No, that's a fairness in sport debate.
No, they are forbidden drug use and censorship debates.
No, that's a how a government should respond to a pandemic debate.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Does anything exist?
- Thread starter Scorpion
- Start date
Belz...
Fiend God
I said stop taking the piss. Stop acting as if you don't know how language works.
You really know how to focus on the topic of the thread, don't you?
Your claim was directly related to the discussion, and you couldn't support it. As for what you seem to think is really important for me to "support", stop playing "person with anterograde amnesia". It's not very credible. You seem to think you're very clever in aping my own request for support for your claim, but I assure you, there's nothing clever about it.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What's fair, and why, in what (sporting) contexts, are entirely philosophical questions.
What drugs to forbid, what ideas to censor, and why, are entirely philosophical questions.
However a government responds to a public policy issue, it is necessarily applied philosophy.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
How to ground normative reasoning? The issue at heart is the source of authority and legitimacy.
The four alternatives on offer from conceptual space are:
Science, although descriptive and not normative in nature and argument, does have some fairly important contributions to make in the search for grounded reasoning. The first has already been mentioned; namely, that cause and effect provide a model for if-then logic. Further, the coherence, understandability, and predictability of the natural world, based as it is on the workings of consistent fundamentals, provides a model for how to build such systems; namely, via the use of universals and rule-based heuristics. Once again, science is along for the ride, but unfortunately cannot sit in the driver's seat and solve all our problems.
Religion is based on rules and precepts that explicitly do not rely on the natural world. It can also be observed that religion provides no universals in the way science might. That is, each faith may make such a claim, but the existence of competing faiths means there is no universal understanding, and the lack of testable hypotheses means there can be none, ever. Next, the contradictions inherent to any creed invalidate it as a model for coherent reasoning. Finally, the absolutism to which faiths adhere is a frank admission of failure, representing a reduction of argument to "jus' 'cuz". Nevertheless, insofar as religions do tend toward some form of understanding of right and wrong, they may inform normative reasoning by providing goals and behavioral guidelines which, if properly taken, can be used in secular fashion.
Nonsense is nonsense, yet it nevertheless often forms the basis for normative systems, such as monarchies and authoritarian governance by political extremes. Monarchy posits the impossible; namely, genetically-based wisdom, as do authoritarian regimes. In general terms, given the limitations inherent to any individual, personality cults in all their forms are a guarantee of systemic ignorance and brutal denial of logical alternatives in decision-making. This makes consistent, predictable outcomes in governance impossible.
TBD. So, what is left? Upon examination, we can observe that social convention -- implicit and explicit consensus -- is always at work, from the initial unstated rules of engagement that allowed savages to form towns and cities, to the formal deliberations of absolutists when choosing a leader, to the determination of which are the best-fit interpretations of data in science, to the slow workings of socially acceptable behavior in general. And, as we see, there are no viable alternatives to this approach; namely, that of developing a political philosophy.
The task, therefore, in setting any policy or adopting any major system, is to identify the grounding universals that "if not true would break the system", as stated earlier about the laws of science. In arguing for a republic (representative democracy), for example, there are two essential statements, one the foundation, the other the caveat to ensure predictable and manageable outcomes. And they are?
The four alternatives on offer from conceptual space are:
- Science
- Religion
- Nonsense
- TBD
Science, although descriptive and not normative in nature and argument, does have some fairly important contributions to make in the search for grounded reasoning. The first has already been mentioned; namely, that cause and effect provide a model for if-then logic. Further, the coherence, understandability, and predictability of the natural world, based as it is on the workings of consistent fundamentals, provides a model for how to build such systems; namely, via the use of universals and rule-based heuristics. Once again, science is along for the ride, but unfortunately cannot sit in the driver's seat and solve all our problems.
Religion is based on rules and precepts that explicitly do not rely on the natural world. It can also be observed that religion provides no universals in the way science might. That is, each faith may make such a claim, but the existence of competing faiths means there is no universal understanding, and the lack of testable hypotheses means there can be none, ever. Next, the contradictions inherent to any creed invalidate it as a model for coherent reasoning. Finally, the absolutism to which faiths adhere is a frank admission of failure, representing a reduction of argument to "jus' 'cuz". Nevertheless, insofar as religions do tend toward some form of understanding of right and wrong, they may inform normative reasoning by providing goals and behavioral guidelines which, if properly taken, can be used in secular fashion.
Nonsense is nonsense, yet it nevertheless often forms the basis for normative systems, such as monarchies and authoritarian governance by political extremes. Monarchy posits the impossible; namely, genetically-based wisdom, as do authoritarian regimes. In general terms, given the limitations inherent to any individual, personality cults in all their forms are a guarantee of systemic ignorance and brutal denial of logical alternatives in decision-making. This makes consistent, predictable outcomes in governance impossible.
TBD. So, what is left? Upon examination, we can observe that social convention -- implicit and explicit consensus -- is always at work, from the initial unstated rules of engagement that allowed savages to form towns and cities, to the formal deliberations of absolutists when choosing a leader, to the determination of which are the best-fit interpretations of data in science, to the slow workings of socially acceptable behavior in general. And, as we see, there are no viable alternatives to this approach; namely, that of developing a political philosophy.
The task, therefore, in setting any policy or adopting any major system, is to identify the grounding universals that "if not true would break the system", as stated earlier about the laws of science. In arguing for a republic (representative democracy), for example, there are two essential statements, one the foundation, the other the caveat to ensure predictable and manageable outcomes. And they are?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Now wait a minute. A couple of days ago you said this:
If conceptual space is the full extent of human thought including science, why do you now say science is an alternative to it? Or are you saying they alternatives to each other and part of conceptual space?
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
Well, yeah. Thinking is indeed thinking, no matter what you are thinking about. I would say, though, that philosophical thinking is a particular kind of thinking.
"Thinking philosophically" is when we argue from a set of foundational beliefs that are subjective. If we are talking politics, we each have a set of axioms that defines our political position -a set of beliefs about our society, what it should be doing, what rights we have, our role in the society, etc. There is no clear and correct set of beliefs about these things. Some people believe The State should own the means of production; some believe in private ownership -that kind of thing. Those are philosophical positions and we think philosophically when we argue with each other about politics.
This is not to say that I think all philosophical thinking is valuable. I think scientific thinking is far more valuable. Most philosophy, like the OP question, is mental masturbation -which can be fun but has no real value. But there are certain areas where scientific thinking doesn't help us much and I would put stuff like politics, ethics and moral reasoning in that category.
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
To follow on from my response to Belz . . .
"Fairness," "what should be forbidden and censored," and "how a government should respond," are subjective topics.
Take "forbidden drug use." You must start the argument from a basic philosophical position: "The State should protect citizens from harming themselves," OR, "The State has no business protecting me from myself."
And yet again how does "philosophical" thinking help us in those categories?
Where are all these political and ethical and moral and "subjective" and so forth and so forth answers philosophy has given us?
And I mean things that are actually answers, not yet another variation on "Well we're talking about it...."
Last edited:
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
Well . . . philosophy gave us the US of A. The Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the Constitution are predicated on philosophical ideas. Philosophy also gave us the USSR which was founded on completely different philosophical ideas. Those were two answers to the question: "How should a government be set up?"
The AMA's Code of Ethics is the answer to "How should doctors behave?"
Your own personal moral code is a product of philosophical thinking, your own personal answer to, "What is right and what is wrong?"
That's just fiat. More "Because philosophy say so" and "Everything is philosophy."
Describe the process. Describe how it does it. Describe its failsafes against wrong answers. You won't be able to, because you start doing that you're describing science, i.e the only methodology that can actually DO SOMETHING.
Describe anything that isn't science that is functionally different from "guessing at random." I dare you.
Again, so it can be ignored yet again.
We have a variable we want an answer to. It can be unanswered question about the universe or it can be (moral, subjective, ethic, insert other copout codeword) question. It can be "What's the the next digit of Pi we haven't yet discovered" or "Tell me a painting is beautiful" or anything else on the spectrum of possible questions to ask.
How do we answer it?
We look at evidence, we remove unwarranted variables, make sure is actually falsefiable and is an actual valid question, we make sure the results are repeatable, stuff like that.
That's it. That's only valid methodology and I'm comfortable calling that science.
That's the only thing that actual provides "answers" that are actually answers.
We have a variable we want an answer to. It can be unanswered question about the universe or it can be (moral, subjective, ethic, insert other copout codeword) question. It can be "What's the the next digit of Pi we haven't yet discovered" or "Tell me a painting is beautiful" or anything else on the spectrum of possible questions to ask.
How do we answer it?
We look at evidence, we remove unwarranted variables, make sure is actually falsefiable and is an actual valid question, we make sure the results are repeatable, stuff like that.
That's it. That's only valid methodology and I'm comfortable calling that science.
That's the only thing that actual provides "answers" that are actually answers.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
This doesn't even pass the laugh test.
The fact that there are many ways to get answers that aren't "science" is so obvious as to be trivial to most of us.
Yeah we know, you think God tells you things. Your hand is already tipped and I super not impressed.
That and "Look I can be a troll and it looks just like philosophy" are all you got.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
God doesn't tell me things, but other people do.
For example, I just asked my wife what time it was and she answered "ten o'clock", thus giving me an answer without doing science. QED
Again Trolling is Philosophy too, I'm aware.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
You didn't realize that the overwhelming majority of answers we get about the world are not from science? Think before you type!
Yes we get answers from tea leaves and God and "our hearts."
*Jerk off motion*
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
Thermal
August Member
Values are determined philosophically. Values primarily set political phosophy. Political philosophy controls the planet and it's civilization throughout history. Still in denial that philosophy exists?
Belz...
Fiend God
You would say it, but as soon as it's convenient it'll go right back to be a very general kind of thinking.
Why do you think that your personal definition of "philosophy" should hold any weight in this discussion? At this point, so many definitions and redefinitions have been made that I think we should instead focus on the much narrower and -- in my opinion -- correct definitions available.
Science isn't a thinking. It's a methodology.