Posts
Comments
Thanks, that helps a lot.
So, is he defending one of these positions, or arguing against them all. Or saying the whole debate is pointless?
From what I read he seems to be suggesting that truth is independent of what we believe, but I'm not sure what else he is saying, or what his argument is.
By the way,
I still haven't heard an explanation of what "The Simple Truth" is about. Maybe that requires a whole separate post.
That helps explain a bit more why they are the way they are. But it suggests to me that they shouldn't play such a prominent role on the site, because they haven't been designed for the purpose they are now being used for.
Thanks, this is a great suggestion, I think this would be more helpful.
"The normativity of logic is: “If you want to be speaking the same language as everyone else, don’t say things like ‘The ball is all green and all blue at the same time in the same way.’”"
You surely don't mean this: everyone one else is logical, why not me?
For a start, is everyone else logical? And even if they are, is that the best justification we have for logic?
"But philosophers still argue about ... theism ... as if these weren’t settled questions."
If this is really what you think, then why do you continue with your blog?
You only have no time to think if your main priority is winning the prize. If you are interested in holding true beliefs then you can take longer. However, our current system tends to reward those that get there first, not those who maximize their chances of being correct.
Ok. Clearly you only read the title, and not my actual post. I didn't say no biases matter, just that they might not always be a bad thing.
Of course. Most of it will be in the wrong direction, that's the point. It might not be best for you, but maybe it will be the best thing for the group.
Sure. In reality it is still going to require some narrowing down. But once you have reduced it to a few cases the best thing might be to just guess.
I think it is doubtful that any of the examples that you give have been solved/settled in any meaningful sense (particularly the last one).
If they were settled then those who disagree would have to be one of the following:
- Unknowledgeable about the subject matter
- Confused about the subject matter
- Lying
- irrational
However, there seem to be plenty of people who disagree with you who don't fall into the above categories.
From what you say it just sounds like you are saying that these are the issues that you are convinced about and which you cannot imagine being persuaded otherwise about. But on that kind of definition what is settled/solved will be person relative.
Are you able to give some kind of understanding to solved/settled where these issues come out as settled/solved and is also not person relative?
"I think the rational is the closest to true you can possibly get from where you are."
The truth is the closest you can get to the truth. Suppose Rob reads the newspaper but then believes that City won because their his team and it would make him happy if they won. His belief would be closer to the truth, but it would not be rational.
That depends what the conclusion is supposed to be. If it is just that philosophers X, Y and Z are wrong, then you are right - he can simply bring forward arguments a, b and c to show this.
However, his claim is stronger than that. He is claiming that these philosophers (or at least many of them) are not in the truth business. His philosophical arguments may show that the other philosophers are wrong, but it won't follow that they are not sincere in trying to find answers and solve problems. For that he needs something like: they can't really be trying to find the truth, otherwise they would agree with me (at least on these "simple" matters).
I'm not sure what you're worried about. Just as you can't force people to move on from a problem that you think has been solved, so too they can't force you to wait while they work it out.
In the early modern period various thinkers were asking questions that would ultimately lead to the foundations of modern science (I'm thinking of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke and others). Philosophers have continued worrying about a lot of these issues (problem of induction, demarcation) while the scientists have moved on and made many fruitful discoveries. You may think that this shows that the philosophers have wasted their time, but so what? It hasn't slowed science down. It has also proved to be important. When new discoveries (particularly in physics) question the underlying assumptions, or where the method seems inadequate for solving the problem, then it turns out to be rather useful that there are some philosophers still thinking about these things.
So, you are free to carry on with your assumptions, and ignore others who think the matter is not solved, but further down the line you might be grateful that others were a bit more hesitant.
I have two concerns about the practical implementation of this sort of thing:
- It seems like there are cases where if a rule is being used then people could abuse it. For example, in job applications or admissions to medical schools. A better understanding of how the rule relates to what it predicts would be needed.
If X+Y predicts Z does that mean enhancing X and Y will up the probability of Z? Not necessarily, consider the example of happy marriages. Will having more sex make your relationship happier? Or does the rule work because happy couples tend to have more sex?
- It is not true in every case that we equally value all true beliefs, and equally value all false beliefs. Certain rules might work better if we take into consideration a person's race, sex, religion and nationality. But most people find this sort of thing unpalatable because it can lead to the systematic persecution of sub groups, even if it results in more true, and fewer false, beliefs overall. It also might be the case that some of these rules discriminate against groups of people in more subtle ways that won't be immediately obvious.
Of course neither of these problems mean that there won't be perfectly good cases where these rules would improve decision making a lot.
Does the same reasoning apply to all -isms? Empircism, materialism, internalism and externalism to name a few.
ism has a few different uses it can indicate a group of principles (empiricism), or a political movement (socialism), or a type of discrimination (sexism).
Your worry seems to be that "rationalism" looks like a political movement, but that sort of thing is more likely to be determined by how the people who use the term of themselves act. And that problem does not go away by refusing to use certain words. If people who call themselves rationalist try to spread their ideas through exerting political force rather than calm argumentation then it is going to look like a political movement, whether or not a ism is being used.
If you're worried about this then you need to deal with the underlying problems, not just worry about words (after all, I'm not aware that empiricists have this concern).
As an aside, I think the main reason for not using it is that it already taken: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/