I think we share in the scientific spirit. The rest is technical and arguably secondary. I found myself trying to make sense of empirical science. Because it is empirical, it is responsible to perceptions, to experience. But experience is “from a point of view.” On the other hand, science is cooperative. It aims at validity or power for the general, generic user.
I only care about science because it can help me personally. Technology works ! I experience the success of technology. So science is about experience and not some hidden objective reality.
Basically philosophy in its technical mode needs to frankly account for two assumptions that we already live ( already intensely believe in visceral terms, even if we theoretically deny it.)
(1) The empirical world is shared.
(2) The empirical world is from the point of view of this or that experiencer.
Many philosophers feel the need to assume an “External Objective Reality.” But I suggest that we don’t need this assumption. So we don’t need “true” to have a deep meaning.
This morning I read that the Nobel Prize was just awarded to a physicist for his work on neutrinos. He developed a telescope that is embedded deep in the ice of the South Pole. It is called The IceCube Neutrino Observatory. It consists of a team of more than 400 scientists around the world. They have discovered high energy neutrinos originating from far beyond our solar system.
This raises some questions. The neutrinos interacting with the ice produce a flash of light that is detected by the telescopes sensors. What is being detected? From who’s and what point of view is the empirical world being viewed?
“More than a billion neutrinos, emitted by the sun, pass through the palm of your hand every second”, according to Mark Pearce, chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics. Throughout most of human history there has been no “experiencer” of this. This, it would seem, gives us good reason to assume that there is some hidden objective reality, part of which has been discovered.
I’m nearly the same, but I’m curious how science may help us find something out there—something foreign. Even if it’s not a(n intelligent) creature, but only a place or an insight. Foreign things interest me. I want to encounter more of them.
I tend to think of truth as a thing to be created by each of us, more so than discovered. We have piles of words, we humans, and so let us organize them in the most elegant way we can. It’s why I go to debate—to have my truth’s elegance tested and refined by resistance.
But chasing an ideal—like external objective reality—does tend to invigorate some, don’t you think?
It’s a delicate notion to hold in one’s head. I think of myself as chasing a God who should never be found. If I find Him, the game is over. The horizon must remain the horizon.
So in my conception, Truth/God can be useful as ideals, I think I’m trying to say.
Beliefs don’t exist. They are a relic of folk psychology built upon the contradictory notion of a knowable objective reality.
“Objective” or “Physical” truth reduces to Subjectivity + Intersubjective semantics. This is the inevitable consequence of the fact that
The semantics of physics deliberately omits subjectivity, in order so that the mathematical language of physics can serve as a intersubjective communication protocol whose definition isn’t dependent upon the nature of how physics is understood.
Any understanding of Physics rests upon a subjective interpretation that isn’t itself part of the subject matter of physics. Every individual has a different understanding of physics that is relative to their own perceptual and cognitive closure.
Is this something you believe? Is it based on evidence? Does it ignore the overwhelming evidence based on what people say they believe? Many of them will give much more weight to what they believe than to a notion of a knowable objective reality. They may even reject the idea of a knowable objective reality.
What about religious beliefs? There is a diverse and and irreconcilable set of differences. Some believe what is in their hearts without regard to or contrary to evidence. It is for them a matter of subjective truth or conviction or feeling.
Is this an objective fact or is it based on your subjective understanding of how physics is understood? If it is the later, is it possible to move beyond differences of opinion? Are the billions of opinions of equal value?
Henri Kagan and Kenso Soai were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry on Wednesday for solving a longstanding mystery about mirror images in molecules.
Some may not believe it but the truths they discovered have nothing to do with beliefs, but rather, is about the structure and symmetry of molecules and with using this knowledge for the development of drugs and a better understanding of the origins of life.
The brain in a skull is not a good description, because much feeling comes from other parts of the body. So these parts of your body, arms, legs, etc., even ears and eyes, are outside your brain, but still an internal part of you.
So if the cave is the brain, we’re in and out of the cave all the time. And of course we do see outside the cave, but that doesn’t mean we see things as they really are. That’s why we discuss things and justify our observations. Although some people claim to be able to see reality as it actually is, that claim is not likely ever going to be justifiable.
For “Justified True Belief” to make any sense as the definition of knowledge, “true” must be taken to mean “honest”. The other sense you mention "corresponds with actual reality”, will always be reducible to a form of “justified”, leaving the “true” in “justified true belief” as superfluous (justified justified beleif). Therefore, if it is what you honestly believe, and it is justified, then it is knowledge, by JTB. If you have information which is justified, yet you do not honestly believe it, you ought not call it “knowledge”.
As I see it, you make no case there. You don’t demonstrate a sense of the concerns of critics. It’s more like an appeal to pre-critical common sense, with a dash of physics-glamor scientism.
I relate to all of this. I also see our chasing of ideals as important. And I also think in terms of invention. We create new tools with the help of old tools.
Good point. I was wondering if anyone would raise it.
Still, the brain is control central. We get all sorts of info from our bodies but process it in our caves, as we do with external signals.
It depends on what “we” means, I guess. I am content focusing on the processing center.
Right. It’s quite doubtful that we do, in my view, but even if we do, how would we know that we are doing it at this moment and not another?
I would quibble (OK, I would insist) that “justify” is a thing which each ape does. I don’t know of a Central Council of Justification, at any rate, and if I did, I suspect I would thumb my nose at it. I might even taunt it.
That works for me, but it sorta reduces knowledge to a thing which looks a lot like opinion, doesn’t it? I don’t know if most JTBers would be happy with that or not.
Yes. That is my campaign—to remove the T from JTB. Or at least keep it in the language lab and away from real life. I will send you an angry protest sign if you want to join my mob.
Is this the way most academic philosophers think of it? Seriously asking. I know very little about them.
I only have an issue with the JTB which says that “True” equals “corresponding to external reality.”
You may have noticed by now that I seem to have an attitude toward the Great Minds of Philosophy, but I think that is only appearance. In fact, I’m quite impressed by them. It’s the appeal to authority that bothers me.
I just think they didn’t have as much to work with. We humans are building a conceptual world, and we have concepts built upon concepts that Moses and Plato simply lacked.
I do not know which of my posts you are referring to. Neither of my posts about the Nobel Prize winners has anything to do with “common sense”. The existence of neutrinos is not based on common sense. In fact, it is contrary to common sense that there are these invisible particles passing through us undetected and without being experienced. According to the president of the American Chemical Society, “The medicines we have today would not be possible without this [mirror-image] chemistry”.
Science is not scientism.
There is no need for me to make a case with either of these or with regard to the existence of and variations of belief. The evidence speaks for itself.
I respect that. A person who appeals to authority in philosophy ( an especially critical discourse ) is basically pre-scientific, in a generalized sense of scientific, that I associate with self-conscious autonomy.
As you say, the ancient thinkers did not have our world. Metaphorically speaking, we are the ancients, for we inherit a massive cultural memory.
On advantage that some of the great ancient Greek thinkers had is that weren’t trapped in Cartesian assumptions. In my view, it’s hard for us to “see” the Greeks, because we drag a certain framework along with us. Cultural memory is not always good.
Relevant to this thread, I currently see a strong reading of Protagoras as an early ontological perspectivist. Not much of his work survives, but the fragments are suggestive. I speculate that the “addiction” of theorists to “a-perspectival Truth” forced them misread Protagoras as incoherent.
This “mis”-reading isn’t a “false” reading but a bad reading, according to my own situated judgment. Returning to our initial theme, we might consider the fear in theoretical types of speaking forthemselves, without the excuse of a projected absolute authority.
“Not I but The Method through me.”
We might also consider the tacit monological conception of “high truth.” The truth is “one.” In ethical terms, this is the assumption that there is one right way to believe. Typically there is also the assumption of “one right method” for moving toward this “one right belief.”
Finally the goal is conspicuously verbal. Belief is verbal, and belief should match the verbally understood “truth.” The semantic concern falls into the background. How do verbal signs signify ? Perhaps I verbally assent to the “one right belief.” What then ? Who cares and why ?
I respect the pragmatists because they grounded meaning and inquiry in non-verbal conduct. A theorist might say that a belief is effective because it is “true.” A half-pragmatist might say that a belief is “true” because it is effective. A radical pragmatist ditches the sign “truth” as decoration.
An animal just continuously adjusts its expectant and remembering behavior in response to continuous environment feedback, including social feedback. The theorist wants to know if this is “true.” They miss the point. It is not advertised in terms of “truth” in the first place. It is a tool they can pick up and try for themselves.
The “ontological perspectivism” that I find in Protagoras can be understood as a post-monological sense of the human situation. I don’t need to assume that there is “one right way” to think or act in the world. I become free to understand myself and others as inventors of a plurality of strategies for meeting the future. The tool that works for me may not work for you.
The novel that “shows itself” to me as profound may “show itself” as trash to you. Yet both of us can be certain that we are intending or discussing the same object. In my view, we don’t need to think of “internal mediations” of the “true external novel.” Rather it suffices to understand objects as “systems of faces.”
If this “faces approach” interests you, check out this thread.
To justify is to demonstrate the correctness of something. Usually it’s done with language so I don’t think it is a type of thing that apes do. But I may be wrong, I don’t know any apes.
Knowledge, as JTB is not mere opinion, because “justified” is a key aspect. Notice that JTB is primarily “belief”, while “justified” and “true” qualify “belief”, so it is a special type of belief. “Opinion” is also a type of belief, but it does not require justification, so that’s a big difference.
No I do not think I’ve ever run across this before. However, it is the only way that I can make sense of JTB. Otherwise, as you argue, we might as well just throw the T away as not serving any purpose.
Participation in this philosophy forum has demonstrated to me that honesty is a very important aspect of knowledge. People argue points and principles for the strangest reasons. To be honest is a very difficult virtue requiring extensive self-reflection. Some would argue that this is a key component of philosophy.
Right. But each act of justification needs a human judge. Things can’t be justified to the universe. Things have to be justified to an individual human mind.
Humans are apes. When I say ‘ape’, please hear ‘human’… unless I mention a chimp or gorilla or bonobo or orangutan.
If it’s justified to me but not justified to you, is it justified? (This is my central question. I’m curious to hear your answer.)
I disagree. I think most every one of us apes believes our opinions to be justified. Why would we hold them if we didn’t think them justified?
Brother!! (Or Sister!!)
I myself argue that it is a key component of debate, which is what I see as real philosophy.
Yes. In that way, they are similar to the faithful, I think. Similar to those who interpret the scripture while claiming that they are only explaining what the Prophet meant.
Anyway, there is something within us that adores a hero.
It gives us pleasure to be right, whether anyone cares or not, I think.
The hardest thing for us to say is: I’m wrong.
At least in my experience, for I’ve spent many years at debate.
Yes, I have felt that if I were comfortable with the terminology, I would be calling you a SuperDuper Pragmatist. (If it’s not a term, it should be.)
I’m a writer of short fiction who sometimes puts his stories out for critique. One will tell me with full authority that This&That are badly broken. The next will say that This&That are pure genius. It is a rare critiquer who will use ‘in my opinion’ or ‘in my view’.
I would say it depends on who you ask, just like anything else. The more people who concur, the stronger the justification. And when people disagree, all sorts of arguments can be made in an attempt at proof. The proving is the justifying, so it may have been proven to you, but you haven’t yet proven it to me.
I don’t agree with you on this. I have many opinions which I know are not justified, and I know that many other people feel the same way about their opinions. Opinions are formed for a variety of different reasons, and justification is not required. I think you are not adhering to a rigorous definition of “justified”, such that any type of rationalizing of one’s belief would qualify as justification.
Subjective feelings do not qualify as justification. And to be strict, “justification” must consist of a logical demonstration, such that even sense observation is reduced to a form of subjective feeling. “I saw it with my own eyes” does not qualify as justification. And if someone tells you it’s true because they saw it, and you believe them, you don’t believe what they tell you because you think it’s justified, but because you trust the person to be telling you the truth. So you treat the person as an authority, being a witness. If a number of people agree to have seen the same thing, then this may qualify as a form of justification, because the argument can be made that a number of different people wouldn’t come up with the very same fabrication. However, it remains a little weak due to the possibility of conspiracy.
As a “belief is action” pragmatist, I’d frame this as our reluctance to change our approach. It’s like we are ashamed to back down and try something else.
And yet this is the great intellectual virtue. Step back, be creative, try something else. Modify your approach in terms of feedback. And so on.
I look back now and see how many times a new thinker knocked me sideways. Or just feedback from others. Usually it takes a while for the feedback to sink in. Especially the more our ego is involved and the more it’s an ugly vibe.
I try to just excuse myself when the vibe gets ugly. But there have been times that I lost myself in it in the usual way. Futility. Waste.
Yeah. To me this simple point is a deep one. It’s not so easy to stand up and speak from the “I” without leaning on something “magical.” This is one reason I find it frustrating that thinkers don’t acknowedge the “I believe” implicit in their assertions. Like the words aren’t coming out of a particular hungry mouth.
Yes, justification doesn’t seem binary to me. Things just add to or subtract from our evidence pile. Consensus is one of those items. A big one. Much of what we believe in science, for example, we have not personally examined. It’s just the consensus of scientific opinion.
I have a problem with that particular word: proof. Some seem to think it exists out there in the cosmos, to be plucked and owned, but I see it as just a claim by an ape that a thing has been proved. (Outside of math and other formal systems, I mean.)
I think it’s a matter of word use. What you call opinion, I might call personal preference, for example. It’s my opinion that forest green is the finest of all colors.
But you’re welcome to offer examples of what you are calling unjustified opinions.
I think I can give pretty good justification for my opinions. It’s mostly a matter of how we’re using our words, probably.
I guess I’m saying that I don’t see much difference between beliefs and opinions. But I’m also the guy who sees little difference between belief and knowledge.
Yes, I suspect you have a different view of justification than I do. I think of it in broad terms. Most anything which pushes us toward a belief, I would call justification.
OK. I would see it differently. I’m not sure why logic would take primacy over direct observation. There are times when I don’t trust logic much at all.
I see a lion behind a tree. But I know this is Kansas, and Kansas doesn’t have lions, and so it must not be a lion behind that tree.
Or (possible) delusion. Have you read about whole populations seeing Mary in the sky, for example?
And there was a time when the consensus was gods living on a particular mountain. Nowadays, the consensus goes the other way.