Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Naturalism showdown.

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 2:29:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some more interesting articles from NYTimes. I love the discussion topics they are putting up now.

Against naturalism is Timothy Williamson:

"Many contemporary philosophers describe themselves as naturalists. They mean that they believe something like this: there is only the natural world, and the best way to find out about it is by the scientific method. I am sometimes described as a naturalist. Why do I resist the description? Not for any religious scruple: I am an atheist of the most straightforward kind. But accepting the naturalist slogan without looking beneath the slick packaging is an unscientific way to form one's beliefs about the world, not :something naturalists should recommend.

What, for a start, is the natural world? If we say it is the world of matter, or the world of atoms, we are left behind by modern physics, which characterizes the world in far more abstract terms. Anyway, the best current scientific theories will probably be superseded by future scientific developments. We might therefore define the natural world as whatever the scientific method eventually discovers. Thus naturalism becomes the belief that there is only whatever the scientific method eventually discovers, and (not surprisingly) the best way to find out about it is by the scientific method. That is no tautology. Why can't there be things only discoverable by non-scientific means, or :not discoverable at all?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

For naturalism is Alex Rosenberg:

"Naturalism is the philosophical theory that treats science as our most reliable source of knowledge and scientific method as the most effective route to knowledge. In a recent essay for The Stone, Timothy Williamson correctly reports that naturalism is popular in philosophy. In fact it is now a dominant approach in several areas of philosophy — ethics, epistemology, the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and, most of in all, metaphysics, the study of the basic constituents of reality. Metaphysics is important: if it turns out that reality contains only the kinds of things that hard science recognizes, the implications will be grave for what we value in human :experience.

Naturalism is itself a theory with a research agenda of unsolved problems. But naturalists' confidence that it can solve them shouldn't be mistaken for "dogmatism," nor can its successes be written off as "slick packaging," two terms Professor :Williamson used in his essay to describe why he rejects naturalism."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

I don't think it's hard to work out that I am vastly more sympathetic with Williamson than with Rosenberg - especially if Rosenberg is right about the implications of naturalism: http://onthehuman.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:14:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one has learned anything about the world in any way that can't be described as scientific. The scientific method is simply a codification of what everyone does to acquire knowledge about the world.

They observe the world through there senses (collect data)
They make guesses about their observations (form hypothesis)
They test the guesses (experiment)
They develop an understanding of the world (form theories)

We don't have any knowledge that was collected through any other method. There may be other ways to obtain knowledge but it's mere speculation to say so.

A god could beam knowledge into someones head, as religions often claim they do. However, this wouldn't be a discovery but rather a revelation, akin to reading a book by someone who knows something that you don't.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:14:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
We don't have any knowledge that was collected through any other method. There may be other ways to obtain knowledge but it's mere speculation to say so.

The big thing that was discussed in that article was mathematics, which doesn't seem to fit in with your summary of the scientific method, but which is obviously regarded as knowledge of some kind.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:31:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
well.. I've got a slight problem with how they talk about naturalism..

Williamson says this about 'naturalists': They mean that they believe something like this: there is only the natural world, and the best way to find out about it is by the scientific method.

and emphasizes the latter portion: the best way to find out about it is by the scientific method.

and the other guy Only talks about the latter portion.

I would say that Naturalism BROADLY doesn't necessarily mean you take the Scientific Method to be a particularly privileged method of discovering reality.. Rather the First bit williamson mentioned is the important part... that there is Only the natural world.. and Most broadly this means that All things are part of the same reality.. there's no reason to assume some Distinct/Different kind of thing that's not part of the same Realm.. Rather all things should be seen as part of this realm... This realm being the only realm (which we should posit).

now... it so happens that the scientific method Happens to be in line with the way we Do find out about the world...and important to how we Do come to the know the nature of things.. but Naturalism doesn't claim that the notions that we do come in this (our) method to to be Absolute.. or that method to be Particularly privileged... it's just what we've got.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:14:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
No one has learned anything about the world in any way that can't be described as scientific. The scientific method is simply a codification of what everyone does to acquire knowledge about the world.

They observe the world through there senses (collect data)
They make guesses about their observations (form hypothesis)
They test the guesses (experiment)
They develop an understanding of the world (form theories)

We don't have any knowledge that was collected through any other method. There may be other ways to obtain knowledge but it's mere speculation to say so.

A god could beam knowledge into someones head, as religions often claim they do. However, this wouldn't be a discovery but rather a revelation, akin to reading a book by someone who knows something that you don't.

A priori knowledge kind of wrecks your whole scenario.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:43:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
A priori knowledge kind of wrecks your whole scenario.

'cept for it's utter non-existence... :/

just b/c people are disposed to come to ideas/understandings doesn't mean they Actuallyl Have them Before experience.

They don't and you've no reason to say they do.

they have capabilities of organizing sensory data before actually experiencing things... but those capabilities can hardly be called "Ideas/Understandings" themselves... Ideas of things come After experience.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:44:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:43:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
A priori knowledge kind of wrecks your whole scenario.

'cept for it's utter non-existence... :/


just b/c people are disposed to come to ideas/understandings doesn't mean they Actuallyl Have them Before experience.

They don't and you've no reason to say they do.

they have capabilities of organizing sensory data before actually experiencing things... but those capabilities can hardly be called "Ideas/Understandings" themselves... Ideas of things come After experience.

you've no idea of Number before you discriminate one thing from another and consider those discriminations.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:46:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:44:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you've no idea of Number before you discriminate one thing from another and consider those discriminations.

Now we have ideas of number.. but there's no reason to call it A-priori as that idea came about as described above... that is by considering discrimination.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:50:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:44:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:43:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
A priori knowledge kind of wrecks your whole scenario.

'cept for it's utter non-existence... :/


just b/c people are disposed to come to ideas/understandings doesn't mean they Actuallyl Have them Before experience.

This only shows that you have no idea what a prioricists take a priori knowledge or justification to be. Not even informed empiricists make this objection. While i'm waiting on freeman do you want to debate the existence of a priori knowledge or justification?


They don't and you've no reason to say they do.

they have capabilities of organizing sensory data before actually experiencing things... but those capabilities can hardly be called "Ideas/Understandings" themselves... Ideas of things come After experience.

you've no idea of Number before you discriminate one thing from another and consider those discriminations.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:51:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
claimed "a priori" ideas May even in actuality be Methods by which we Do come to experience.. that is methods Necessary To having experience in the first place.. but you cannot have any Idea of these organizational methods before experience.

A-priori "ideas" don't exist... A-priori organizing methods do.

the Ideas Of these organizing methods only come to being AFTER experience.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:50:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:44:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:43:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:39:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
A priori knowledge kind of wrecks your whole scenario.

'cept for it's utter non-existence... :/


just b/c people are disposed to come to ideas/understandings doesn't mean they Actuallyl Have them Before experience.

This only shows that you have no idea what a prioricists take a priori knowledge or justification to be. Not even informed empiricists make this objection. While i'm waiting on freeman do you want to debate the existence of a priori knowledge or justification?

Why don't you explain to me your meaning.. and then see if I would debate you...

instead of challenging me to debate something when you've said yourself that I don't understand what you mean by your claims.

As I've said... "ideas/understanding" don't come to be until After experience.. That i'd be willing to debate.

what do you (and a-prioricists generally) mean by A-priori knowledge?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:54:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
what do you (and a-prioricists generally) mean by A-priori knowledge?

maybe what they mean isn't clear.. and is nonsense anyhow..

what do you mean?
is it Not ideas/understandings?

what does knowledge mean if Not ideas/understandings?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 4:04:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Given that "knowledge" of something means an understanding of something.. I'd welcome a debate with you PCP.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:00:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 4:04:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Given that "knowledge" of something means an understanding of something.. I'd welcome a debate with you PCP.

Okay.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:14:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 3:30:51 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/19/2011 3:14:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
We don't have any knowledge that was collected through any other method. There may be other ways to obtain knowledge but it's mere speculation to say so.

The big thing that was discussed in that article was mathematics, which doesn't seem to fit in with your summary of the scientific method, but which is obviously regarded as knowledge of some kind.

Mathematics is knowledge that we need to collect other knowledge. The same could be said of logic. These are the things baked into our neural nets that give us the ability to acquire knowledge. We don't "collect" the knowledge to think mathematically or logically. We are born with it. Obviously, we can acquire mathematical and logical knowledge through their own employment, i.e., we can acquire knowledge through thinking (pure reason). I shouldn't say "acquire" though. I would use a word like compute, or extrapolate. If we were isolated, and all we had to think with was pure reason, with no external information, we could come up with a lot of mathematical and logical knowledge. But this would be more like a computer, with a fixed set of knowledge (math) and a program (logic) working on it own information, *computing* new information, but not acquiring new information.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it