Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress • Hacker News Board

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#301

Post by edanm » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 9:11 AM UTC

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap.

What? Why?

I mean, yeah, "at all costs" is a little extreme, but the alternative isn't to only value the simple, close by, and cheap. I kind of like the fact that humanity strives for better and better things - it's what took us from the age of 50% of children dying by the age of 5, to barely any dying. It's what took us from the age of the majority living in poverty and hunger, to the majority living far better lives.

It's what will hopefully take us from all the problems we have now, to all the solutions to those problems that we can't even conceive of yet.

I may be misunderstanding you completely - but if I'm not, what's wrong with that?

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#302

Post by renox » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 9:13 AM UTC

camelNotation wrote: post #249

louwrentius wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is not about certainty or uncertainty but about a higher purpose, about meaning. This life, this pain, this suffering needs to amount to something or why bother continuing? Religion doesn't seem the answer, it always creates more problems than it solves. It thrives on suffering. Because suffering creates a need for religion, it sustains itself this way. Can we find meaning and purpose in our existence in a w…

Religion does provide meaning and purpose, but that is hardly all it is "about." Religion also provides inclusion for those that would otherwise feel outcast. It provides social structure and identity. It provides a framework for you to build culture upon. It acts as a moral guide for behavior. It unifies communities around central goals. It uses myth to convey inter-generational wisdom. It teaches rituals that impro…

> Religion also provides inclusion for those that would otherwise feel outcast.

Except for those who don't fit in the religion narrow view of what is acceptable..

> It provides a framework for you to build culture upon.[cut]It provides dozens of important things.

Proof needed: there are many countries which have a high share of atheists/agnostics (northern European countries), these countries have their own culture and people seem to be quite happy in these countries without needing a religion.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#303

Post by namlem » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 9:16 AM UTC

ripsawridge wrote: post #222

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a clas…

Yes, this sort of thing is exactly why I believe that Derek Parfit was by far the most important philosopher of the past century.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#304

Post by FabHK » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 9:37 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #292

FabHK wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sorry for the very short comment, and "moving on" was the wrong word. So, first, Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery is actually from 1934 (!), not the 60s. As an introduction, Alan F. Chalmers' What Is This Thing Called Science? is good. It covers Popper in chapters 5 to 7 (Introduction & Naive Falsificationism, Sophisticated Falsificationism, Limitations). Then it moves on (as it were) to Thomas Kuhn's The…

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You've added some things to my reading list. :-) Not to contradict anything you've said, but my original message above was in response to something very different than I think you're talking about. I see a lot of comments where people seem to treat Science as some unquestionable list of facts and treat Scientists reverently. It's like they've made a religion out of it and don't dar…

Oh, yeah, and Popper's falsification criterion is a great starting point, and it does help to differentiate science from non-science, and it does correctly underscore the tentativeness of scientific knowledge.

All I wanted to add is that things are more complicated than just that one demarcation line, and philosophy of science has not stood still over the last half century.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#305

Post by 08-15 » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

codeulike wrote: post #260

08-15 wrote: post #110

> No amount of just grinding out the digits and checking will ever prove it: there are always more digits to check. This guy doesn't know how mathematical proofs work. If the above was close to reality, nobody could ever proof Fermat's major theorem, because there are "always more triples of numbers to check". > All Gödel did was find a clever way to construct a provably unprovable mathematical fact. That not what Gö…

You're taking that bit out of context. In that sentence he's talking about a very specific thought experiment in which we constuct a theory that certain digits in the root of 17 and the 27th power of pi match. I think his arbitrary example is supposed to be an analogy of Godel's work. Example: let’s say that the decimal expressions of the square root of 17 and pi to the 27th power “match” just in case either they hav…

Oh no, not at all. The context is the whole problem, because this is an awful analogy. Maudlin confuses "I think this proposition is false, but I don't know how to prove it." with "This proposition is neither true nor false and I can prove it.", and he does it because he doesn't know what Gödel's work is about.

(Also, "I don't know a proof" is only equivalent to "There is no proof" if you're a pompous asshole that thinks you're smarter than everyone else. Learn some humility, Tim Maudlin.)

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#306

Post by yters » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

canhascodez wrote: post #269

yters wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When most ancient philosophers were theists and believed in libertarian free will and an immaterial soul, was that a convergence to the truth, too?

I'm not sure what point you're making. When people believed in a flat Earth, or geocentrism, or miracles, those things did not contradict empirical knowledge of the world. Since then, we have established empiricism as the most useful tool for examining the real world, and expanded the scope of human knowledge considerably. I'm not sure what about that you might take issue with.

The idea that consensus entails convergence to the truth, when the best thinkers have consensus on antithetical ideas in different time periods.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#307

Post by 3pt14159 » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #267

3pt14159 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See how you used the word seem there? That's where the little faith bits seep in. In the seems.

The only point I was making is that Eli's comment was not, contrary to your claim, an argumentum ad consequentiam. That's an entirely separate question from (e.g.) whether it involves something you can call "faith". But: If you define "faith" broadly enough then sure, everything with any element of belief to it involves "faith". Derive everything rigorously from axioms? That means having "faith" in your axioms! Do li…

You're right. I conflated argumentum ad consequentiam and affirming the consequent. If X works, then I should believe X is true is not the same thing as if I don't believe in X then X won't work. I rushed my response to you because I was between meetings.

But my core argument here is that we have no starting point. If you want to call them axioms that's fine, but I'm not here to quibble about language. Even if we had no experience of senses and minds leading to erroneous perceptions and thoughts, we would still have no way to prove that our minds are reliable. At best we would have smaller priors. But quite the opposite, we routinely encounter evidence of erroneous perceptions and thoughts. In dreams, lunatics shouting on the street, or our seemingly invisible optic nerve.

The problem with saying:

> Faith is when one acts on a belief without having any rational reason for it. My rational reason for believing in science is simply: it works!

Is first defining faith incorrectly[0] and then second by appealing to its outcome as a measure for its justification. Theologians manipulate their mental state with their own methods. When they say they encounter manifestations of the divine and say they have a rational reason for their religious beliefs by saying "it works!" they're doing the same thing.

Only by humbly admitting that our starting point requires some first acceptance can we then make progress. If you want to take it as an axiom that your mind is reliable, that's fine for you, but it isn't something that's necessarily true. I love Russell, but when he tries to break out of this by calling solipsism a self-refuting idea he's being intellectually dishonest. He was more honest when he was younger and he said solipsism is boring. And there[1] we fully agree.

[0] Faith is about mental state, not action. From Google dictionary: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

[1] With the axiomatic qualifications / faith.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#308

Post by gbustomtv5 » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

AgentME wrote: post #238

gbustomtv5 wrote: post #131

Interesting that he brings up the story of Er. Plato made all the arguments when it comes to philosophy’s why and how. The story of Er is the comprehension test at the end of the book. Sadly, Tim did not pass the Er’s test.

What is the intended interpretation of Er?

Not sure “intended interpretation” can be used to describe anything in the Republic.

The Republic is written to guide human souls out of the cave. Can the curious readers find the truth themselves in the story of Er upon careful examination? Is Er a philosopher? Does a philosopher need rewards described by Er? Can a philosopher choose an inconspicuous life (especally after the disussion of the philosopher’s life earlier in the book)? Can you take a story given in a book as the truth without examination after prose was denied place in the Republic?

All is up to the reader.

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#309

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 3:48 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #307

gjm11 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only point I was making is that Eli's comment was not, contrary to your claim, an argumentum ad consequentiam. That's an entirely separate question from (e.g.) whether it involves something you can call "faith". But: If you define "faith" broadly enough then sure, everything with any element of belief to it involves "faith". Derive everything rigorously from axioms? That means having "faith" in your axioms! Do li…

You're right. I conflated argumentum ad consequentiam and affirming the consequent. If X works, then I should believe X is true is not the same thing as if I don't believe in X then X won't work. I rushed my response to you because I was between meetings. But my core argument here is that we have no starting point. If you want to call them axioms that's fine, but I'm not here to quibble about language. Even if we had…

>But my core argument here is that we have no starting point. If you want to call them axioms that's fine, but I'm not here to quibble about language.

And the rest of us are saying: you don't need a foundationalist epistemology to have an epistemology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Re: Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress

#310

Post by mbrock » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

reeves23423 wrote: post #299

mbrock wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't you be making your own argument within a formal logic, to avoid this awful ambiguity that makes it impossible to understand what you're saying or argue with you?

Exactly. I really think Philosophy is like religious gurus confusing the listeners with confidence and as though only they can understand but not put in clear words.

Out of curiosity, which philosophers have you attempted to read?