Philosophy Now Forum

These so-called foundations for knowledge - for example, experience and reason - aren't foundations at all. But we must have a foundation, or how can we have knowledge? How can we know things?

I know. Let's say we construct knowledge, like a building. Or let's say we weave knowledge like a web. After all, construction and weaving aren't really misleading metaphors, in the way 'foundation' is.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:20 am These so-called foundations for knowledge - for example, experience and reason - aren't foundations at all. But we must have a foundation, or how can we have knowledge? How can we know things?

That's an OUGHT.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:20 am I know. Let's say we construct knowledge, like a building. Or let's say we weave knowledge like a web. After all, construction and weaving aren't really misleading metaphors, in the way 'foundation' is.

It's not a metaphor. It describes what we, humans do - it describes HOW we construct knowledge.

It's an IS. It is one (of many) true interpretations.

1 Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Epistemological constructivism is an example.

2 Why do we think what we call knowledge is a thing that needs to be explained or described? What, are we metaphysicians, furkling through mysteries?

3 We can't even explain why the thing we call a red circle is indeed the thing we call a red circle. So why even try to explain what 'knowing that thing is a red circle' consists of?

4 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. Constructivism is a house of cards built on sand.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:15 am 1 Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Epistemological constructivism is an example.

Weasel words. What are metaphors leading us astray from...?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:15 am 2 Why do we think what we call knowledge is a thing that needs to be explained or described?

Because it's a useful thing to do. Explaining what I know and how to do things to computers is very pragmatic.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do. --Donald Knuth

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:15 am What, are we metaphysicians, furkling through mysteries?

Maybe we are! After all, science is the best metaphysic we have in 2021. So what?

I just find it useful to transfer tacit knowledge from A to B. Towards this pragmatic goal I need to have a useful conception of what knowledge is.
So I have constructed such a conception. And I have constructed the language necessary to talk about it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:15 am 3 We can't even explain why the thing we call a red circle is indeed the thing we call a red circle. So why even try to explain what 'knowing that thing is a red circle' consists of?

I am not trying to explain it. I am pointing out that it's unexplained; and I am pointing out that the lack of explanation, evidence or sound/valid arguments has absolutely no bearing on the fact that THE COLOR OF THIS SENTENCE IS RED

So in precisely the same same spirit: Why even try to explain what 'knowing that murder is wrong' consists of?

The lack of explanation, evidence or sound/valid arguments has absolutely no bearing on the fact that murder is wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:15 am 4 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. Constructivism is a house of cards built on sand.

I am not sure why you are singling out constructivism when everyone is in the same shithole.

Apparently, we can't use language to explain why we call something a red circle. Apparently, that's not only unexplained but also inexplicable, because we'd have to explain the language we use in the explanation, and so on.

But, apparently, we can use language to explain what we know and how to do things, because it's a useful thing to do. No worries about infinite regress there. Explanations come to an end.

Cognitive dissonance, or what?

(Tarki's was a solution to an invented problem - a solution that doesn't solve the problem anyway. A meta-language is just another language.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:58 am Apparently, we can't use language to explain why we call something a red circle.

Can you explain it? Go ahead then! We are still waiting.

Explain why we call this color red.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:58 am Apparently, that's not only unexplained but also inexplicable, because we'd have to explain the language we use in the explanation, and so on.

Strawman and obscurantism.

So far nobody has produced an explanation as to Why we call this color red..

The absence of an explanation has no bearing on the fact that THIS COLOR IS OBJECTIVELY RED.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:58 am No worries about infinite regress there. Explanations come to an end.

Not infinite regress. It's just recursion.

Shame. I know this is higher grade stuff for Philosophers, but perhaps you stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:58 am Apparently, we can't use language to explain why we call something a red circle. Apparently, that's not only unexplained but also inexplicable, because we'd have to explain the language we use in the explanation, and so on.

But, apparently, we can use language to explain what we know and how to do things, because it's a useful thing to do. No worries about infinite regress there. Explanations come to an end.

Cognitive dissonance, or what?

(Tarki's was a solution to an invented problem - a solution that doesn't solve the problem anyway. A meta-language is just another language.)

It's just trolling, really (or otherwise simple idiocy).

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:13 am It's just trolling, really (or otherwise simple idiocy).

The Intellectual Yet Idiot pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.

Recursion (infinite regress) is self-reference/computation.

It's only a problem for idiots who don't understand recursion. Which is... all of you.

Now gang up and lynch me already. For the elitist that I am. For speaking against the orthodoxy and for undermining the religion of Philosophy.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:58 am Explanations come to an end.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't!

Go ahead and start explaining WHAT MAKES THIS RED and we'll see whether your explanation comes to an end.

That's the practical implication of the Halting problem.

WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

That was going so well - until the end.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

That was going so well - until the end.

Special pleading + fallacy fallacy.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.

Just like moral fact.

Gimme my goddamned already, cuz I done good.

That was going so well - until the end.

No from Pete...meh...his are stale anyway.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED

How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?

deleted