Philosophy truely sucks.

[sebbysteiny]

If your asking whether pondering the matrix resulted in anything useful, not for me. However knowing this particular trigger mechanism allowed me to quickly determine this particular poster would produce nothing of use to me and to waste valued internet posting time trying to create a meaningful dialog would be fruitless.

 

Don't be upset :) . I thought your post was very informative:) . It was fascinating to know that so many people started looking at philosophy after the Matrix. But with so much enthusasm and brain power going towards philosophy at that moment of time, I ask the question again, did anything productive actually come of it?

 

I can't help but think that the world would have been a much better place had the Matrix caused a sudden interest surge in Physics or English rather than Philosophy.

 

So show me one 'philosophical proof' that actually proves anything useful.

 

I consider this guy to have "proved" something useful.

 

That's great. It really is. What was it?

[infamous]

My point precisely. It's just a shame Sarcasm does not translate onto the page

And likewise, I thought for sure you would have noticed the sarcasm just leaping from the page I last posted. For one reason or another, you seemed to have missed it. Looking back thru this thread should have given me a clue nonetheless because you appear to miss so many things.........Infy

[pgrmdave]

Or to put it another way, what is a fact ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion ? What is a proof ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical ? Do we live in a logical universe ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality ?

 

Some of these questions are valid questions though. What is a fact, and how can we distinguish between fact and opinion? This is a very good example of a philosophical question that, if answered, can help somebody learn how to filter through arguments to get to the truth of them. I assume that most people can filter through fact and opinion easily, it is something that is taught at an early age. However, imagine what it would be like if we did not know the difference. While it might seem basic, it is a philisophical question.

[Michaelangelica]

sebbysteiny

Wow, look at all these posts.

 

It's everybody in this thread, vs, erm, me.

 

Okay, bring it on bad boys.

 

It is a pity you see the conversation as a contest.

I intended my post to be helpful

sebbysteiny

Clearly though I have not studied it.

 

At the same time, it is patently rubbish to say that philosophy is useful because one person views it as useful.

 

So I hereby challenge everybody to find an example of the philosophical method coming up with something tangible and usable

Because the facts are mostly not really facts but pieces of apparent information that undermines facts and because the proof's are either conviluted proofs full of holes and logical flaws or they serve to only question reality rather than prove anything.

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

By reducing all knowledge to unanswerable questions in that way, philosophy undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it and it's only practical application is to obscure reason.

 

 

Or to put it another way, what is a fact ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion ? What is a proof ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical ? Do we live in a logical universe ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality

 

 

Your frustration, vehemence and anger at philosophy seems over-the -top Out of proportion to the subject.

So what are you really upset about?

 

It seems to me that you, like many others. these days, need fundamental truths.

Hence the growth in fundamentalism throughout the word.

We have lost certainty and community so look for universal truths.

 

Philosophy asks questions. It does not guarantee to provide answers.

This may not even be the point. Just asking the question may be enough.

 

If you want answers join a Fundamentalist Group;and then you can just stop thinking.

All their answers are free.

--

[Spiked Blood]

Philosophy is sitting in your new car in the drive way and revving the engine. You're not going anywhere, but it feels good.

[Racoon]

Some of these questions are valid questions though. What is a fact, and how can we distinguish between fact and opinion? This is a very good example of a philosophical question that, if answered, can help somebody learn how to filter through arguments to get to the truth of them. I assume that most people can filter through fact and opinion easily, it is something that is taught at an early age. However, imagine what it would be like if we did not know the difference. While it might seem basic, it is a philisophical question.

 

 

Well said Programdave

But what if the facts you think are true in actuallity are lies and contrivances? Manufactured data to support a wrong conclussion?

 

Wouldn't good Philosophy trump bad science in some cases??

[Kriminal99]

Avoidance of logic and philosophy is quite rediculous in my opinion. Whether you like it or not all of your thoughts are based on logic of one form or another. If you are deathly afraid of philosophy and taking control of that logic directly, then you are just flying blind on intuition. The confusing questions this guy associates with philosophy serve only to show how useless blind intuition really is. The answers provided by philosophy are what makes it valuable.

 

Here is a few things that philosophy has provided from various questions that I think are particuarly useful, and that most people today refuse to accept or are not aware of (including some people who specialize in the search for knowledge which is quite disturbing) or at the very least are not aware of all the implications of:

 

Skepticism, limits of induction etc. - The only knowledge a human being is capable of having is the absence of that which contradicts what he already believes. Therefore you must objectively investigate all possible contradictions to what you believe in order to have knowledge. There is no such thing as fact or proof.

 

Plurality of Coherentism - For every set of beliefs which contain constraints about the nature of the world or anything else, there are infinite other possible belief sets that contain the same constraints. Therefore it is the constraints themselves that are meaningful, even though they cannot be communicated without the otherwise unnecessary parts. This means that science, philosophy, and religion might all preach the same thing regarding a certain issue, but use different terminology or other means to do it. It means two people can talk about a beach but have different visions when they think of a beach - but both will have sand by the water (unless beach means something different in another language). Contrary to what some think science does not restrict itself to constraints, although any thinker can limit their attachment to any belief set to only the known constraints. The opposing action would be to disagree with someone saying basically the same thing as you because he did not cite the exact same reasons (even though the reasons are not mutually exclusive) as you or use the same terminology.

 

These are some things that I believe are known by many other than I. However I have learned much more from philosophy than just these.

 

Altered Utilitarianism

 

Mill's Utilitarianism is the belief that the moral society is the one where people and the government do that which gives the most amount of people the most amount of happiness. The people who determine what this should be are "competent judges". I disagree, because I believe that most people are not even competent judges of what makes themselves happy but they are certainly better judges than anyone else. One contemperary philosopher asks the question "why don't we give up our saturday night movie to ease the starvation of people in bangladesh?" This would supposedly exchange a tiny bit of happiness for a huge amount of happiness in the form of eased suffering. I ask then what? He will become dependent on your support and not know how to support himself - then might starve when you can no longer afford to help him. You cannot support him totally because you do not have the resources. This brings me to what I have learned from the search for knowledge regarding ethics.

 

Perhaps there are no competent judges of what makes the most amount of people happy. But there is one person for which everyone is the MOST competent judge of what makes that person happy, and that is themselves. In addition people are usually more competent judges of what make people close to them happy than even the most educated man who has no contact with them.

 

Therefore I propose the well tested alternate ethics model where everyone has ownership of limited resources and uses them to best benefit themselves. (And as a result people will use them to benefit those close to them as well due to sympathy and compassion, but unlike the case of the far away poor person they will actually benefit from it)

 

This model, also known under the subject of economics as a free market economy, has a few known weaknesses that correspond to universally immoral acts. People cannot do that which benefits them and those around them if they do not know what that is, and any lack of or distortion of information will hinder this knowledge. This is called the need for free flow of information in economics, and teaches us that any form of deception is immoral.

 

Summary

 

These three topics have covered knowledge, communication, and ethics. The first two are not often disputed, the last is the most objective result of philosophy I personally was able to find. If you think you can do better, search on your own but do not remain ignorant. The more you study and understand each the more efficient you will be in your every day life. There are many who might have heard one of these and do not dispute its truth, yet do not fully realize the implications of it or alter their behavior accordingly. Even I sometimes do things in contrast to one of these beliefs working on autopilot at the moment. Only in a world where EVERYONE knows these truths and keeps everyone else flying straight would anyone person be able to strictly adhere to these beliefs. For example it is easy to revert to making a straw man regarding an adversary when you are the only person competent enough to recognize such behavior as immoral.

[sebbysteiny]

First, I'd like to say how glad I am that this thread has not just been reopened but moved back to the philosophy thread. I kinda had to fight 'the system' a bit for that one and I'm delighted to see that reason won the day. My confidence in 'the system' has received a big boost :hyper:.

 

Wow, look at all these posts.

 

It's everybody in this thread, vs, erm, me.

 

Okay, bring it on bad boys.

 

It is a pity you see the conversation as a contest.

I intended my post to be helpful

 

And indeed your post is helpful. I just couldn't help but notice that at the beginning of this thread, I was alone .... real alone.

 

But .......

 

Philosophy is sitting in your new car in the drive way and revving the engine. You're not going anywhere, but it feels good.

 

I have a FRIEND!!!! Wow. My first friend in this thread. We should have a party, go to the cinema and have tea together. I HAVE A FRIEND. WAHOOO, OVER THE MOON.

 

It seems to me that you, like many others. these days, need fundamental truths.

Hence the growth in fundamentalism throughout the word.

 

With respect, this arguement is logically flawed, and doubly so. The first particular logical falaciy is Equivocation on the word 'fundamental'.

 

I'm also thinking strawman in that I never said that anything but fundamental truths is acceptable: only arguments that do not undermine that already known to be true.

 

Some of these questions are valid questions though. What is a fact, and how can we distinguish between fact and opinion? This is a very good example of a philosophical question that, if answered, can help somebody learn how to filter through arguments to get to the truth of them. I assume that most people can filter through fact and opinion easily, it is something that is taught at an early age. However, imagine what it would be like if we did not know the difference. While it might seem basic, it is a philisophical question.

 

Well said Programdave

But what if the facts you think are true in actuallity are lies and contrivances? Manufactured data to support a wrong conclussion?

 

Wouldn't good Philosophy trump bad science in some cases??

 

Unless I'm mistaken, Racoon is actually challenging the validity of the scientific method.

 

This is my point pgrmdave. By opening up the case for what assumptions are and are not acceptible even when it is patently obvious that some assumptions should never be questioned, philosophy undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it. Here, Racoon has used the process of philosophical questioning to argue that his view that data can be 'manufactured' making 'bad science' common as if the resulsts of impartial, repeatable expermimentation on reality can actually be altered by personal bias of the scientist.

 

I admit I am doing some interpretting here but by calling some science 'bad' it seems to me to be saying that all science is potentially bad and cannot be trusted. Whilst philosophically, Racoon's arguments are perfectly good, this is fundamentally unhelpful line of reasoning for the pursuit of knowledge.

 

Disclaimer: My criticism of Racoon's arguments applies only to my interpretation of his arguments, which may not actually be his arguments. So my criticism is attached only to the arguments above rather than personally to Racoon.

 

Here is a few things that philosophy has provided from various questions that I think are particuarly useful

 

Wonderful. Somebody is actually picking up the gauntlet. Good luck. But please be aware that the is a big difference between a subject being 'interesting' and a subject being 'useful'.

 

Skepticism' date=' limits of induction etc. - The only knowledge a human being is capable of having is the absence of that which contradicts what he already believes. Therefore you must objectively investigate all possible contradictions to what you believe in order to have knowledge. There is no such thing as fact or proof. [/quote']

 

Your arguments here are related to the Hasty Generalisation logical falicy and a direct challenge to the logic of induction in it's entirety.

 

It is true that just because something has happened 4 times does not mean it will happen 5 times. But the statistical likelhood changes when something has happened over a trillion times making it a virtual certainty that it will happen for the tillionth and oneth time. The real question is when does a 'generalisation' become 'hasty'?

 

If you want to try and argue that gravity may fall upwards based entirely on the fact that just because every object that has been on the Earth since the beginning of the planet has fallen downwards does not make it theoretically certain that it will continue to do so, that's fine, that's philosophy. But then you should also accept yourself open to the legitimate criticism that you undermine knowledge rather than contribute to it.

 

So again, I ask, how does challenging an assumption which is 'virtually certain' as well as challenging the validity of inductive logic altogether actually help anyone?

 

Infact, I would go one step further and argue that challenging the assumption that large scale inductive logic holds and giving genuine thought to what happens were it to fail may give fanatics apparent justification for warped views. I cite the example of those who do believe that the Pentagon was actually struck by a missile as a case in point.

 

Plurality of Coherentism

 

I didn't quite understand what it was and what use it serves.

 

Confusing sentences include:

 

This means that science, philosophy, and religion might all preach the same thing regarding a certain issue, but use different terminology or other means to do it.

; and

Contrary to what some think science does not restrict itself to constraints

.

 

However, I did understand this particular sentence.

 

The opposing action would be to disagree with someone saying basically the same thing as you because he did not cite the exact same reasons (even though the reasons are not mutually exclusive) as you or use the same terminology.

 

I don't see why disagreeing with somebody because of their REASONING is invalid. In all disciplines I know of, it is not the answers that counts but the REASONING. Even in maths, people at the higher levels will often get almost no marks for only giving the answers. In law in particular, people regularly appeal judgements not necessarily for its conclusions but for its reasons.

 

The explanation for this is perfectly valid: different reasoning leads to different conclusions in different facts. This has potentially enormous significance and practical utiltiy.

 

Though I admit, I was not sure where you were going with this one so I don't know where exactly the above discussion fits in in terms of the bigger picture of the practical utility of philopshy.

 

Altered Utilitarianism

 

This is much harder to explain :hyper:.

 

You seem to be posing suggestions for a political system of government.

 

One question here is: where does the accademic subject of 'politics' begin and philosphy end? This topic strays close to the boundaries.

 

But I am not going to argue that Plato's ideas of a 'perfect society' put forward in his book had little practical and useable insight.

 

The problem, from my perspective, with Plato's republic and the ideas you have put forward is that they cannot easily be dismissed by me by saying they are not philosophy nor that they have little practical and useable insight.

 

Hopefully, my third line of defence might save the day here: sebbysteiny's third law. For every philosophical question there is an equal and opposite non philosophical question.

 

What is socieity for? What do we want from a society? Are there practical answers to these questions that do not involve philsophical reasoning?

 

Lets see.

 

My answer is to maximise the preservation of human rights. In real practical terms, we should strive to create a government that maximises the presevation of human rights. From this simple principal, democracy follows, as does almost all the criminal, civil and constitutional laws of Western Governments. My answer is simple and practical.

 

But the assumption that 'human rights rules all' appears to be one of any number of possible assumptions in which to build society. So is it philosophy, or just practical? I think a clue is that my reasoning goes much deeper. Why should a few words in a couple of internatinal treaties define what is and is not a persuit of the government?

 

Well, the answer comes back to where the principal of human rights originated: the holocaust.

 

When you see not just 10, or 100 but 11,000,000 innocent people murdered on an industrial scale, how does it make you feel? When you see many of those 11,000,000 are children even as young as a couple of month old babies murdered simply to exterminate a race, how does it make you feel? And then you have the experiments, the ruthlessness of the methods, the propaganda, the outcasts of society, the theft, the oppression, the humiliation on a national scale and even some of the survivors who were so weak that, dispite intense medical treatment, they died months later. When you see that, something inside you says, 'never again'. Never again will such a society be allowed to exist. Never again will freedom of speech, fair trials, freedom of thought and association and all the other things which are now called human rights be allowed to be violated.

 

Now am I being philosophical for saying that? Or just practical? Is it simply a basic and undeniable moral truth obtained from observing massive suffering? I certainly havn't asked myself any philosophical questions on the meaning and purpose of society. All I've done is seen suffering on an enourmous scale and drawn the conclusion that those things must never be allowed to happen again.

 

So since my beliefs on societies purpose all come from the feeling inside me that said 'never again' after having witnessed (from sources) a crime of monumental proportions, is it philosophy?

 

I think this all comes down to whether or not the principal and feeling of 'never again' amounts to a practical observation of truth or an intellectual decision to favour one particular factor over all other equally valid factors.

 

I am currently stuck on this and am giving a small amount of thought to making my first 'concession'.

 

In that case my original premise that

Philosophy truly sucks

 

would be altered to

almost all philsophy truly sucks

.

 

By even posing the difficult challenge, you have got yourself a QP from me:). If I make the above alteration, then you should get more than 1 but I'm not convinced Hypography will allow me to do so.

 

 

 

I also note with great interest that nobody has even tried to defend the philosophical topic of logic.

[Tormod]

Well, the answer comes back to where the principal of human rights originated: the holocaust.

 

Well, the UN Declaration of human rights came about in 1948. But the concept of human rights is much older than that.

 

Your rants against philosophy seems largely mistaken in my eyes. The very fundament of science is philosophy. In fact, modern (Western) science grew out of the "natural philosophers" in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

It seems as pointless to me to say "philosophy sucks" as it would be to say "languages suck" - philosophy is simply a tool, a way our brain works, just like language, like hearing, like vision. Without philosophy I doubt there would be a concept of "society".

[sebbysteiny]

Hey Tormod,

 

Lets go straight it at the deep end.

 

Your rants against philosophy seems largely mistaken in my eyes. The very fundament of science is philosophy. In fact, modern (Western) science grew out of the "natural philosophers" in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

If we didnt philosophise, err is that a word?

 

We might still think the earth was flat, but we questioned and came up with a philosophy of the shape of the earth.

 

 

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about "what is philosophy?". Instead I'll just answer the question.

 

A few thousand years ago, philosophy used to include all academic study. But now some branches become so fundamentally different from others that they became seperate subjects in their own right leaving nothing useful left.

 

Science, arts, humanities etc are no longer philosophy.

 

So if it isn't tought in a pure philosophy class at Oxford or any other University, it ain't philosophy. The idea that some pompous git in his confortable armchair discussing "what is the nature of the phrase 'the nature of'" can claim any credit for the discovery of the cure to small pox is verging on the barbaric.

 

Without philosophy I doubt there would be a concept of "society".

 

Really??? I find it strange to believe that before the advent of philosphy by the greeks (or perhaps before), people did not live together in organised groups run by political systems of government.

 

Well, the UN Declaration of human rights came about in 1948. But the concept of human rights is much older than that.

 

It was only after the aftermath of the holocaust that systems of government that were incompatible with human rights became unacceptable in my understanding.

 

I have no doubt that the introduction of a clear 'human rights' treaty had profound (and useless) implications to philosophy nor do I doubt that the 'concept' of human rights may have been discussed. But the practicle creation and implimentation of human rights doctrine was due to the holocaust and it's immediate aftermath, not the teachings of Aristotle 2000 years earlier.

 

It is a simple matter of observation that human rights were not as important in 1942 as they were in 1945-8 regarding the construction of systems of governance.

 

If you thought that human rights principals were already established earlier, then perhaps you might wish to give the historical examples offering the link to evidence rather than simply refering me to a 4-5000 word philosophy essay.

 

I think this topic is important because we are asking the question of whether philosophical thought and study is necessary for the construction of systems of governance rather than simple practical observations combined with trial and error. If so, then it does suggest a practical use of philosophy.

[HydrogenBond]

Philosophy typically has a subjective aspect to it making it at least part belief or opinion that is not universily held. Objective and rational science tries to reduce the world to reproduceable data. The philosopher explains his belief in the meaning of life. There are hundreds of such opinions. The rational scientists points life in the direction of DNA providing hard data so we all can rationallu agree on this connection without philosophical subjectivity getting in the way.

 

But on the other hand, much of science is not rational and objective but is based on statistics and empiricsm. This loses some of the logical certainty giving it a level of uncertainty where subjectivity returns. The net affect is that it turns science backward into the direction of philosophy. For example, one study says alcohol is bad for you. The next studies says some alcohol s good for you. The next studt say sit may not be as good for you as the last study. Then the next say, is may be better that not as good as the last study. Sounds like philosophy calling itself science.

[C1ay]

philosophy • noun (pl. philosophies)

1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

2 the theories of a particular philosopher.

3 a theory or attitude that guides one’s behaviour.

4 the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy

Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -phies

Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher

1

a

(1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy>

(3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary

b

(1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE

(2) : ETHICS

c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

2

a : pursuit of wisdom

b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

3

a : a system of philosophical concepts

b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>

4

a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

phi·los·o·phy Pronunciation (f-ls-f)

n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

It would appear to me that the very claim laid out in the title of this thread demonstrates a lack of intellect. I cannot imagine the point in discussing such an intellctual subject as philosophy with such an individual.....

[sebbysteiny]

It would appear to me that the very claim laid out in the title of this thread demonstrates a lack of intellect. I cannot imagine the point in discussing such an intellctual subject as philosophy with such an individual.....

 

:hyper:

 

flame (flm)

n.

...

 

6. Informal An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network.

 

v. flamed, flam·ing, flames

v.intr.

 

...

 

3. Informal To make insulting criticisms or remarks, as on a computer network, to incite anger.

v.tr.

...

2. Informal To insult or criticize provokingly, as on a computer network.

 

Also, freedom of speech includes freedom of lack of speech. Your very presence proves your arguments false :hyper: .

[TheBigDog]

I will state up front that I have not read this whole thread.

 

From a specific angle I agree with Sebby on this. I find it ultimately frustrating when trying to debate an issue that has a foundation in physical measureable repeatable facts when someone comes in and tries undermining it on the basis of reality being just a perception, and we have no way of knowing that anything is truely real.

 

AAAAAA!!!!!! If I had any hair left I would rip it out!

 

Using "philosophy" to deny the existance of reality that you do not want to agree with is no way to push forward knowledge of the real world. In the Matrix "there is no spoon". I love the *idea* behind it. But it is an idea that, aside from fooling the mind in a placebo fashion, has no merit in the physical world. I can believe all day that there is no spoon, but in the end of the day it is still there. Otherwise the tree falling in the forest would make no noise, and blind people would walk through walls.

 

Bill

[Kriminal99]

This hasty generalization fallacy you speak of does not address skepticism or the limits of induction.

 

Yes it could fall upwards

 

To begin with, if something has proven true a million times, it still is not evidence it will continue to prove true in the future because there is no gaurantee that the past was randomly sampled from the same population as the future, or in other words something could change that you don't know about that alters future outcomes. This is not limited to philosophy, it is a universal truth. If you want to visualize why this is the case imagine a roll of opaque tape over a long stretch of paper with the letter F written 4/5's of the length down the stretchl of paper. Imagine you did not know the F was there, and you watched as I slowly pulled the tape away from the paper. At 3/5's of the way you are claiming that you could justifiably rule out that there was anything written on the paper, but when you got to the F there would be. It doesn't matter how long you make the paper and how far down the strip the F is. It is simply coincidence when the past models the future, and we rely on it because what other reason is there? We can only continue to do so until we have some reason to believe it is no longer the case.

 

P.S. The tape scenario, like every philosophical thought experiment, is meant to model an infinite number of REAL LIFE possible scenarios. Examples are pre astronomy observations of eclipses to things we observe now and do not yet know the causes of. Another is how "techical analysis" (statistics) is often considered useless by stock market analysts. Using my knowledge of statistics and philosophy I have found that certain parameters of the stock market are too high variance to predict using past evidence while others are not, allowing me to find strategies that depend on only predictable parameters using various tradable items.

 

Results of better understanding of skepticism

 

Knowledge of the limitation of induction, if properly understood by everyone, would mean a huge difference in the efficiency and behavior of most people. It is directly tied to the use of straw man fallacy (gossiping behind people's back, might makes right facist behavior, debate fouls) It is directly tied to people's suceptability to deception by media propaganda or any other form of social pressure. (Political, commercial ie x is a disease and for it you must buy and take y drug, and otherwise) Without it you would be a nazi in nazi germany rather than a rebel because you don't question your immediate surroundings. A sociology professor told me of a man who thought he knew everything about people already such that he practiced "cerebral hygene" by walking around with cotton balls in his ears so as not to hear any alternative arguments. Obviously this person could benefit from knowledge of the limitations of induction.

 

No it does not destroy all knowledge

 

Once again however you cannot worry about limitations of induction unless you have evidence to believe it is true. The most important lesson to get from skepticism and the limits of induction is that you cannot ever declare the opposite of what you believe to be false by fiat. Only by always keeping an open mind and looking for information that might contradict what you believe can you claim to have knowledge of anything. That doesn't mean you have to accept the first counterargument that comes your way either - rather you listen intently, and if you still disagree present your counterargument to his counterargument and hope he admits he is wrong (if he is in fact wrong). If he does not, but presents no other argument, then you might reason that you still have not been given sufficient information to discard your beliefs. But you must objectively and carefully consider your opponent's argument.

 

Coherentism revisited

 

No you did not understand what I meant by plurality of coherentism. Lets say I say that 2 + 2 = 4. And you say "one plus one equals two", or "dos mas dos es cuatro". Are we going to argue about who is right? I wouldn't, because I understand that the medium of communication is not a constraint on what we is beleived. It is relatively simple in this case, but in others it is less simple. The next would be to bring up a beach. When I say beach maybe you picture West palm beach in florida. And I might picture South beach in miami. However since these specific locales are not part of the objective definition of beach, they are not constraints on what is being referred to.

 

Finally a more complicated example. I speak of skepticism and the limits of induction. A statician speaks of the assumption of randomly sampling from the population we hope to make predictions for. For the most part we are talking about the same thing. However in this case there may be a few differences that we would need to work out. As a philosopher, I translate my argument into his belief set and if a constraint in my belief set is absent from his I find an argument that corresponds to his belief set to show why the addition constraint is needed. IE rather than talking to a statician about the limits of induction, I tell him that his assumption of random sampling from the populations you wish to make predictions for is always violated because you cannot sample from the future.

 

Unecessary arguments can be identified using plurality of coherentism

 

Reasoning sometimes are constraints for a belief set and sometimes they are not. One example is when something is prevented from occuring by more than one thing. Either reason could be cited. Also sometimes you simply don't understand someone else's medium of communication. A native american might say "The breath of the nature spirit brings leaves to the ground" and you might say "Nuh uh the wind blew it down" but you are talking about the exact same thing, the breath of the nature spirit simply being a metaphor or another name for wind. A christian could say it is god's will that the leaves fall, and when you contradict him he could simply say that the wind is just how god's will is realized - He might have as precise an understanding of physics as you do. This basically boils down to problems with the concept of causation. Ironically, I think you could benefit from a better understanding of this topic considering you seem to have arbitrarilly labeled your views on the next topic practical and mine philosophy.

 

You dirty philosopher you!

 

Finally, regarding your last arguments, I hope you are aware that all of the following are true.

 

A) Your ideas are only simple and practical to you because they are yours. Occam's razor does not allow you to eliminate all opposing beliefs simply because they are not yours.

 

B) Your ideas are no less philosophical than anyone else's. How is maximizing human rights any more simple or practical than giving the most amount of people the most amount of happiness?

 

C) The only way someone living in Nazi Germany, with everything around them seeming to indicate that the Nazi way is the right way (shows with airplanes flying over head and crowds going wild etc) is by a very clear understanding of the limitations of induction.

 

Also, my argument regarding ethics extends past pure economics or politics because it is not limited to financial transactions or government action. For instance, if I like a girl I must do that which would make the girl choose to be with me. To decieve the girl or straw man my competitors would be immoral.

 

Another forum for philosophy haters

 

P.S. There is another forum I stumbled upon before my discovery of this diamond in the rough. It was http://www.scienceforums.net. The facist attitude and hatred of independent thinkers on this forum is unparalleled. Argument there are mostly weighed based on how much paper the originator has, and poking holes in any "well respected" members' arguments results in a ban. Have fun...

[C1ay]

From a specific angle I agree with Sebby on this. I find it ultimately frustrating when trying to debate an issue that has a foundation in physical measureable repeatable facts when someone comes in and tries undermining it on the basis of reality being just a perception, and we have no way of knowing that anything is truely real.

That's not philosophy, it's ignorance and it's pointless to argue with the ignorant. Tell that someone to go fly a kite. Real philosophy gives birth to ideas like the scientific method.....

[Michaelangelica]

My brain hurts