tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post568692296993740175..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Reading Rosenberg, Part IEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58257445693340325612011-11-06T09:31:21.715-08:002011-11-06T09:31:21.715-08:00grodrigues,
"I used the word 'imagine...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>"I used the word 'imagine' on purpose, not conceive. But such subtleties are beyond your pale."</i><br /><br />And I used 'imagine' and 'conceive' on purpose since I reject the imagined difference between these two concepts as used around here. That subtle and vague difference is no more than an excuse for ad hoc fantasy assertions. <br /><br /><i>"And yet more deflection; we go from your claim that without empirical feedback mathematical truths are in doubt to a rant about Possible Worlds. Amazing."</i><br /><br />That you don't see the connection is a poor reflection on your grasp of the issue. Far from a deflection, it's the heart. What is 'truth' in math about? What does it apply to? How pervasive is its application? <br /><br /><i>"You do not even understand modality well. Not that it matters much, but two points: 1. Necessary truths like mathematical truths hold in every possible world. 2. There are possible world semantics that do not entail any ontological commitment;"</i><br /><br />Yes, you want to define your way into truth. You smugly assume (1) and (2) are definitionally true and feel no need to prove it. <br /><br /><i>"Finally, I note that you did not responded to my objections; you did not provide a single argument against say, Platonism, and your "position" on mathematics is backed up by mere assertion;"</i><br /><br />And I note that you did not respond to my challenge. If math is 'informed by sense data' what is math without that (empirical) sense data? By grasping onto a math 'informed by sense data' you have capitulated. There is no need for me to provide an argument against Platonism. You basically agree with me whether you admit it or not.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47128152036723819932011-11-05T13:10:33.032-07:002011-11-05T13:10:33.032-07:00@djindra:
"Then I assume you reject many of ...@djindra:<br /><br />"Then I assume you reject many of the arguments Feser makes about mind and dualism since they depend upon what can be conceived or not. I'm with you there. But it also follows that mathematical axioms are neither true nor false simply because we can imagine (or conceive) axioms. They must be corroborated in some way outside pure imagination. That's always been my position on math."<br /><br />I used the word "imagine" on purpose, not conceive. But such subtleties are beyond your pale.<br /><br />"My interest in this issue has been mostly connected to supposed truth in 'all possible worlds.' Philosophers sometimes use this rhetoric, and they sometimes use math as an example of it."<br /><br />And yet more deflection; we go from your claim that without empirical feedback mathematical truths are in doubt to a rant about Possible Worlds. Amazing.<br /><br />"We cannot deduce any truth -- including mathematical truths -- about those possible worlds based upon truths that exist, as far as we know, only in our own world."<br /><br />You do not even understand modality well. Not that it matters much, but two points: 1. Necessary truths like mathematical truths hold in every possible world. 2. There are possible world semantics that do not entail any ontological commitment; A possible world is more like a large (but finite, assuming the total number of events in the universe is finite, a very reasonable assumption), consistent conjunction of propositions that completely describes a state of affairs of the universe that could have been obtained.<br /><br />Finally, I note that you did not responded to my objections; you did not provide a single argument against say, Platonism, and your "position" on mathematics is backed up by mere assertion; you did not produce the quote of me saying or implying that "math is based on revelation". Your behavior betrays that you are neither intellectually serious nor intellectually honest. I see no point in continuing this conversation.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53099474544067436202011-11-05T10:41:08.014-07:002011-11-05T10:41:08.014-07:00If you followed my argument, it is that without a ...<i>If you followed my argument, it is that without a deontological and/or teleological framework, morality is all relative.</i><br /><br />Well yes, morality is relative... as what I consider moral isn't the same as what someone brought up in another culture would consider moral.<br /><br /><i>The metaphysics get you out of the problem, both by providing a natural basis for morality and demonstrating the existence of God and providing knowledge about Him by hard logic.</i><br /><br />No, it really doesn't... it just lets you pass on examining your morals by declaring them to come from an arbitrary deity.<br /><br />One doesn't need metaphysics to determine a "natural" base for morality. Nor does it in any way demonstrate the existence of a deity. Further it fails to make the leap from the generic and indemonstrable "first mover" to "cut off your foreskin / bow in a particular direction five times a day / engage in symbolic cannibalism once a week"StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65764008672204508162011-11-05T09:57:52.333-07:002011-11-05T09:57:52.333-07:00grodrigues,
"Because I have already *anticip...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>"Because I have already *anticipated* this response from you."</i><br /><br />If you anticipated it why make it in the first place? I took it as an accusation and, your hedge notwithstanding, I think that's exactly how it was meant.<br /><br /><i>"what you can or cannot imagine counts about as much as what I can or cannot imagine."</i><br /><br />Then I assume you reject many of the arguments Feser makes about mind and dualism since they depend upon what can be conceived or not. I'm with you there. But it also follows that mathematical axioms are neither true nor false simply because we can imagine (or conceive) axioms. They must be corroborated in some way outside pure imagination. That's always been my position on math.<br /><br /><i>"I never asserted that mathematics is not informed by sense data;"</i><br /><br />Then maybe you essentially agree with me but you may not like where it leads. My interest in this issue has been mostly connected to supposed truth in 'all possible worlds.' Philosophers sometimes use this rhetoric, and they sometimes use math as an example of it. To me this is nonsense. If math is 'informed by sense data' as you say and I agree, then we are brains-in-a-jar in regard to 'all possible worlds.' We have no sense experience within those possible worlds. Se how can we consider ourselves informed about the laws of physics or math or being in those worlds? We cannot deduce any truth -- including mathematical truths -- about those possible worlds based upon truths that exist, as far as we know, only in our own world. The fact that neither you nor I can conceive of 1+1=3 only says our math is 'informed by sense data' within a world where this appears to be universally and necessarily true.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41927380368902641272011-11-04T09:02:33.655-07:002011-11-04T09:02:33.655-07:00@djindra:
As expected, you responded nothing and ...@djindra:<br /><br />As expected, you responded nothing and missed everything. It takes talent, let me tell you that.<br /><br />"<i>djindra thinks that every six months the mathematical community should consult him like a divinely sanctioned oracle</i><br /><br />Where did I suggest the mathematical community should consult me or any other person? Who but you thinks empirical verification consists of consulting a divinely sanctioned oracle? That's revelation. Reliance on revelation is the opposite of reliance on the empirical."<br /><br />Can you read? Because I have already *anticipated* this response from you. Quotes? Here is the relevant portion in my reply to you:<br /><br />"Or are you going to cling to the "divinely sanctioned oracle" irony to purposefully miss the substance -- that there is nowhere and no one to go to for the "occasional empirical feedback" and that the whole enterprise is misguided in the first place, because empirical truths never proved false a single, not even one mathematical truth and could never do?"<br /><br />But what else can be expected from the resident troll?<br /><br />"You, OTOH, *do* imply math is based on revelation. You might call it 'intuition' or some other vague feel-good term, but it's really a pulled-from-thin-air revelation from the math gods. So you accuse me of your own sin."<br /><br />The only assertion I made in this blog about my position on mathematics is that I tend to favor a moderate Aristotelian realism. Produce one quote in which I assert or imply what you say I do. Just one.<br /><br />"As yet you haven't explained how mathematicians get their foundation in the first place. How does a brain-in-a-jar, a brain that has never experienced the world, objects or space -- how does that brain intuit the idea of one? How does it intuit the idea of addition? Equality? How does it deduce the idea that 1+1 equals two? I see no way it can."<br /><br />I never asserted that mathematics is not informed by sense data; in fact, I explicitly said it is -- you know the whole moderate Aristotelian realism thingy? I begin to suspect that you do not make the least idea what my objections are...<br /><br />And what you can or cannot imagine counts about as much as what I can or cannot imagine. If you want to debunk Platonism say (which I reject) then you need more than an argument from incredulity. Not that I expect you will provide one, because I doubt you even know the arguments *for* Platonism. But please, by all means prove me wrong.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22410842959373949022011-11-04T08:50:32.905-07:002011-11-04T08:50:32.905-07:00JA,
to Ray: "You never responded to the clai...JA,<br /><br />to Ray: <i>"You never responded to the claim that a utilitarian framework would actually demand mass slaughter under specific circumstances"</i><br /><br />Since nobody here seems to be a Utilitarian, nobody here feels compelled to answer this straw man. You have this fantasy that we don't answer your questions when, in fact, you simply don't like the answers you get.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60491779840564623062011-11-04T08:30:53.520-07:002011-11-04T08:30:53.520-07:00grodrigues,
"Given your silence about it, I ...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>"Given your silence about it, I take it that you admit as I stated, that you talked about that which you know nothing."</i><br /><br />I know considerably more about what I believe and say I believe than you do. So if you want me to elaborate on your idiotic statement about me I will...<br /><br /><i>"djindra thinks that every six months the mathematical community should consult him like a divinely sanctioned oracle..."</i><br /><br />Where did I suggest the mathematical community should consult me or any other person? Who but you thinks empirical verification consists of consulting a divinely sanctioned oracle? That's revelation. Reliance on revelation is the opposite of reliance on the empirical.<br /><br />You, OTOH, *do* imply math is based on revelation. You might call it 'intuition' or some other vague feel-good term, but it's really a pulled-from-thin-air revelation from the math gods. So you accuse me of your own sin.<br /><br />As yet you haven't explained how mathematicians get their foundation in the first place. How does a brain-in-a-jar, a brain that has never experienced the world, objects or space -- how does that brain intuit the idea of one? How does it intuit the idea of addition? Equality? How does it deduce the idea that 1+1 equals two? I see no way it can.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82103737438839657452011-11-04T06:40:10.040-07:002011-11-04T06:40:10.040-07:00grodrigues - "The geometry of the spacetime m...grodrigues - <i>"The geometry of the spacetime manifold is encoded by a Riemannian metric that itself is a variable of the theory."</i><br /><br />Good point, I did oversimplify there.<br /><br /><i>"since the objective of mathematics, qua mathematics, is not to make or verify predictions about the real word, what point exactly are you trying to make in stating the obvious?"</i><br /><br />Well, it hasn't been 'obvious' to a lot of people that even the most rigorous and precisely-defined of mental models - mathematics - don't <i>dictate</i> the real world. Einstein was willing to give up Euclidean geometry, but balked at QM's "spooky action at a distance".<br /><br />An example I suppose we both can agree on - however beautifully the various trend curves of technology fit an exponential model, the Singularity types are, at best, charmingly naive to assume that the real world <i>must</i> follow those graphs endlessly into the future.<br /><br />Oh, yeah, and another <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong" rel="nofollow">area where people believe the models over reality</a>.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3775963807263009492011-11-04T06:30:29.644-07:002011-11-04T06:30:29.644-07:00JA contd - "A good example is your insistence...JA contd - <i>"A good example is your insistence that moral reasoning is like engineering."</i><br /><br />It really is. Morals, as schemes for how people are to interact with each other, develop and progress just like engineering. Slavery was an advance over 'kill everyone on the opposing side', but had many drawbacks, including endemic violence and crippling of innovation. We moved up to 'exchange of prisoners', and even up to things like the Marshall Plan, which was, by any measure, an enormous success.<br /><br /><i>"You reformulate my arguments into straw men."</i><br /><br />Wow. I actually don't think I've misrepresented anything you've said, but even were that true... that's like the pot calling the <i>event horizon</i> black. For example:<br /><br /><i>"You then claimed that eugenics is problematical because it may not be possible to identify genes."</i><br /><br />[Sigh.] No.<br /><br />I said that it's not possible to identify <i>all the <b>effects</b> of genes</i> in <i>all possible environmental conditions</i> and <i>alongside all possible other genes</i>. (Genes don't have precise effects anyone, but probabilistic ones; but I'll agree to leave aside that complicating factor for now.) The only definitive test is the real world. If a gene really is more harmful than beneficial, it will weed <i>itself</i> out in due course.<br /><br /><i>"Simply, if eliminating a population will create more pleasure for others than overall pain, it is justified."</i><br /><br />And that's the problem. That can't be established. Not just now, but in the future as well. Even if we <i>do</i> get a magical level of biological knowledge sufficient to map out all the potential effects of some gene or another, and determine that we're better off overall without it... that level of biological knowledge will <i>of necessity</i> imply the ability to eliminate the gene without eliminating a person with it. (Indeed, probably by correcting the gene <i>in</i> the person.)<br /><br />So no, elimination of populations, or even 'gentler' eugenics like in the movie 'Gattaca' won't work. In the movie, it didn't work <i>because</i> they couldn't actually map out phenotypes from genes like they claimed.<br /><br />What you're asking for in the 'identify genes' bit (leaving aside that you should have said 'identify <i>effects of</i> genes') is the equivalent of a 'magic perfect lie detector'. If something like that could exist, it would have practical more repercussions... but it doesn't and can't.<br /><br /><i>"You have not responded, for the second time, to my criticism of positivism, game theory, and rationality."</i><br /><br />When you make a case that actually applies to what I'm saying, perhaps I will devote more time to it. (For example, not only have I not claimed that people are "machines that attempt to maximize their material well-being over all else", I've directly and explicitly denied that.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63630377502290922332011-11-04T06:29:36.168-07:002011-11-04T06:29:36.168-07:00JA - "Shift from highlighting survival as the...JA - <i>"Shift from highlighting survival as the motivating factor to one of many."</i><br /><br />In the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8954608646904080796&postID=568692296993740175#c6957357872198373700" rel="nofollow">comment</a> where I mentioned survival, I also mentioned "the company of other people", "a desire to write a novel", and everything in the Maslow hierarchy, which includes "Friendship, Intimacy, Family", "a need to be respected and to have self-esteem and self-respect", "to become everything that one is capable of becoming". How did you miss that?<br /><br /><i>"you respond with the claim that Christians haven't always lived up to framework in practice"</i><br /><br />No, no! I responded with the claim that many Christians have <i>explicitly denied</i> the principle. Clement of Alexandria did so ~200AD with the death penalty, and then there's Aquinas' 'just war theory'. This isn't people failing to live up to principles, this is people actively arguing that the principles are compatible with ending human life.<br /><br /><i>"You never responded to the claim that a utilitarian framework would actually demand mass slaughter under specific circumstances"</i><br /><br />Given sufficiently extreme hypothetical circumstances, that's possible in pretty much <i>any</i> moral framework. A whole lotta Christians argued for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The question becomes, do such hypothetical circumstances ever obtain <i>in practice</i>?<br /><br /><i>"you never reckon with the possibility that a peaceful resolution is impossible and the implications of your utilitarianism under those circumstances."</i><br /><br />Do you think dropping the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do?<br /><br /><i>"Your distinction between is/ought and are/ought is laughably mendacious."</i><br /><br />I actually did think about it. But I finally decided that switching from singular to plural wouldn't be a big deal. "This JA person appears to be able to read English," I thought. "Even <i>he</i> couldn't be so willfully obtuse as to miss the conjunction, right?"<br /><br />But evidently not. I will express this again, very precisely:<br /><br />One cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. But one <i>can</i> derive an 'ought' from an 'is' <i>and a goal</i>. Once you have a goal, that <i>creates</i> a teleology from which to evaluate the 'is' and derive an 'ought'. That's what the chess analogy illustrates.<br /><br />In practice, people derive 'oughts' (plural of 'ought') from 'ares' (plural of 'is') and 'goals' (plural of 'goal').Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24855201302697851692011-11-03T16:48:33.665-07:002011-11-03T16:48:33.665-07:00@Ray Ingles:
"Then Einstein comes along and ...@Ray Ingles:<br /><br />"Then Einstein comes along and shows that the actual geometry that best applies to the world is hyperbolic."<br /><br />The geometry of the spacetime manifold is encoded by a Riemannian metric that itself is a variable of the theory. Been a long time since I last looked at GR, but as far as I know, there is a priori no constraint that the sectional curvature be negative -- for example, in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker exact solution to GR's equations, the spatial part can be either elliptic, hyperbolic or euclidean.<br /><br />"Perhaps djindra meant to paraphrase Winston Churchill - "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." That no amount of elegance in a mathematical theory can substitute for verifying predictions in the real world?"<br /><br />What mr. djindra wrote was, and I repeat, "I claim that without occasional empirical feedback math truths are in doubt". Your charitable interpetation of him is at odds with this sentence and other ones he produced in the past. About "Likewise, however, mathematical truths don't prove anything about the real world": since the objective of mathematics, qua mathematics, is not to make or verify predictions about the real word, what point exactly are you trying to make in stating the obvious?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27047482723208502692011-11-03T14:51:55.392-07:002011-11-03T14:51:55.392-07:00@Stonetop:
If you followed my argument, it is tha...@Stonetop:<br /><br />If you followed my argument, it is that without a deontological and/or teleological framework, morality is all relative. The metaphysics get you out of the problem, both by providing a natural basis for morality and demonstrating the existence of God and providing knowledge about Him by hard logic.<br /><br />This doesn't make knowing what is ethical in every circumstance simple, of course. Language and culture play an interpretive role in attempting to deduce the natural law, especially as ethical situations increase in complexity. But, of course, it doesn't follow from that that natural law is useless, even if imprecise in certain circumstances.JAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3034079124868046342011-11-03T14:43:08.142-07:002011-11-03T14:43:08.142-07:00@djindra: Another Funny! Your response to me was a...@djindra: Another Funny! Your response to me was a polemic and failed to address a single substantive point that I argued--and you are now accusing me of being non-responsive. <br /><br />LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL<br /><br />Please, don't stop. I've never had my own personal jester before.JAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28621151963726317982011-11-03T14:39:28.271-07:002011-11-03T14:39:28.271-07:00@Ray
You claim that I've repeatedly ignored y...@Ray<br /><br />You claim that I've repeatedly ignored your claims; however, this is not the case. All of my posts have been attempts to show that your ethical conclusions do not follow the foundations you lay for ethics. Most of these arguments have been dropped by you.<br /><br />I'm just going to highlight a few of the dishonest things you do in the most recent post:<br /><br />-Shift from highlighting survival as the motivating factor to one of many. This flexibility allows you to make stronger claims regarding ethics when it is convenient, but also allows you to avoid having to defend survival as the goal of human life.<br /><br />-After making a claim that your ethical framework does not provide a foundation for defending absolute human dignity, you respond with the claim that Christians haven't always lived up to framework in practice. (They sin -- what a shocker! Now if only Christianity could make an account for this novel argument.) This is a non-answer and a diversion. You have provided no defense against my claim.<br /><br />-You never responded to the claim that a utilitarian framework would actually demand mass slaughter under specific circumstances; instead, you took my example and professed faith that the conflict could be worked out, allowing you to avoid those implications--yet you never reckon with the possibility that a peaceful resolution is impossible and the implications of your utilitarianism under those circumstances.<br /><br />-Your distinction between is/ought and are/ought is laughably mendacious. If you are going to use semantics instead of argument to introduce moral obligation into the natural world like this, at least use a different verb than "to be."<br /><br />-You insist that I agree with your chess analogy to substantiate the prior point addressed on this list, but you've ignored my argument that the analogy does not work for you without teleology/deontology.<br /><br />-You question beg to high hell. A good example is your insistence that moral reasoning is like engineering. You never substantiate this analogy with sound reasoning, but only assert it.<br /><br />-You reformulate my arguments into straw men. I made an argument that utilitarian implies eugenics. You then claimed that eugenics is problematical because it may not be possible to identify genes. However, this argument has nothing to do with genes. Simply, if eliminating a population will create more pleasure for others than overall pain, it is justified. It doesn't matter what genes they have at all, but what the outcome of this calculus is. (I'll also note, as an aside, that if genes can be identified in the future, the implication of your argument is that eugenics is A. OK.)<br /><br />-You have not responded, for the second time, to my criticism of positivism, game theory, and rationality. Instead, you merely claim that people are irrational utility maximizers, which doesn't address my critique at all, which applies just as much to that reformulation as to the prior one.<br /><br />As these examples illustrate, dialogue with you is impossible as you dismiss arguments, resort to non sequiturs, recharacterize arguments as straw men, question beg, shift the focus to minor points in order to ignore stronger arguments, make broad and dubious claims without reasoning or evidence, shift the burden to your critics rather than responding to criticism, and make use of red herrings (e.g., Hitler was a Christian of some sort!). You are everywhere and thus nowhere. You can't sustain a point and discuss it with precision. You are guilty of shifting and vagueness. Trying to even identify your basic argument is like nailing Jello to a wall.JAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49017061682696162022011-11-03T14:02:19.961-07:002011-11-03T14:02:19.961-07:00The morality you uphold can never be more than a c...<i>The morality you uphold can never be more than a choice from within a specific cultural tradition. </i><br /><br />And? The only difference between that and declaring that your particular deity of choice defines morality is the level of honesty involved... the person who recognizes that their morality is based on the environment is much more honest then the person declaring that their morality is based on the declarations of some arbitrary deity.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89235121193128294492011-11-03T12:30:35.596-07:002011-11-03T12:30:35.596-07:00grodrigues - "empirical truths never proved f...grodrigues - <i>"empirical truths never proved false a single, not even one mathematical truth and could never do?"</i><br /><br />True. Likewise, however, mathematical truths don't prove anything about the real world. For a few thousand years, people figured Euclidean geometry was 'the' real geometry. The parallel postulate was annoying, but no one doubted it.<br /><br />Then elliptical and hyperbolic geometry were discovered. And that was interesting, but not practical.<br /><br />Then Einstein comes along and shows that the actual geometry that best applies to the world is hyperbolic. Euclidean geometry is still as true as any other mathematical result - the conclusions follow from the premises - it's just that those premises don't happen to match reality.<br /><br />Perhaps djindra <i>meant</i> to paraphrase Winston Churchill - "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." That no amount of elegance in a mathematical theory can substitute for verifying predictions in the real world?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24653598854750702652011-11-03T11:22:58.864-07:002011-11-03T11:22:58.864-07:00@djindra:
"Please, abstain from commenting a...@djindra:<br /><br />"<i>Please, abstain from commenting about that which you know nothing about, e.g. my position on what is the proper foundation for truth in mathematics.</i><br /><br />Is this a new policy for everyone or just me? I'll give you a clue. Please refrain from mischaracterizing me. Things might go better without hypocrisy."<br /><br />Given your silence about it, I take it that you admit as I stated, that you talked about that which you know nothing. Good first step. Mischaracterizing you? I quoted you, far more than you ever did about my opinions, so in what way did I mischaracterize way? Did you or did you not asserted that "I claim that without occasional empirical feedback math truths are in doubt"? A quick search will turn up the relevant link. Or are you going to cling to the "divinely sanctioned oracle" irony to purposefully miss the substance -- that there is nowhere and no one to go to for the "occasional empirical feedback" and that the whole enterprise is misguided in the first place, because empirical truths never proved false a single, not even one mathematical truth and could never do?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79265134856762802002011-11-03T10:44:23.112-07:002011-11-03T10:44:23.112-07:00grodrigues,
"Please, abstain from commenting...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>"Please, abstain from commenting about that which you know nothing about, e.g. my position on what is the proper foundation for truth in mathematics."</i><br /><br />Is this a new policy for everyone or just me? I'll give you a clue. Please refrain from mischaracterizing me. Things might go better without hypocrisy.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80768138318435183092011-11-03T08:21:41.987-07:002011-11-03T08:21:41.987-07:00@djindra:
"Maybe mr. djindra thinks that eve...@djindra:<br /><br />"<i>Maybe mr. djindra thinks that every six months the mathematical community should consult him like a divinely sanctioned oracle for the necessary empirical feedback just to make sure that "math truths" are not in doubt.</i><br /><br />A divinely sanctioned oracle isn't empirical feedback. Divinely sanctioned pronouncements would be your understanding of the foundation of math truths, not mine."<br /><br />Please, abstain from commenting about that which you know nothing about, e.g. my position on what is the proper foundation for truth in mathematics.<br /><br />It is also telling that you chose to counter my "divinely sanctioned oracle" ironical jab, which just in case you missed, describes *you*, leaving the substance unresponded. And please, refrain from asking "what substance"? If you cannot read and follow through the implications then the problem is yours, not mine; although I can spell them out for you, just in case you really are that thick.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13322560611500587262011-11-03T08:04:37.750-07:002011-11-03T08:04:37.750-07:00BenYachov,
You keep inventing a me who is not me....BenYachov,<br /><br />You keep inventing a me who is not me. I don't reject philosophy at all, as I've made clear to you. I reject bad philosophy. And I realize the limitations of any philosophy, particularly ideologically tainted philosophy.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33515811063510577652011-11-03T07:56:35.708-07:002011-11-03T07:56:35.708-07:00grodrigues,
"Maybe mr. djindra thinks that e...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>"Maybe mr. djindra thinks that every six months the mathematical community should consult him like a divinely sanctioned oracle for the necessary empirical feedback just to make sure that "math truths" are not in doubt."</i><br /><br />A divinely sanctioned oracle isn't empirical feedback. Divinely sanctioned pronouncements would be your understanding of the foundation of math truths, not mine.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2175074107735401002011-11-03T07:49:36.373-07:002011-11-03T07:49:36.373-07:00JA,
You're kidding yourself. I'll take yo...JA,<br /><br />You're kidding yourself. I'll take your non-response as intellectual incompetence.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71901506210388525972011-11-03T07:18:14.624-07:002011-11-03T07:18:14.624-07:00JA - contd - "Further, it also means that we ...JA - contd - <i>"Further, it also means that we can welcome eugenics back."</i><br /><br />And here's a concrete example where not knowing the science, just having opinions <i>about</i> science, leads you astray.<br /><br />One of the (<i>many</i>) reasons eugenics is wrong is that it assumes that it's possible to identify genes that are bad, and eliminate them. Genetics is more complicated than that, and traits that are 'bad' in one circumstance can be literally life-saving in others. For example, a person with two copies of the sickle-cell gene will suffer from sickle-cell anemia and die young. But a person with only one copy does not suffer such ill effects and has a significantly increased resistance to malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, the risk of having babies die from sickle-cell anemia is offset by the improved chances of other babies surviving malaria. Cystic Fibrosis is another recessive trait where only one copy of a mutated gene apparently affords some protection from Typhoid and perhaps Tuberculosis. A further example is RH-negative blood; there is some evidence that, while RH-negative women are at increased risk of miscarriage, they have an easier time getting pregnant.<br /><br />We don't know what positive traits even 'negative' genes might help to enable - perhaps the stereotype of the artist susceptible to drug abuse has a basis in fact, and by working to eliminate alcoholism we would devastate the art world.<br /><br />This leads into another evolutionary argument against such eugenic practices. Diversity in a population is a very good thing. It helps a population cope with all kinds of threats - disasters, disease, variations in environment, and more. If a trait really is "bad", it will be eliminated in due course without - even in spite of - our intervention.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34292088848252384902011-11-03T07:13:56.942-07:002011-11-03T07:13:56.942-07:00JA - contd - "I claimed that the belief in hi...JA - contd - <i>"I claimed that the belief in historical "progress" was dispelled as a myth after the bloodiest century in human history..."</i><br /><br />Let me ask you a question: Can you summarize how Pinker addresses this point?<br /><br /><i>"a number of discoveries that demonstrated things like the cultural and historical contingency of morality"</i><br /><br />Can you summarize how Pinker addresses this point?<br /><br />Personally, I already addressed it - e.g. <b>If one conceives of morality as more akin to engineering, then inheriting from one 'school' of engineering will definitely leave visible marks. As I noted, engineers "Frequently have to resort to 'rules of thumb', approximations, and techniques that have historically worked, even if why they work isn't always fully understood."</b><br /><br />But I dare you to claim that you can't observe <a href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/23417.html" rel="nofollow">progress in engineering</a>. (That link also discusses moral progress, which you claim is impossible to discern.)<br /><br /><i>"or that scientific knowledge does not increase incrementally, but rather through paradigm shifts"</i><br /><br />And see, here is why I don't take your dismissals all that seriously regarding academic philosophy. In the areas I <i>do</i> have more experience in, your arguments are... weak. They seem "based upon cultural prejudice," specifically modern Western graduate academic culture.<br /><br />The idea that science doesn't progress <i>incrementally</i> is vastly different from the idea that it doesn't progress <i>at all</i>. Electrons in orbitals don't smoothly change their energy. Although they make discrete 'leaps', that doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between an increase or decrease in energy!<br /><br />Likewise with scientific progress, the fact that science progresses in jumps and paradigm shifts doesn't mean its course is <i>arbitrary</i>. We can clearly see a progression of increased explanatory power and precision. I prescribe a course in <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm" rel="nofollow">nondeterministic algorithms</a>, or the various types of <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Simulated_annealing#Related_methods" rel="nofollow">simulated annealing</a> to expand your metaphor base a bit.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78039555140966967932011-11-03T06:37:36.794-07:002011-11-03T06:37:36.794-07:00Ja - contd - "If you didn't catch that, ...Ja - contd - <i>"If you didn't catch that, I'll reiterate: privileging survival and utility is a choice--one shaped by personal and cultural beliefs."</i><br /><br />The implementations of that 'choice' are indeed shaped by personal and cultural beliefs. But no human fails to have goals - and thus utility - and survival is a, ahem, <i>extremely</i> common goal.<br /><br />In addition, we can actually test to see what goals people pursue and what the results are for their utility. I've pointed out research indicating that spending on others actually produces more happiness than people expect. Loving others, and being loved, turns out to be just about the best path to joy anyone's found. That's an important consideration.<br /><br /><i>"But who cares? Why should the ability to live a few more years take priority over fun or greatness? This is a choice!"</i><br /><br />But if you want 'fun' or 'greatness', you need to work with others. Those high in the Communist Party in the Soviet Union were better off than the 'proletariat', sure. They still missed out on big chunks of the standard of living of a middle-class American because their system impeded production and innovation. And, ultimately, proved fundamentally unstable. Whence the 'greatness' now?<br /><br /><i>"it's not demonstrable that people are rational utility maximizers"</i><br /><br />To <a href="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8954608646904080796&postID=568692296993740175&page=1#c5904863374147939217" rel="nofollow">reiterate</a>: <b>Actually, one of my claims is that people are <i>irrational</i> 'utility maximizers' that are frequently unsuccessful because of that.</b><br /><br />Everyone attempts to maximize their utility as they perceive it. Caring for their children or the glory of God or a better car than the neighbors. But there's the question of what actually <i>does</i> promote utility. And reason can help us out with that.<br /><br /><i>"This means that you cannot get an "ought"--don't kill people for fun--from an "is"--the laws of physics,"</i><br /><br />Agreed up to this point.<br /><br /><i>"which is what you are trying to do."</i><br /><br />And here's where your continual refusal to engage my central point is laid starkly bare. I'm not trying to devise an 'ought' from an 'is'; I'm deriving 'oughts' from 'ares' <i>and goals</i>. You've already agree that 'oughts' can arise in exactly that way - in chess, the 'is' are the rules of chess, and the goal is 'winning the game'.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.com