mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,187
It can be, but there's a distinction between attempting to model the world and accidentally modeling the world.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?
- Thread starter Gubiosak
- Start date
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Asking what it means for something to exist is a topic in metaphysics, which is why the OP wants to talk metaphysics. If I can hit something with a hammer, it exists in the most straightforward way we can imagine. But do abstract things like happiness or red exist without there needing to be something that's red or happy? Sooner or later you get to questions like whether certain things can exist (whether or not any do) or must exist.
Skeptics are not always as interested in philosophy as one might think. Skeptics are interested more in what we know and how we know it. That's epistemology, not metaphysics. So when you bring up the subject in a skeptics forum, the skeptic is likely turn first to epistemology and isn't very interested in the metaphysics of what merely can exist abstractly. What reason do we have to think there might exist something that doesn't depend on the physical world? If there were such a thing, how could we obtain evidence of its existence? Those are questions that skeptics think of first.
The parsimony argument is the best. "Thou shalt not multiply causes unnecessarily." What problem does non-physical existence solve? Why does it need to be there? The best theories emerge not when there is nothing left to be added but instead when there is nothing left to be crossed out.
Skeptics are not always as interested in philosophy as one might think. Skeptics are interested more in what we know and how we know it. That's epistemology, not metaphysics. So when you bring up the subject in a skeptics forum, the skeptic is likely turn first to epistemology and isn't very interested in the metaphysics of what merely can exist abstractly. What reason do we have to think there might exist something that doesn't depend on the physical world? If there were such a thing, how could we obtain evidence of its existence? Those are questions that skeptics think of first.
The parsimony argument is the best. "Thou shalt not multiply causes unnecessarily." What problem does non-physical existence solve? Why does it need to be there? The best theories emerge not when there is nothing left to be added but instead when there is nothing left to be crossed out.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Personally I think the question of what's real and what's not is the most important question in the world. If I were to write a manifesto, it would be on that.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's pretty important too. But that doesn't mean I fret a lot over the metaphysics of, "How do you do know that's real?" If you have to hit a blunt or wave your hands wildly to tell me why you think something is (or might be) real, then I'm less likely to agree that it's a reality that needs a lot of my attention.
If science is the most reliable method for establishing empirical truths, does it follow that a rational or intellectually wise person should accept only empirically supported truths? What about mathematical, logical, philosophical, or ethical truths?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
We discussed all this already. Many times. You're annoying people by ignoring what they say and simply repeating this same question over and over.
What are the potential limitations or drawbacks of believing only in factual or empirically supported truths? Could such a position cause us to overlook other forms of knowledge, such as mathematical, logical, philosophical, or ethical truths?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Is there something wrong with the 40 pages of answers you've already received to this question?
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Can you give an example of non-empirical truths? It would help.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Not much more. It has clearly devolved to spam.
Is a wise person someone who integrates both empirical evidence and non-factual truths, or should one domain take precedence over the other?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Answer that question yourself. Others have already provided their answers. No AI permitted.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Not remembering state is cheap AI behavior. Your reliance on cheap AI is making you stupider.
Some people seem to think that having an oracle in their pocket will make them into the best version of themselves. The reality is more like being infected by the zombie fungus. Your "oracle" is just transforming you into a mindless vector for propagating stupid takes.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
Non-factual truth?
That's a good one!
How do you (as in you) know (as in know, not think or assume or believe) it's true if it isn't a fact. Lose many points if you go back over your previous non-answers.
Anyway, your slight reboot has not altered the question you asked and which has already been extensively covered.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
A truly wise person does not take mindlessly repetitive AI slop seriously.
Intellectual wisdom does require a more holistic approach to knowledge, rather than relying exclusively on AI slop.
Breach of Rule 4
Edited by Darat:
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. This rebuttal no longer works. You have demonstrated you don’t know whether your AI-generated responses are any good. They are not good. They are repetitious nonsense that has been thoroughly addressed many times already.
Further, you lied about your continued use of AI. At this point all you seem to have is knee-jerk gibberish.
Last edited: