Philosophy Now Forum

A question of degree/amount.
In a world wherein one man's tyranny is another man's order,
and one man's order is another man's anarchy.
Perhaps we need to define amounts and degrees.
Numbers seem to fit with degrees quite nicely.


Degree of first-hand experience.
And hence a degree of accurate memory.
Do you remember what happened, or are you going on someone else's memory.
And how well do you remember.

Degree of forthrightness.
Are you lying to yourself,
or is someone else lying to you?
And how accurate is the lie?

Degree of particular skepticism.
How much do you believe in this particular idea or theory or happening?

Degree of proof/disproof.
How well can this be proven?

Degree of sensibility.
How much sense does this make.

Degree of analogy to reality.
The Holy Grail of epistemology.
If we knew that.....


A question of method.
How much skepticism is prudent at first? Is there an epistemological casting call, where "everyone gets in" at first?
Can we first see what makes sense and why, and then derive a method of truth-finding thence?
Can we trust scientists to be honest? And if so, how do we know what interpretations to make from the science?
Do we compare personal experiences? And if so, are we all being honest and accurate?


Any thoughts?

Any further tools to add to the toolkit?

protractors and anti-protractors

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:06 pm protractors and anti-protractors

-Imp

Not that definition of degrees.

Epistemological toolkit: Third Tool: Detachment.

Most individuals have a conception of reality; it is their own truth.
The conception of reality is known by many names, such as, wisdom or common sense.
But, in order to go beyond common sense, you need to detach from it temporarily.

Separation of common sense and epistemology is rational for two reasons:
First, your action is based on common sense. You wouldn't want hypothetical ideas put into practice.
Second, if you don't detach epistemological thinking from common sense, common sense will deter the search for truth.

Eventually, hypothetical theory might turn out to be true; and hence, be brought into the fold of common sense. Till that point though, hypothetical knowledge ought to be detached.

My philosophical position is detachment but my scientific positions are empiricism and falsification
And so I do not accept that common sense is a reliable metric for understanding observable reality
Commonly held views not subject to rigour could be false so must be tested before being accepted