Re: One for the loons.
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:34 pm
So, you want me to do what you obviously can not or will not do, is this correct?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So, you want me to do what you obviously can not or will not do, is this correct?
There is said to be still at least one parcel of land where the local inhabitants will react to intruders and throw spears at them to keep them away. Hopefully, these inhabitants are able to keep intruders away for a long time to come.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:55 amI suspect (leaving aside nutters) the reason people keep coming back to the topic is because we seem to have quite an amount of working knowledge. If the foundations were actually as weak as they seem, you'd expect reality to change in strange and unpredictable ways - and I don't just mean the election of Boris Johnson as UK PM.
We run quite complex societies, with lots of co-operating elements. I think its in one of Jared Diamond's books were he invites folk to appreciate how orderly the world has become; you can travel to a distant land, and the locals won't immediately react to you by throwing spears at you - which is likely what they should have done a few hundred thousand years ago.
The reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:55 amAnd, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".
But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.
Remember, if you are "throwing" arguments, then, for them to "stick" they need to be sound and valid arguments.-1- wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:06 amUwot, you are still conversing with @"age". I am telling you, throwing aruments at him is like throwing a rubber ball against a brick wall: both just bounce back without any effect of any kind on the bouncing surface.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:12 amWell, there's the observed red shift, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that gravity is not observably making the universe collapse for starters.Well no; the evidence just is what you observe. It's up to you how you interpret it.Think yer musta missed this bit:
Not going to argue against it, but still necessitates justified true belief as a variation of trillema.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:13 pmUnless you do everything in reverse. Start with some theorems, then look for some axioms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics
If you view this from an epistemological lens, mathematics is foundationalism, reverse mathematics is coherentism.
So what is it then?
That could be part of it, sometimes.Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:07 pmThe reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:55 amAnd, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".
But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.
When you say "world", what do you actually mean?PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:00 pmThat could be part of it, sometimes.Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:07 pmThe reason why there is so much misunderstanding, confusion, disagreement, disputing, and fighting is because we each individually have and use different definitions for the words we use to communicate with each other with.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:55 amAnd, yes, we've very large concerns about the sustainability of that, and getting agreement on what might be done about it is hard. But to have the world we have, an awful lot of stuff must be "known".
But, indeed, trying to describe what that means seems to generate more heat than light.
But the world couldn't function if we didn't understand each other most of the time.
Do they "know" this for certain?
I do not know. I do not know what a 'Wittgenstein' is, nor what it actually means.
The most important word here, from my perspective is, 'usually'.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:00 pmDefinition can be useful, and sometimes the problem is that the same word is being used to describe two different things. But words don't have a single meaning, and usually that doesn't matter. We usually understand each other quite well, without any need for definition.
That's exactly what it is Age. It's also evidence for explanations like 'tired light' and 'plasma redshift', even that the devil is trying to persuade us that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. There's lots of explanations for the evidence, it's just that some explanations are a bit crap.
The thing with evidence is that it is evidence for any explanation that is consistent with it. Physicists are very good at coming up with different explanations for exactly the same evidence, because they know perfectly well that no explanation we currently have explains everything.
You really have to do the maths. A few dozen relatively local galaxies, that are blue shifted, do not contradict the hundreds of billions that are red shifted.
I've noticed.
That was in my basic epistemology class 30 years ago. I was there, me old china.
Ya don't say. When Samuel Johnson complied his first dictionary of English, he travelled all over the British Isles to find out how words were used in practise, precisely because anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that words are context dependent.
We've been here before Age. If it ain't anything said by Parmenides or Descartes, your name in history is assured.