Category: Epistemology and Method

  • What’s it mean to be a philosopher? What is this thing we call philosophy? We co

    What’s it mean to be a philosopher? What is this thing we call philosophy?

    We could say that it is a discipline by which we learn the craft of reasoning. So, many of us philosophize just as many of us repair machines, or do housework, or use mathematics.

    But using these tools is different from demonstrating a mastery of them, or demonstrating one’s ability of surviving a competition with others who may do it better. Or creating innovative ideas using reason.

    We could say that philosophy is a discipline in which we attempt to master the criteria for decision making in any field of interest. Or rather, the process of creating a set of internally consistent general rules (theories) of decidability in a domain of inquiry.

    We could say that philosophy is a discipline in which we attempt to discover fundamental truths – but I would suggest that this is the same as determining the means of decision making – a network of interdependent, internally consistent theories – in any field of interest.

    I’m going to provide a narrow definition of the discipline of philosophy. Because while many people philosophize, just as many people work with wood, few people succeed in mastery of it.

    A philosopher’s job is to take new knowledge and understanding, and to reorganize the causes, values, decisions, and narratives of the current network of causes, values, decisions, and explanatory narratives to make use of the new knowledge, providing us with greater explanatory power, greater power of action, and greater parsimony between our model of the world we live in and objective reality. This is a better way of saying that a philosopher’s job is to increase the precision of model we use to determine courses of action in the world.

    Conversely, it is possible to use reasoning to create errors, to create justifications and rationalizations, to create cunning but empty circumventions, and develop elaborate deceits. And it appears that many philosophers use the verbal craft of philosophy, not to create greater correspondence, but to advocate for a deception. And that is what most if all prophets do.

    So reasoning, or philosophizing, can be used for good – meaning greater correspondence with reality, giving us grater control of reality. Or it can be used for ill – meaning non-correspondence with reality, giving others more control of us.

    A philosopher reorganizes a network of theories in response to, by including, knew knowledge and understanding.

    A logician is not a philosopher.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-25 08:20:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE As far as he goes – which is nowhere – he’s wrong of course. All our la

    RESPONSE

    As far as he goes – which is nowhere – he’s wrong of course. All our language consists of analogies to experience. All our words are symbols. That humans are born with intuitions (tendencies) is different from being born with facts. Moreover, we can divide our language into the scientific (independent of emotion) and the aesthetic (dependent on emotion). And the reason we use this language of computer science is that it is the closest analogy to experience that we have produced for the discussion of mental phenomenon free of the loading and framing and deceit of the past.

    The only testable statement he is making is that recall-memory is limited. Even that doesn’t hold up, since a person can fairly often identify a counterfeit bill visually, even if he cannot draw it. Furthermore, some people CAN draw a bill (or entire city) from recall – even at a glance. It’s just EXPENSIVE For a brain to remember things that way, so those of us who CAN do it, learn not to do it. (I build a large 3d model of my city as a child, complete with all the houses sculpted from wood – just out of memory. I can still drive all over Connecticut from memory, but not even across Kiev today.)

    I will tell you what he is really doing: trying (like a woman) to maintain that psychologism (emotions) are a cause rather than a consequence of information processing.

    So, as a person who has stated an opposing argument (no one thinks the brain is like a computer, we merely use that language because nothing else is close enough of an analogy), testimonialism would tell me that he is trying to justify his priors of using sympathetic testing (emotions) to understand the brain rather than TRYING TO DEVELOP AN OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE for discussing the brain.

    ANd as a person who claims that the first principle of the mind is ‘acquisition and inventory of resources’ (property), and that emotions consist only of reactions to change in state of those resources, I would say that the brain is in fact a computer that assists us in acquiring resources, and emotions that assist in motivating us to choose between various possibilities.

    Humans are in fact, fairly mechanical, in the biological sense (as are proteiens, as is chemistry, as are all physical phenomenon.

    The magic of humans is that we do it with fragmentary information in order to predict the future course of events, so that we can outwit those current events, and alter them for our benefit -allowing us to capture resources, which we then consume and radiate as heat.

    IN this sense, our brains do not COMPUTE as today’s computers do, but they do SEARCH (sense-percieve-associate) and we do CALCULATE (reason), and we do it for the purpose of finding ways of outwitting the dim physical unverse.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-20 02:32:00 UTC

  • What is not measured or accounted for is stolen: Normative, Institutional, and G

    What is not measured or accounted for is stolen: Normative, Institutional, and Genetic capital. Ex: What price rule of law?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-18 10:10:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875914112032768

    Reply addressees: @mattyglesias

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875122789453825


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875122789453825

  • COMPUTABILITY VS CALCULABILITY VS PROBABILITY VS IMAGINABILITY Computability, ca

    COMPUTABILITY VS CALCULABILITY VS PROBABILITY VS IMAGINABILITY

    Computability, calculability and probability and imaginability are four different things.

    Equations are calculable by human beings.

    Equations may or may not be computable by machines.

    Calculations may include deduction, and humans can perform them.

    Computations do not involve deduction, and machines can perform them.

    Probability does not involve deduction but induction (guessing).

    Imagination does not involve deduction or induction (guessing), but free association.

    Computable > Calculable > Probable > Imaginable > Unimaginable.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 09:50:00 UTC

  • COMPARE TESTIMONIALISM WITH TOULMIN Testimonialism proves explanatory power acro

    COMPARE TESTIMONIALISM WITH TOULMIN

    Testimonialism proves explanatory power across every domain.

    Toulmin -vs- Testimonialism

    “Claim,” : Hypothesis (guess)

    “Data,” : External Correspondence

    “Warrant”: Existential Possibility (operational)

    “Backing”: Internal Consistency

    “Rebuttal” : Limits

    “Qualifier” : Warranty (confidence)

    TOULMIN:

    In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:

    Claim: Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)

    Data: The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)

    Warrant: The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

    Backing: Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

    Rebuttal: Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

    Qualifier: Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

    The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:52:00 UTC

  • NEW CATEGORIES OF ARGUMENT Excerpt from “Mastery > Debate > Types of Discourse”

    NEW CATEGORIES OF ARGUMENT

    Excerpt from “Mastery > Debate > Types of Discourse”

    (…)

    7) NEW: CRITIQUE: A type of deceitful argument that uses heaping of undue praise, selective information, asymmetric information, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, deceit, lying and fraud, by heaping of undue praise, criticizing a competing position, rather than demonstrating that one’s own proposition survives scrutiny. Practice proposes a poorly articulated ideal by heaping undue praise upon it, then constructing a straw man of the opposition argument, and constructing a detailed criticism of it. The purpose of this technique is not to advance the stated solution that the audience does not understand, or is not familiar with, but to undermine the audience’s confidence in the opposing argument that the audience does understand, or is familiar with. In other words: polluting the commons with disinformation.

    8) NEW: CRITICISM : A type of scientific argument spoken or written, that uses ratio-scientific arguments to attempt to falsify a proposition in order to determine whether it can survive scrutiny. A criticism is used to test propositions in the physical sciences.

    9) NEW: *PROSECUTION* : A type of scientific argument, spoken or written, that seeks determine if a proposition is false, biased, wishful, suggestive, deceptive, our outright fraudulent, in order to obtain a discount, rent, or theft. A Prosecution is used to test propositions in the cooperative sciences.

    (…)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:37:00 UTC

  • Meaningful/Decidable: Meaningful: Can I find a path (imaginary)? Decidable: this

    Meaningful/Decidable: Meaningful: Can I find a path (imaginary)? Decidable: this is an existentially possible path (operational)? #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 09:22:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732139259013009408

  • Meaningful/Decidable: Meaningful: Can I find a path (imaginary)? Decidable: this

    Meaningful/Decidable: Meaningful: Can I find a path (imaginary)? Decidable: this is an existentially possible path (operational)? #NewRight


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 05:22:00 UTC

  • MEANINGFUL VS DECIDABLE Meaningful: can I find a path (guess). Decidable: this i

    MEANINGFUL VS DECIDABLE

    Meaningful: can I find a path (guess). Decidable: this is an existentially possible path (operational).


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 05:20:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY: BY PREFERENCE, UTILITY, NECESSITY Whether you say “first cause”, “

    DECIDABILITY: BY PREFERENCE, UTILITY, NECESSITY

    Whether you say “first cause”, “metaphysics”, or “decidability”, you are using synonyms from different classes and eras and nothing more.

    Whether you decide by preference, utility, or necessity is all that distinguishes decidable propositions.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 04:28:00 UTC