Search results

Also, I've said this before, but as Karl Popper explained, we discover true knowledge through a process of conjecture and criticism.

Its not important unless you can point to the problem it poses. You haven't stated the problem directly, so ill take a guess at what you think it is. The problem is something like this: "if we can't observe reality directly, then how can we be certain of anything." The answer is that we can't...

This does not mean we can't understand reality and know what is in it though...

Lol easy. Show why it doesn't make sense. Do you have any idea how many revisions the axioms within geometry and number theory went through? What about the controversies within Set theory? Clearly not.

Oh no. Absolutely not.

I don't know what you mean by "on the level of physics -> quantum physics". What I said is all 3 require a process of conjecture and criticism to discover truth. A mathematician must go through a process conjecture and criticism to discover axiomatic truths. Scientists and philosophers must...

We do know how they are connected though... They all require creative conjecture and criticism. You cant generate mathematical axioms without a bit of creative speculation and a lot of criticism. Likewise you can't generate philosophical and scientific theories without a bit of creative...

I doubt it... Epistemology is about reason, not science. Science is merely a branch of reason, a species of reason if you will. Epistemology is so much bigger than science will ever be.

But why does philosophy suck? Epistemology has not been sucked up by mathematics or science. Neither has moral philosophy..

Absolutely. One of its lessons is that you can't have science without philosophy. The 'scientific method' is itself a philosophy about how to discover truth about.

C&R is not about science...

Rubbish. Do you know David Deutsch? He's a philosopher and physicst.

I said conjecture and refutation not falsification. Now you're just making stuff up. Just stop.

I'm not sure about that. We are looking for reasons to believe that morality is objective/subjective. If morality is about oughts, the next question to ask is: can you be wrong about what you think you ought to do?

In fact, The Open Society and its Enemies is a book entirely about ethics and morality. With the scant knowledge you have of his work, you should at least know that much.

Yes he did write about ethics. Why are you pretending you know anything about him? You clearly don't. All you know is what you've read online.

Its not an argument, its a fact. Conjectures and refutations are about more than just physical reality.

Morality is about oughts, not preferences. You can be wrong about what you ought to do.

You're absolutely right. The guy in this video lays out his morality without any explanation why I should believe him.

Conjecture and refutations is not just about physical reality. You would know this if you were familiar with his work. Also no, morals are not subjective. There's plenty to conjecture about.

Oh god no. This just sounds like a self centered Fi dom talking his own morality up.

You're right. You cant derive an ought from an is. Lucky I never said that. Also no, morals are not on 'another plane'.

Yup. This is the most common sense perspective! And I believe it is the correct one.

I believe Karl Popper is right here. Every kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge, can only ever be arrived at through a process of conjecture and and criticism.

Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch? Its an excellent book that, among many other things, explains why the laws of physics MUST be computable.

You're right. I had to read it 3 times realize he was saying something i already knew. Those ideas are not complex, they are extremely simple. Its just his writing is so bad I couldn't undestand what the hell he was talking about.

Lol. Enough said.

And what did I say you did exactly?

Sure. But why can Steven Pinker communicate really complex ideas in a way that is easily understood, while you barely communicate really simple ideas? It is because you don't know how to write. You write like you're talking to yourself and not to another person.

No you don't, actually. Your writing is convoluted and extremely difficult to understand. I'm willing to bet you have had no difficulty understanding anything I have said....

I didn't say he made grammatical errors. I said he doesn't have good prose. Take this sentence for example "Predicting everything is your own twisted form of a mating call exerted out due to pressure and responses picked up from cues indicating you should do whatever you need to survive and...

Mate, you need better pros. Your words are virtually incomprehensible because you don't know how to fucking write well.

Time is not static. And neither is the universe. This isn't really a 'problem' with determinism.

I would. I don't think it counts as cannibalism. Just like you are not eating an animals when you consume lab grown meat, you are not eating humans when you consume lab grown meat.

Yes that is correct. But 'all ravens are black' is not an explanation in its own right. Also, hypotheses are not 'upgraded'. Its literally just that they are explanations when they meet Poppers criteria. He laid them out in almost every book hes written. The Logic of Scientific Discovery...

It is falsifiable, but it is not a theory. Also no they are not methodological rules. They are criteria that a hypothesis must meet in order to become a theory. And this includes philosophical hypotheses. Since your statement about ravens does not meet them, it does not count as a theory. This...

Theories about consciousness can be testable though.. Or am I missing the point?

This is not a theory, according to Popper. Theories solve problems by explaining them. This theory of yours is not actually a theory because it breaks 3 major rules in the Popperian rule book. There is no problem that is solved by stating 'all ravens are black'. No controversy that is...

That it is impossible to do induction.

So basically you're asking if the Turing Test works? No, it does not! To know whether this cat has emotions, you need to do more than observe it. As you have already explained, appearances can be deceiving. In order to distinguish real emotion from emulated emotion, one must have an explanation...

But why sweetie? Oh ok darling, I wrote my dissertation on the computability of the laws of physics.

Well mathematical induction is completely different, so Im not conflating the two. Also, I don't see why "proof induction is impossible" is a contradiction? Where is the contradiction? Further, induction may be inherently uncertain, but every characterization of induction in philosophy is...

Yes. This is another reason to doubt induction. Anyway, what problem has an answer?

No, I was trying to show why induction isn't possible. Not show why logic is illogical. Im not trying to talk down to you, its just very difficult to give a lecture on logical entailment since I am not a professor.

I cannot explain unless you are familiar with formal logic. Its not possible to explain the concept in just one message.

Yes, I agree! Creative leaps of imagination is the life force of science. You can't have science without it.

Ok now you've drawn out the argument with a real example. In your example, its abundantly clear that C2 is consistent with C1. Its completely obvious that "all crows that are visible to me are black" is consistent with "all crows a black". The problem is, If you logically derived C2 from (not...

Yes you are right. And that's the problem. In logic, the conclusion is just another premise. But in induction, the conclusion is not just another observation. This is problematic since then you have to explain how one kind of information can derived from a completely different kind of...

"|-" is Mathematical Logic notation. It means that whatever is on the right of "|-" is entailed by whatever is on the left. Whatever is on the right is logically derived by whatever is on the left. Cj is Conclusion J. "some set of observations" is just a random set of observations made by some...

Let O1, O2,...., On be observations 1 through n Let Ci be Conclusion i Suppose (O1, O2, .... , On |- Ci ) where Ci is a conclusion derived from some set of observations. By the laws of logic, we can now use Ci as an observation We know that observations cannot be inconsistent with each other...