it raises the issue of "fashion" in the other sense, changing tastes over time. I remember when I discovered there was such a thing as fashion, in this sense, in philosophy, and I was not exactly shocked but certainly disappointed. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm reluctant to admit I hadn't even thought of that, I just used fashion designer as a convenient example of someone wishing to 'sell' a concept, but yes, one of the more subjective of the criteria for judging ideas is how well it fits with the current paradigm (this even extends to science according to Kuhn, but I'm not convinced myself how deep his analysis goes).

This runs deep, and I'd want to pull in Grice here somehow. — Srap Tasmaner

As in 'Defence of a Dogma', or in the context of the authority of language users you mentioned earlier?

Where does PVI talk about this? — Srap Tasmaner

An article entitled “It Is Wrong, Always, Everywhere, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything, Upon Insufficient Evidence.” In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, edited by J. Jordan and D. Howard-Snyder, but he expanded on it in an interview I heard with him once a long time back, I'm afraid I can't quite remember exactly who he was speaking to or where. He was talking mainly about the same subject as the paper though, just really warning philosophers that the disagreement of any epistemic peer must be taken as evidence that one's concepts can't be unequivocally held and that on almost every topic in the history of philosophy there is disagreement among epistemic peers. He basically summed up by saying that anyone who thought philosophy was about finding some 'truth' might as well not bother. He's not quite so grumpy in the actual paper, must have caught him on a bad day.

Philosophizing, we can now say, is extra-ordinary questioning about the extra-ordinary.

[...]

In Greek, "away over something", "over beyond," is meta. Philosophical questioning about beings as such is meta-ta-phusika; it questions on beyond beings, it is metaphysics. — Martin Heidegger

-Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics

In Greek, "away over something", "over beyond," is meta. Philosophical questioning about beings as such is meta-ta-phusika; it questions on beyond beings, it is metaphysics. — Martin Heidegger

Citation, please? I'm told that Metaphysics is the name of a book, that name provided by ancient editors of Aristotle's writing, and meaning the book next to the Physics ("book" being a term of convenience for a collection of treatises). As such, it means nothing with respect to the content of those treatises, any more than Vol. 4 describes the contents of volume 4. But it has come to. And, to be sure, there is insufficient power in my arm to twist Heidegger's to prevent him from creative etymologies of Greek words!

it questions on beyond beings — Martin Heidegger

I think that should read 'beyond existence' as I believe there's a metaphysical distinction between 'being' and 'existence' which is not generally recognised in modern philosophy.

With respect to the question of evidence - as far as metaphysics is concerned, the questions are such that they are beyond the scope of empirical evidence, as a metaphysical view consists of an attitude towards the meaning or the nature of reality as a whole. A metaphysical attitude doesn't concern the existence or non-existence of a particular thing for which the criterion of empirical evidence is meaningful.

There are two examples of a metaphysical disputes in current science, specifically, the argument around the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum physics, and the argument around whether 'string theory' and the multiverse that it implies amounts to a scientific hypothesis as such. In both cases, something is being posited which is in principle beyond the scope of empirical falsification, leading to arguments about whether either of these ideas are genuinely scientific or not.

in the context of the authority of language users — Pseudonym

More like that. Grice is our great theorist of conversation and how it relates to logic. (His work would also be the model for Lewis's scorekeeping, etc.)

I'm reluctant to admit I hadn't even thought of that, — Pseudonym

I was surprised neither of us had at first and was eager to admit it!

Well, at least there is some discussion happening, but I know it does not last, and people soon will be wrapping themselves deep in their own self.

I have been watching these forums for a very long time, and if you can't see what HexHammer was driving at then you are blind. His delivery method was in poor choice, but that does not mean he was wrong. There are two types here; lovers of opinion and lovers of truth and I know that the only way that will sink in is to give it time.

There are two types here; lovers of opinion and lovers of truth — Jeremiah

So what is the difference between opinion and truth when it comes to philosophical propositions? How are you distinguishing the two?

To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation. — Jeremiah

Only if one assumes only scientific truths are true. To me a philosopher is someone who seeks the truth, the means and method are of less importance to the definition than the quest for truth itself. I don't exclude the possibility that valuable truths can be found in art or religion, hence I don't exclude the fields of art and religion from being able to have valuable philosophers within them.

I agree that a certain understanding of science is required, especially mathematics, but I'd like to point out that there is a mathematical compenent to music as well.

There are no such things as "scientific truths". This was already addressed in this thread, I suggest you actually read it.

So what is the difference between opinion and truth when it comes to philosophical propositions? How are you distinguishing the two? — Pseudonym

If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up trying on "philosophies" like they are going out of fashion.

Lovers of opinions over indulge in authoring their own realities from the self. Lovers of truth want to see beyond self, even if seeing beyond self becomes an impossible task their desire still pushes them towards the impossible and in doing so they become more.

If I love an opinion and the opinion is true, does that make me a lover of truth or a lover of opinion, or both at the same time?

No, sorry didn't get any of that. I mean, I can tell all the words are English but I'm afraid I cannot derive any meaning from them when put together. The best I've got so far is...

If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up trying on "philosophies" like they are going out of fashion. — Jeremiah

... People who seek truth are more willing to change their minds than people who don't?

Lovers of opinions over indulge in authoring their own realities from the self. — Jeremiah

... Really struggling with this one. Is there a right amount of indulgence in authoring our own realities? How does one go about authoring a reality from the self? My best guess - lovers of opinion describe the world in terms that complement their descriptions of themselves?

Lovers of truth want to see beyond self, even if seeing beyond self becomes an impossible task their desire still pushes them towards the impossible and in doing so they grow. — Jeremiah

... Lovers of truth seek it even if its impossible to find?


Presuming I've translated that right...

I'm certain that the most fashion-conscious teenagers change their minds pretty frequently and willingly to suit the latest trends, I'm not sure I'd single them out as truth-seekers.

I'm also fairly sure that a large number of dedicated scientists nonetheless have a world-view which places science (and by definition scientists) pretty highly. I'm not sure that makes their work little more than opinion.

Finally, do not the religious seek a knowledge of the divine which, for us rational atheists, is impossible to find. I'm not sure that turns them into truth-seekers either.

If there is a difference between truth and opinion, I'm not sure your caricatures have got us any closer to it.

No, sorry didn't get any of that. — Pseudonym

I am OK with that.

If someone cannot differentiate between a lover of truth and a lover of opinion then they don't pay enough attention to the people around them. The titles don't mean anything greater then what they say, and I don't really have time to spoon feed those who are oblivious to such obvious details.

If by "a lover of opinion" you mean "one who is unwilling to admit to error and will make all manner of argumentative tricks in order to avoid admitting error" then I've certainly encountered a few of those on this forum.

If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up trying on "philosophies" like they are going out of fashion. — Jeremiah

And now you are trying to force-feed us your epistemology

Let's take Object-Oriented Ontology.

OOO is a new "school" (perhaps the term is a bit premature) which is 100% pro-science (what world we live in that this syntagm makes senses!?!), is 100% realist, and yet, claims that 1) philosophy and science are not very closely related, 2) philosophy doesn't produce knowledge and 3) a unified theory of everything could not possibly be a "scientific theory", such as "string theory".

While OOO is very "supportive" of scientific inquiries, it doesn't really interest itself with them, holding rather that despite not having a complete scientific image, we can still develop a working and satisfying ontology on the basis of analogy and metaphor.

The dichotomy you try to present serves no purpose, and doesn't reflect the state of the discipline.

And now you are trying to force-feed us your epistemology — Akanthinos

You don't have to read my posts, or my threads; that was your choice and in no way did I coerce or force you to do so.

You don't have to read my posts, or my threads; that was your choice and in no way did I coerce or force you to do so. — Jeremiah

And yet more content-devoid posts.

I don't invest a lot to a response when the opening sentence to the post I am responding to is a hyperbole.

I don't invest a lot to a response when the opening sentence to the post I am responding to is a hyperbole. — Jeremiah

You are clearly very proficient at finding reasons not to engage others.

Not everyone is worth engaging.

Yeah, well, I tend to think science is capable at arriving at facts, not truths. — Posty McPostface

I agree with that. — Jeremiah

If it gives us facts, then it gives us truths. :brow:

If you wish to equate facts with truth, go for it; however, a scientific fact merely means the thing in question currently meets the standards to be called a fact. It is a classification and they are never final. They change all the time, and sometimes they are also wrong altogether.

No, not an equation, a logical consequence. Something is either factual or it is not. And if it's not, then you shouldn't be calling it a scientific fact or any kind of fact. And no, facts can't be wrong, although what is taken as fact can be. But, of course, the two are not one and the same. If it's a fact, then there's a corresponding truth. Give me any fact, and I'll give you a corresponding truth.

Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. It does not necessarily need to be physics, but it should be some formal science which teaches a person to reason and explore the reality around themselves in a scientific fashion. This also consequently means a deeper understanding of mathematics. — Jeremiah

I like to say empirical science is a rigorous extension of ordinary experience. I characterize the various formal and empirical sciences as only some of philosophy's branches. A responsible philosophy aligns itself somehow or other with the project of empirical investigation as well as with formal sciences, but science is only one part of the philosophical activity aimed at cultivating a worldview sufficient to inform the way of life of persons, communities, and civilizations.

Accordingly, I suggest it's an error to speak as if science and philosophy are in opposition. It seems to me they are intimately related affairs.

↪Tomseltje


There are no such things as "scientific truths". This was already addressed in this thread, I suggest you actually read it. — Jeremiah

Firstly:
You merely posted your opionon that there are none before in this thread, That is not adressing, that is pushing your opinion.

Secondly:
You didn't check wether I intended the same as you did when mentioning "scientific truths"

Thirdly:
I stated "Only if one assumes only scientific truths are true.", clearly stating a requirement, wether the requirement is even possible is irrelevant, and thus wether 'scientific truths' exist is irrelevant to the validity of the requirment.

I suggest next to merely reading, you try think abit more on statements made in an attempt to understand what the other person was talking about, rather than dismissing statements based upon the use of a single term you happen not to agree with.