Page 3 of 6

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:20 pm
by Age
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:06 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:18 pm There is a huge difference between some thing BEING true, right, and correct, from some thing only being ASSUMED to be true, right, and correct.

I suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other and hence it is pointless to assert that there is a difference.
So, you have suggested that. And so, because you ASSUME it be true, AND, according to you there is NO difference between that assumption and if there is a difference or not, then that MUST mean you are absolutely correct. Therefore, you now BELIEVE you are absolutely true, right, and correct, and so it IS actually TRUE that it is pointless to assert that there is a difference between assuming some thing is true, and, investigating, uncovering, discovering, and finding out for sure, and then finally knowing, for sure, if that thing is actually true or not.

Do you have anything else to add to; It is impossible to distinguish between an actual truth and an assumed truth? Or, is that all you have?

Admittedly I could have worded my sentence MORE accurately but as it stands now, to me, it is still correct.

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:43 pm
by surreptitious57
Seagull wrote:
I suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other and hence it is pointless to assert that there is a difference
This is simply not true as assumed truth can be falsified by new evidence while actual truth cannot be falsified at all
But it is only true for some assumed truth as evidence is generally inductive so cannot always falsify what is not true

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:54 pm
by TimeSeeker
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:43 pm I suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other and hence it is pointless to assert that there is a difference
What happens when new methods/tools allow for a previously-untestable assumption to become testable?

And therefore a distinction that could not be made in the past, to be made in the future?

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:54 pm
by surreptitious57
TimeSeeker wrote:
What happens when new methods / tools allow for a previously untestable assumption to become testable ?

And therefore a distinction that could not be made in the past to be made in the future ?
This is the problem with induction which only deals in probable truth not in actual truth
And is the reason why scientific knowledge cannot be regarded as being absolutely true

Every single theory that is regarded as being probably true now could be falsified at any point in the future
What future evidence that could subsequently falsify a theory is not known but the possibility always exists

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:01 pm
by TimeSeeker
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:54 pm This is the problem with induction which only deals in probable truth not in actual truth
And is the reason why scientific knowledge cannot be regarded as being absolutely true
Well, since time never really stops and everything is always changing then everything is induction.
Any proposition you make now IS a claim about the future, not the past.

Be it the future 3 seconds from now or the future 5000 years from now.

What then?

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:15 pm
by surreptitious57
TimeSeeker wrote:
since time never really stops and everything is always changing then everything is induction
Any proposition you make now IS a claim about the future not the past

Be it the future 3 seconds from now or the future 5000 years from now
Science uses existing knowledge to make potentially falsifiable hypotheses in order to acquire more knowledge
It will always be provisional but the quantity and quality of it increases over time so it can always be built upon

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:18 pm
by TimeSeeker
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:15 pm Science uses existing knowledge to make potentially falsifiable hypotheses in order to acquire more knowledge
It will always be provisional but the quantity and quality of it increases over time so it can always be built upon
Yeah. Science goes the other way more often than not. It eradicates bullshit through falsification.

What has survived falsification is "knowledge". For now...

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:43 pm
by surreptitious57
TimeSeeker wrote:
What has survived falsification is knowledge . For now ...
True and absolute knowledge can really only be arrived at through falsification
Everything else has to treated as only provisionally true or potentially falsifiable
Even when the knowledge in question is absolutely true but is not known to be so

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:49 pm
by TimeSeeker
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:43 pm True and absolute knowledge can really only be arrived at through falsification
Everything else has to treated as only provisionally true or potentially falsifiable
Even when the knowledge in question is absolutely true but is not known to be so
Which necessarily brings us to the topic of risk management.

The only thing I know for certain is that my knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete. In some way. In some aspect that I do not and cannot recognize. This is model error ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals )

And so if I am making DECISIONS and taking ACTION on my PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE now matter how rigorous I must consider what happens WHEN (not IF) I am wrong. However unlikely-but-possible it is...

Which is why ethics cannot be decoupled from truth! I am still accountable for the consequences of my actions. Even if they are based on the best-but-incomplete scientific knowledge.

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 pm
by A_Seagull
Age wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:20 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:06 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:18 pm There is a huge difference between some thing BEING true, right, and correct, from some thing only being ASSUMED to be true, right, and correct.

I suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other and hence it is pointless to assert that there is a difference.
So, you have suggested that. And so, because you ASSUME it be true, AND, according to you there is NO difference between that assumption and if there is a difference or not, then that MUST mean you are absolutely correct. Therefore, you now BELIEVE you are absolutely true, right, and correct, and so it IS actually TRUE that it is pointless to assert that there is a difference between assuming some thing is true, and, investigating, uncovering, discovering, and finding out for sure, and then finally knowing, for sure, if that thing is actually true or not.

Do you have anything else to add to; It is impossible to distinguish between an actual truth and an assumed truth? Or, is that all you have?

Admittedly I could have worded my sentence MORE accurately but as it stands now, to me, it is still correct.
So do you have a method for distinguishing an assumed truth from an actual truth or not?

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:02 pm
by A_Seagull
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:43 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
What has survived falsification is knowledge . For now ...
True and absolute knowledge can really only be arrived at through falsification
So you are saying that something is either not true or it is false?

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:05 pm
by TimeSeeker
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:02 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:43 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
What has survived falsification is knowledge . For now ...
True and absolute knowledge can really only be arrived at through falsification
So you are saying that something is either not true or it is false?
I take a rather pragmatic stance on truth.

Truth is whatever works. Or rather - if it doesn’t work it isn’t true.

All descriptions of realty are incomplete. Some are worse than others...

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

How complete a description do you want/need and why? If truth has no use then what is it for etc.

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:55 am
by Eodnhoj7
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:05 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:02 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:43 pm

True and absolute knowledge can really only be arrived at through falsification
So you are saying that something is either not true or it is false?
I take a rather pragmatic stance on truth.

Truth is whatever works. Or rather - if it doesn’t work it isn’t true.

All descriptions of realty are incomplete. Some are worse than others...

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

How complete a description do you want/need and why? If truth has no use then what is it for etc.
And what is pragmatic exactly? That really is the problem, considering it in itself is subjective.

Take for example industrialization. It was deemed as pragmatic because of its ability, as a philosophy because industrialization is a way of looking at the world, to give us abundant resources quickly and efficiently.

The problem occurs in that the resources it manifests causes:

1. A drain on the natural environment at a rate not replenishable.

2. The formation of items which we do not really need, but rather must be forced upon a populace by manipulating them.

3. A rewiring of the balance of nature where not just the previously mentioned resources, but human reproduction and sexuality, standard manual labor (which was available to everyone), basic physical fitness, the nutritional quality of the foods produced, etc has changed.

4. Constant expression of people's opinions over social media devices, negating the ability for the average person to not just think clearly, but silence there minds and hearts and be satisfied where they are at (no one in the western world is satisfied with themselves when they are continually told they do not fit a specific standard, should not be satisified with what they have, etc.)

5. The eradication of any form of natural social structure where people "must" rely on eachother for survival and make various grades of sacrifices (time, money, patience, etc.) to eachother. People, generally speaking, feel a greater degree of isolation and lack of meaning because there inability to not just be a contributing member to some group or society, but because they are not entirely sure what constitutes a society in the face of relativistic individualism where materialistic goals are the only value.

6. Etc....I can go further. The issue really breaks down to whether pragmaticism is really pragmatic when countries, such as the US or Modern Japan, which embody those values lead the way in not just mental health problems but also suicides. Major depression is argued by some to eventually be the leading cause of death in the western world.

We cannot even take statistical arguments at point blank anymore, as the fake news phenomena, observes an inherent distrust and problems of ethics reflected everywhere.


How pragmatic is any of this?

Ideas form societies....

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:21 am
by Age
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 pm
Age wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:20 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:06 am

I suggest that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other and hence it is pointless to assert that there is a difference.
So, you have suggested that. And so, because you ASSUME it be true, AND, according to you there is NO difference between that assumption and if there is a difference or not, then that MUST mean you are absolutely correct. Therefore, you now BELIEVE you are absolutely true, right, and correct, and so it IS actually TRUE that it is pointless to assert that there is a difference between assuming some thing is true, and, investigating, uncovering, discovering, and finding out for sure, and then finally knowing, for sure, if that thing is actually true or not.

Do you have anything else to add to; It is impossible to distinguish between an actual truth and an assumed truth? Or, is that all you have?

Admittedly I could have worded my sentence MORE accurately but as it stands now, to me, it is still correct.
So do you have a method for distinguishing an assumed truth from an actual truth or not?
Yes.

If it is a truth for moral issues then distinguishing comes from NEED and AGREEMENT.

If it is a truth for any other issue then distinguishing comes just from AGREEMENT.

Now, of course this WILL stir up all the usual and same old supposed "counter" questioning and arguments, which inevitably ends up no where, just like this has for thousands upon thousands of years.

But truly OPEN clarifying questions WILL solve this issue once and for ALL.

Re: What do people want from philosophy?

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:47 am
by A_Seagull
Age wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:21 am
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 pm
Age wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:20 pm

So, you have suggested that. And so, because you ASSUME it be true, AND, according to you there is NO difference between that assumption and if there is a difference or not, then that MUST mean you are absolutely correct. Therefore, you now BELIEVE you are absolutely true, right, and correct, and so it IS actually TRUE that it is pointless to assert that there is a difference between assuming some thing is true, and, investigating, uncovering, discovering, and finding out for sure, and then finally knowing, for sure, if that thing is actually true or not.

Do you have anything else to add to; It is impossible to distinguish between an actual truth and an assumed truth? Or, is that all you have?

Admittedly I could have worded my sentence MORE accurately but as it stands now, to me, it is still correct.
So do you have a method for distinguishing an assumed truth from an actual truth or not?
Yes.

If it is a truth for moral issues then distinguishing comes from NEED and AGREEMENT.

If it is a truth for any other issue then distinguishing comes just from AGREEMENT.

Now, of course this WILL stir up all the usual and same old supposed "counter" questioning and arguments, which inevitably ends up no where, just like this has for thousands upon thousands of years.

But truly OPEN clarifying questions WILL solve this issue once and for ALL.
So what you are asserting is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one. It is one of degree rather than kind. And that there is a continuum between an assumed truth and an actual truth. So one might just as well refer to all of them as assumed truths, with a lesser or greater degree of confidence.