Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[Anomaly]

LOL Yes I assumed it probably wasn’t an actual situation Lore. It’s just that I got to exploring some of the flat earther websites a while back - and it was something of an epiphany for me to realise how hard it actually is to refute this sort of thing with a concrete proof rather than an appeal to popular convention.

Haha, well I'm glad we've come to see eye to eye at least in this, though I suspect many other things as well. In any case, I do so enjoy the discussion.

I'd say that one would need to have to spend an inordinate amount of time studying to even be able to argue about the possibility of it being incorrect. However, firstly... to lay a foundation of trust, in that they will be heard out as an equal of similar mind. I think the trouble is, in those types of scenarios, there tends to be an assumption of a battle of wits, and it is more to do with a battle of will or values.

 

[John K]

I think the trouble is, in those types of scenarios, there tends to be an assumption of a battle of wits, and it is more to do with a battle of will or values.

You are right. The flat earth debate is useful as an amusing and exaggerated example of how a logical approach is only of partial benefit in any debate. People are really good at choosing unjustified and often unarticulated initial assumptions and taking as obvious that a valid chain of reasoning built on top of them can lead to the truth. It’s deliciously ironic that any debate eventually ends up arguing about the truth of the assumptions and by definition cannot be truly logical.

But anyway I never could understand the flat v round earth debate. If people just used their eyes they’d see it’s obvious we live on the surface of a Klein bottle

 

[Ren]

Ok, returning to a few posts here.

On a more general note, I find what Popper says is pretty compelling for another reason. It's more than likely that creative novelty in thought comes from exploring what seems like nonsense at first - not only may it sound like nonsence, it may actually be nonsense too, but nonsense that may act as a stepping stone to a major breakthrough in thought. Without a suspension of premature dismissal we woud miss some of the great ideas and paradigm shifts of history. Think of Wigner and the theory of continental drift for example. This probationary leniency in judgement appeals to me very much from a dominant Ni perspective .

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I think Wittgenstein's saying can be conceived as heuristically useful, but not to be taken literally. Otherwise it ends in positivism, and presumably, given the DNA of full-blown positivism, you can say goodbye to possible paradigm shifts after that.

Interestingly, Thomas Kuhn argues that the language of a new paradigm does not necessarily even translate to the previous paradigms, in that there will be 'failures of translation'. If that's the case, then a good chunk of the new paradigm would be seen as nonsensical (by the earlier Wittgenstein's standards) by the defenders of the prior paradigm.

 

[Ren]

I actually think the Bible is intentionally vague.

I kept coming back to how orthodoxy is so mistaken in its interpretations.

It seems contradictory to me to hold, on the one hand, that the Bible is intentionally vague, and to complain (on the other) about the multitude of available interpretations.

Indeterminacy of interpretation is a necessary consequence of vagueness. If the original itself is vague, how can one claim to have the 'right' interpretation? There must be fuzziness on both sides.

 

[Ren]

I do wonder if fact whether we should actually expect something that is boundedly indeterminate in reality, given that humans exist. We appear to have choices as acts of will that on the face of it contradict the deterministic theories of nature such as Newton's. Either this is an illusion, or there is a sort of freedom of choice made possible within the physical matrix of reality. There seem to be big philosophical overlaps here across the boundaries between physics and metaphysics, but I'm not competent to articulate these myself - it needs an @Ren maybe?

Yes, philosophers usually refer to this gap as the ontological gap. The universe is causally closed according to physics, but definitely not experienced as such by human persons. Consciousness, intentionality, and free will, among other 'mental' concepts, have not yet been given adequate scientific descriptions. There are philosophers who consider the undertaking impossible, i.e. that mental attributes are fundamentally non-physical in nature. Other philosophers (so-called physicalists, usually in the Anglo-American tradition) do think everything is ultimately physical, but they have mostly given up hopes of reducing mental properties to physical properties. Instead, what they are hoping to do eventually is to give an account of the mental as a higher-level determination of the physical, somewhat analogously to software and hardware in computers. In that way, they would preserve the distinction of mental properties from physical properties, while keeping physical properties as the substratum of the universe.

Assuming this can be done, it would still raise problems. How can subjectivity emerge as a higher-level property of the physical? And free will? It seems to me that the model would not explain the phenomenon, and that in a sense, the ontological gap would still be there. Of course, they will have the option of trying to give an account of subjectivity, free will, etc. in 'software' terms, but I'm honestly not sure how that can be achieved. There has never been a satisfying account of the ontological gap, to my knowledge, nor any concrete prospect of bridging it. Physicalists are tempted to either claim there is no real gap (which is ridiculous and theoretically impoverished) or to expect further scientific discoveries to eventually allow us to bridge it. They are especially looking forward to further advances in neuroscience and knowledge of the brain. To me, it looks more like a hopeful wish than anything else at this point.

The problem is that if the gap cannot even be bridged conceptually, it's hard to imagine how it could be bridged empirically.

 

[Ren]

It's sobering if you take this situation all the way. Suppose I'm a flat-earther and I challenge you to back up your claim that the world is round, how would you prove it to me? I mean hard, compelling proof, not a lot of anecdotes and other people all agreeing with you, but with none of you able to give me first hand evidence. It seems to me that most of what we accept as scientific fact is actually consensus opinion based on a collective act of faith in the small number of people who can actually create and access primary evidence. That's not far removed from the way religions operate.

Of course the situation is intrinsically symmetric - the flat-earther is just as challenged to provide hard proof. The big difference is a social, not a logical one - public opinion holds that the earth is round, and that a flat earth position is rubbish, so the actual very hard challenge of proving the truth is not really addressed by most round earthers.

I hasten to add that I know the world is round lol, but proving it on the spot, in a bar conversation, beyond reasonable doubt .... my goodness there's a challenge.

Well, it seems to me quite removed from the way religions operate... Scientists have it as their task to provide empirically testable theories. Where is the testable theory for the existence of the Trinity?

Inductive faith is not the same as 'faith alone'. The former can be corroborated by (often very creatively and cleverly designed) tests, the latter cannot.

Along those lines, there are probably millions of untested scientific theories that remain mere 'theories' precisely because they haven't been adequately tested.

 

[Ren]

This said, I can completely agree that many things that are touted as 'fact' are indeed opinions. The tell is when you ask them how they know, typically, they will say that it is nearly impossible to know or they will say that they don't know. I think there is a bit of fun in that. Perhaps, that is the point.

I do agree that what we call 'facts' are often just very well corroborated opinions. Perhaps there is no way out of this. Of course, Kant would disagree....

I refer anyone who is interested to this article on analytic vs. synthetic a priori judgements. It's a fascinating and fruitful topic, and (I believe) not merely of interest to philosophy nerds, lol.

Happy to discuss it, too.

 

[John K]

Well, it seems to me quite removed from the way religions operate... Scientists have it as their task to provide empirically testable theories. Where is the testable theory for the existence of the Trinity?

I quite agree, but I'm shooting at something completely different here.

Let's say that we are sitting in a bar over a pint of Guinness and we start to talk about the shape of the earth - and I say that it's flat, you say that it's round. How would you prove conclusively to me, with direct evidence, that it is indeed round? Most people cannot, and simply appeal to collective views in their prevailing society. They may well appeal to the science, but the role of the actual scientists in this situation is little different to that of a clergyman - most people have no way of validating at first hand what the scientists are saying. In other words, their attitude to the science is an act of faith, directly analogous to most people's attitude to religious knowledge. In fact most people who argue the world is round (or flat for that matter) not only have no access to the hard evidence, but don't actually know anyone who does either.

Even if they do have access to actual scientists, most people would not be able to critique the evidence the scientists present and would find inpenetrable technical expositions and a minefield of interpretations among the scientists at the rock face of much scientific knowledge.

A more significant example than the shape of the earth is global warming - is it happening, and if it is what is causing it? There won't be one in a million people out there who can access and verify their position on this from the primary evidence. Almost all of us are basing our views as an act of faith, based on social factors presented through a variety of second and third hand social media sources and peer pressure. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but acceptance is through faith not evidence for most of us.

This is why I maintain that for most people, our faith in science is pretty well the same as our faith in a religion.

 

[Anomaly]

I do agree that what we call 'facts' are often just very well corroborated opinions. Perhaps there is no way out of this. Of course, Kant would disagree....

I refer anyone who is interested to this article on analytic vs. synthetic a priori judgements. It's a fascinating and fruitful topic, and (I believe) not merely of interest to philosophy nerds, lol.

Happy to discuss it, too.

I see what you did there, Ren. hehe.

Thank you. I will read through it when I have time. Sort of traversing in and out at the moment. : )

 

[Anomaly]

Even if they do have access to actual scientists, most people would not be able to critique the evidence the scientists present and would find inpenetrable technical expositions and a minefield of interpretations among the scientists at the rock face of much scientific knowledge.

A more significant example than the shape of the earth is global warming - is it happening, and if it is what is causing it? There won't be one in a million people out there who can access and verify their position on this from the primary evidence. Almost all of us are basing our views as an act of faith, based on social factors presented through a variety of second and third hand social media sources and peer pressure. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but acceptance is through faith not evidence for most of us.

This is why I maintain that for most people, our faith in science is pretty well the same as our faith in a religion.

John, I think this is why those with access to such 'primary evidence' (say in their professions), should be held to a standard of integrity in offering said information to the general public; being held in 'peer review' as a way of accountability. However, as you alluded to, it requires a degree of discernment for the average layman to 'trust' the information is free of bias (it never is), outside influence (i.e.: funding for research, particular motivations, future goals), or any number of factors of which they may remain unaware. Of course, there is another layer to this, which is the integrity of the platform the information is presented on for the ones accessing it. Critical thinking requires you, as the consumer of information, to dismantle it, to figure out if it is consistent, and to cross-check it with information of similar content. This takes intention and work, but more so integrity to the self. Critical thinking often goes to the wayside, and regurgitation takes precedent, the latter of which those of us who are skeptics cannot will ourselves to do. Unfortunately, 'group-think' is a seductive mistress.

This said, I often wonder which things we think are fundamentally and consistently 'true' today, will become mere legend in the coming centuries as new information and experience are revealed to us. I love researching the flow of 'scientific belief' throughout history. If nothing else, it illustrates our own inefficacies in grasping for 'truths' which move just beyond our reach. There is cosmic humor in there somewhere.

 

[Ren]

I quite agree, but I'm shooting at something completely different here.

Let's say that we are sitting in a bar over a pint of Guinness and we start to talk about the shape of the earth - and I say that it's flat, you say that it's round. How would you prove conclusively to me, with direct evidence, that it is indeed round? Most people cannot, and simply appeal to collective views in their prevailing society. They may well appeal to the science, but the role of the actual scientists in this situation is little different to that of a clergyman - most people have no way of validating at first hand what the scientists are saying. In other words, their attitude to the science is an act of faith, directly analogous to most people's attitude to religious knowledge. In fact most people who argue the world is round (or flat for that matter) not only have no access to the hard evidence, but don't actually know anyone who does either.

Even if they do have access to actual scientists, most people would not be able to critique the evidence the scientists present and would find inpenetrable technical expositions and a minefield of interpretations among the scientists at the rock face of much scientific knowledge.

A more significant example than the shape of the earth is global warming - is it happening, and if it is what is causing it? There won't be one in a million people out there who can access and verify their position on this from the primary evidence. Almost all of us are basing our views as an act of faith, based on social factors presented through a variety of second and third hand social media sources and peer pressure. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but acceptance is through faith not evidence for most of us.

This is why I maintain that for most people, our faith in science is pretty well the same as our faith in a religion.

I must say I don't find this convincing. This seems to me like playing on two meanings of the word faith.

Yes, I have 'faith in science' in that I trust the scientists to be rational chaps who know what they're doing, who work within solid scientific institutions, who publish in peer-reviewed papers, and so on. This is a case of deferring to the experts. We cannot avoid doing this given the immensity of human knowledge. In principle, it would be possible for me to train myself so as to engage critically with their statements.

I do not have 'faith in religion' in that I trust the theologians to know what they're doing. I am not 'deferring to the experts'. If I train myself appropriately, I will be able to critically engage with them in matters, say, of systematic theology. I will be able to pinpoint that they are maybe wrong on this or that interpretation of Scripture. But at no point will I be able to train myself enough to determine whether God actually exists or not. In other words, my religious faith is actually not based on what the theologians are saying. It is a mystical, non-rational kind of faith.

Why do people believe in God? Because they trust that the theologians are well-trained practitioners who know their stuff? No, I think it's something much more primal than that. Maybe not irrational, but non-rational.

 

[Ren]

This said, I often wonder which things we think are fundamentally and consistently 'true' today, will become mere legend in the coming centuries as new information and experience are revealed to us. I love researching the flow of 'scientific belief' throughout history. If nothing else, it illustrates our own inefficacies in grasping for 'truths' which move just beyond our reach. There is cosmic humor in there somewhere.

Karl Popper subscribes to the concept of scientific knowledge as 'getting closer to the truth', though never possibly possessing it completely.

Notice the difference with religious knowledge. In religious knowledge, the whole truth is assumed from the start, as revealed.

 

[mintoots]

They are especially looking forward to further advances in neuroscience and knowledge of the brain. To me, it looks more like a hopeful wish than anything else at this point.

The problem is that if the gap cannot even be bridged conceptually, it's hard to imagine how it could be bridged empirically.

For now.

I think there's much to learn in metabolic exchanges and signalling patterns as potential cross points for the spatio-temporal, thereby possibly indicating mental activity as a physical act. The firing of neurons, for example, as a thought is formed or shaped, is primarily physical. It converts to thought and the gap is very clearly there in between the coding of neuron flashes throughout neural pathways to the actual shape of thought in our heads. You're right though that the gap is wide at the moment but it doesn't seem insurmountable to me. Microscopes can be further fine tuned. With computers and 3D scanners, we have tools at the ready for further inspection. Although, I do accept your skepticism as I'm mainly just being optimistic.

 

[Anomaly]

Karl Popper subscribes to the concept of scientific knowledge as 'getting closer to the truth', though never possibly possessing it completely.

Notice the difference with religious knowledge. In religious knowledge, the whole truth is assumed from the start, as revealed.

I don't think the latter is absolute, in that there are not those who assume that they have a knowledge of the 'unknowable' without some kind of revelation of experience whether in the physical or metaphysical. This 'knowing' isn't entirely irrational, in that it relies purely on a 'synthetic' rendering. Similar to Science, in the falling of the apple from the tree, the experience is an association to some 'truth' which must be continually discovered and refined given new information. I think the biggest difference is that religious knowledge requires the weaving of both the analytical (evidentiary in the sensory) and the spiritual (the metaphysical 'knowing' that there is more out there) if hoping to 'get closer to the truth'. I think this is why John was saying that Science requires a modicum of faith as well, because we will never fully 'get there', but we can attempt it.

 

[Ren]

I don't think the latter is absolute, in that there are not those who assume that they have a knowledge of the 'unknowable' without some kind of revelation of experience whether in the physical or metaphysical. This 'knowing' isn't entirely irrational, in that it relies purely on a 'synthetic' rendering. Similar to Science, in the falling of the apple from the tree, the experience is an association to some 'truth' which must be continually discovered and refined given new information. I think the biggest difference is that religious knowledge requires the weaving of both the analytical (evidentiary in the sensory) and the spiritual (the metaphysical 'knowing' that there is more out there) if hoping to 'get closer to the truth'. I think this is why John was saying that Science requires a modicum of faith as well, because we will never fully 'get there', but we can attempt it.

I think we might be slightly at cross purposes. Let me try to take a different route.

Let's say a Catholic theologian comes up with a new interpretation of the Trinity which becomes the seminal interpretation, and gathers a broad consensus within the community of Catholic theologians. A believer might read about this in the paper, explore a bit of it for himself without fully understanding everything that is said (because he lacks the in-depth knowledge). Since the interpretation has achieved consensus among foremost experts in Catholic theology, the believer takes for granted that the interpretation is right, and adopts it. In this sense, he 'has faith' in the theologians.

This is the exact analogy with scientists and their theories. So we are agreement here. But faith in the new interpretation of a theologian is not at all synonymous with religious faith. In fact, religious faith is presupposed throughout!

Am I the only one to see the fallacy of ambiguity here? lol.

 

[Ren]

For now.

I think there's much to learn in metabolic exchanges and signalling patterns as potential cross points for the spatio-temporal, thereby possibly indicating mental activity as a physical act. The firing of neurons, for example, as a thought is formed or shaped, is primarily physical. It converts to thought and the gap is very clearly there in between the coding of neuron flashes throughout neural pathways to the actual shape of thought in our heads. You're right though that the gap is wide at the moment but it doesn't seem insurmountable to me. Microscopes can be further fine tuned. With computers and 3D scanners, we have tools at the ready for further inspection. Although, I do accept your skepticism as I'm mainly just being optimistic.

I don't deny that scientific progress might one day bridge the gap. The trick is that certain properties we ascribe to mental events don't seem adequate when applied to physical events. 'Intentional', 'conscious,' 'deliberate', 'subjective', 'first-person'... these are qualitative ascriptions. It is very difficult to imagine how scientists could provide suitable paraphrases/equivalents in the language of physical science.

One possibility is that the language we're speaking is simply not adequate and already, in the first place, encodes an understanding of consciousness which will one day be considered archaic.

It's a very real possibility.

 

[mintoots]

Well, it seems to me quite removed from the way religions operate... Scientists have it as their task to provide empirically testable theories. Where is the testable theory for the existence of the Trinity?

Inductive faith is not the same as 'faith alone'. The former can be corroborated by (often very creatively and cleverly designed) tests, the latter cannot.

Along those lines, there are probably millions of untested scientific theories that remain mere 'theories' precisely because they haven't been adequately tested.

Because the data set is non-existent. We can't test unavailable datasets. Whatever research inquiry we may qualitatively or quantitatively structure will be derived from secondary sources, making the whole thing a shot to the moon.

Am I the only one to see the fallacy of ambiguity here? lol.

Lol! Are you frustrated???

I do see what you mean. Academically, for a theory to move closer to becoming scientific fact, it is quantitatively tested. The loop continues until all theories are backed with mathematically sound evidences, therefore having a concretized knowledge. The irrefutable logic of maths make it factual.

Religion doesn't have that. Suppose we are able to scientifically structure a research inquiry wherein we try to prove the existence of the trinity by the number of people who believe it, the bias is very clearly obvious so then the hypothesis of the quantitative inquiry is faulty, unsound and unacceptable.

 

[Anomaly]

I think we might be slightly at cross purposes. Let me try to take a different route.

Let's say a Catholic theologian comes up with a new interpretation of the Trinity which becomes the seminal interpretation, and gathers a broad consensus within the community of Catholic theologians. A believer might read about this in the paper, explore a bit of it for himself without fully understanding everything that is said (because he lacks the in-depth knowledge). Since the interpretation has achieved consensus among foremost experts in Catholic theology, the believer takes for granted that the interpretation is right, and adopts it. In this sense, he 'has faith' in the theologians.

This is the exact analogy with scientists and their theories. So we are agreement here. But faith in the new interpretation of a theologian is not at all synonymous with religious faith. In fact, religious faith is presupposed throughout!

Am I the only one to see the fallacy of ambiguity here? lol.

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood, I'll concede to that point.

 

[Ren]

Lol! Are you frustrated???

Haha no, just wondering if I've been missing something throughout.

 

[Ren]

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood, I'll concede to that point.

Just to clarify, I wasn't complaining or anything, but rather wondering if I was the one who misunderstood (and I have not dispelled that idea yet, just trying to pin things down!)