Somehow the PD reminds me of a situation in the steel industry. TATA Steel made a model of it exhausts. When measurements were made, the actual values were different: 5 to 1000 times as much!

Cute idea. But how would they set the odds? Free will eleven to two against determinism and all bets off if compatibility is true. On reflection, all the fun would be in the post-match disputes which would probably never be resolved. That would take us back to where we started.

Like Bayesian inference? Updating the probabilities for a hypothesis as new data comes in.

This is the model of philosophy as science we haven't done yet. It's amazingly popular considering what a travesty it is of anything resembling philosophy. Rather, while science consists of models or pictures of the world, philosophy offers ways of looking. To the philistine, there is only one 'right' way to look at things.

TATA, for all its money and human resource, may not be quite be the quality benchmark it has to be to make your case. I hope we're talking about the same TATA Group.

But how would they set the odds? — Cuthbert

Excellent question: The devil's in the details! How do doctors or how are they actually supposed to draw up a provisional diagnosis? $\downarrow$

Like Bayesian inference? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Alas, my mathematical knowledge isn't up to the task, but I believe we're on the same page.

travesty it is of anything resembling philosophy — unenlightened

You misunderstand then. A provisional diagnosis is simply there to allow us to act/make decisions which wouldn't be possible if we wait for the correct diagnosis. Surely, between a thesis and its antithesis (have I left anything out), one has to be true or, in a doctor's universe, the correct diagnosis.

ways of looking. — unenlightened

A compromise, a poor second. It's the best we can do given, not what we know, but what we don't.

My proposal is that it doesn't have to be this way at all. We can construct for ourselves a coherent picture of the world without being held back by unknowns which, to tell you the truth, is the entire purpose of philosophy.

It must be mentioned though that ad interim philosophy seems more suitable for someone who wants to have what's known as a working hypothesis (scientific, but that's philosophy's endpoint is it not?) - beginners, pragmatic individuals - who want the philosophical counterpart of applied math, applied philosophy.

For instance, true, we have no conclusive evidence either way on the matter of God's existence. However, we could come to some consensus given all that's at our disposal. For example? theism/atheism is likelier (PDs are probabilistic). — Agent Smith

The problem here is the arbitrary constraint on possibilities (and never mind problems of settling on definitions). For example, that which is adduced to "prove" the "existence" of God also at the same time with mere appropriate substitutions "proves" the "existence" of infinitely many other things. Thus properly understood, either there are infinitely many gods, or the "proofs" dismissed. However, folks interested in these "proofs" generally have zero interest in the logic and reason of them.

PDs then, do not escape the burden, then, of being reasonable.

We could at least form some kind of coherent weltanschauung with this method, yes? — Agent Smith

A coherent Weltanschauung? WTF are you talking about Agent? God is alive and kicking but his legs are too short to reach us.

The last thing we need is for philosophy to become an institution like science, directing people's thought to someone's whim. No.

:roll: You confuse philosophy (i.e. ways of looking / interpreting / diagnosing) with 'having a worldview' (i.e. conventionally stipulated, unexamined assumptions), and thereby seek didactics (dogma, apologetics) over above aporetics (inquiry, dialectics). Any religion (or even scientism) will do, no? :mask:

The problem here is the arbitrary constraint on possibilities (and never mind problems of settling on definitions). For example, that which is adduced to "prove" the "existence" of God also at the same time with mere appropriate substitutions "proves" the "existence" of infinitely many other things. Thus properly understood, either there are infinitely many gods, or the "proofs" dismissed. However, folks interested in these "proofs" generally have zero interest in the logic and reason of them.

PDs then, do not escape the burden, then, of being reasonable. — tim wood

Yep, that - ontological explosion - could be one of the drawbacks of ad interim philosophy but that's only if theism is the best PD. Is it?

Come to think of there's a slight complication as regards theism/atheism: Pascal's wager. All the evidence may point to atheism and yet theism is a better gamble given the payoffs,

A coherent Weltanschauung? WTF are you talking about Agent? God is alive and kicking but his legs are too short to reach us — Raymond

Given, let's just say, the undecidability of many philosophical issues, a person is unable to build a worldview (our primary objective given our fascination with the truth and a theory of everything/ToE) in the absence of provisional truths/diagnosis - we're paralyzed/stuck/stopped in our tracks by the unknown (theism/atheism?; realism/idealism?; and so on). This is, I reckon, psychologically taxing and bad for one's wellbeing not to mention how stupid given the simple solution at hand viz. ad interim philosophy.

Mind you, the provisional diagnosis for a philosophical question is not the final diagnosis: in very scientific ways, it can be/should be altered in light of new evidence. It appears what I'm really advocating for is scientific philosophy - time for the child (science) to return the favor to its parent (philosophy).

The last thing we need is for philosophy to become an institution like science, directing people's thought to someone's whim. No. — theRiddler

The progress of philosophy as described by Anthony Kenny (philosopher):

Religion $\rightarrow$ Philosophy $\rightarrow$ Science.

Scientification/scientization of philosophy seems inevitable.

You confuse philosophy (i.e. ways of looking / interpreting / diagnosing) with 'having a worldview' (i.e. conventionally stipulated, unexamined assumptions), and thereby seek didactics (dogma, apologetics) over above aporetics (inquiry, dialectics). Any religion (or even scientism) will do, no? :mask: — 180 Proof

See my reply to Raymond (above).

A few relevant points:

1. Applied philosophy à la applied maths We need a clear yes/no answer; don't know/uncertain won't do.

I'd like your opinion on something:

How does a skeptic make decisions? Consider the scenario that you're a cop and about to enter a dark room. There could be someone, armed & dangerous, inside this room. You, as a skeptic, are uncertain. Do you pull out your gun or keep it in its holster as you enter the room (you assume/don't assume something)?

2. Aporia is exactly what ad interim philosophy attempts to tackle.

Sounds a bit like you’ve bought the drugs medicine is selling. A diagnosis is largely a heuristic meant to assist in the treatment of a patient. To the extent that treatment is effective, it is of no moment whether the diagnosis (provisional or otherwise) was correct. We simply stop asking further questions once symptoms have resolved and/or further treatment seems ineffective. Sure, it would be swell to have a correct diagnosis, but the cost of knowing what is wrong is a luxury that cannot be afforded by a system concerned with getting the best medical outcome given the constraints of the system.

Results, not theories, matter in the practice of medicine. Efficacy is not, however, indicative of proper understanding. Paradigms can shift, but that doesn’t mean that antibiotics weren’t effective at treating symptoms.

Sounds a bit like you’ve bought the drugs — Ennui Elucidator

:smile:

I thought philosophy was basically diagnostics? You and apply and view different methods for some problem/question as well as exploring the question and the method underlying the origins of the question/s.

Diagnostics is more or less about presenting possible solutions/factors for a given case. The decision is not really about arriving at a conclusion it is about allowing us to make a next step in order to narrow, or open, our field of investigation (this is what happens in medicine too where a procedure that will not help the patient directly will reveal new information that shuts down or opens up new possibilities).

a poor second. — Agent Smith

Yes. That is the way of looking that I am criticising; looking at philosophy as a poor second to science. Idolatry of the Fact.

Yes. That is the way of looking that I am criticising; looking at philosophy as a poor second to science. Idolatry of the Fact. — unenlightened

You mean to say that cases like flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are desirable and to be encouraged? Flat earth and anti-vax are a way of looking (at things).

How does a skeptic make decisions? — Agent Smith

Peirce says 'by abduction'. Hume says 'by custom & habit'. Pascal says 'by faith'. Pyrrho say 'by epoche' of undecideable (e.g. philosophic, theological, ideological) claims and therefore by common sense'. Socrates says 'by listening to the daimon'. So why does being a "skeptic" of one kind or another "make decisons" problematic for you, Smith? :chin:

Descartes describes his provisional moral code in the Discourse.

So why does being a "skeptic" of one kind or another "make decisons" problematic for you, Smith? :chin: — 180 Proof

You can't make any decision as a thorough skeptic. Decisions are based on the truth/falsity of a proposition, something skepticism categorically denies is possible.

'Global skepticism' is incoherent and self-refuting. Read the skeptics mentioned in my last post. Avoid unviable Academic Skepticism (or paper doubters like Descartes). Also, Witty's On Certainty ...

Witty — 180 Proof

His relevance can't be overstated. Whenever somebody starts a thread on the guy upstairs (God), people ask "which God?" In fact all there is is what Wittgenstein calls family resemblance. Could be the same for skepticism, the word "skepticism" is simply a matter of convenience rather than meaning.

Descartes describes his provisional moral code in the Discourse. — Fooloso4

:up: