solves that problem easily" then surely you can justify WHY you believe in increasing actionable certainty.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:56 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:52 pm You said my first answer wasn't sufficient because it didn't address the points in the second answer and vice versa. You're just an asshole.

Your "vice versa" is a non-sequitur.

NEITHER of your answers addressed their respective questions sufficiently.
BOTH of your answers failed to sufficiently tackle an over-arching telos. But lets not get bogged down with big philosophical words.

You failed to tackle "Why?".

I am a dick, not an asshole. It's put in my name (Skepdick) so it doesn't surprise you - it's a form of intellectual honesty.

And yet you are surprised.

I did answer "why", actionable certainty.

Being proud of being a dick makes you an asshole.