• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do philosophers believe?

Fudbucker said:
I would have pegged the "correspondence theory of truth" much higher than a slim majority. What's in second place, coherence theory?

And 1 in 4 are qualiaists! I wonder what the trend is on that.
Click to expand...

From the wiki on "correspondence theory of truth" :

The skeptic believes that we have no knowledge. The correspondence theory is simply false.
Click to expand...

Of course, skepticism as a philosophy says that concrete knowledge is impossible. It's not talking about quite the same definition used on this website. It's related, but a bit more specific on the nature of knowledge. It rejects the notion of absolute truth entirely, or at least suggests that it can't be known. Evidence doesn't prove, but merely supports.

I'm not so sure that the "philosophy is pointless" crowd realizes that skepticism is a philosophy, as is empiricism. The two can be partially contradictory to each other, oddly enough. Technically, I'd say most on this forum are more dedicated to empiricism than skepticism as far as definitions go.

For a skeptic, if you can't determine an absolute truth, it is impossible to say that truth corresponds to a physical reality. Empiricism says otherwise, because it accepts sensory input as a concrete indicator of truth (although not always directly, of course).
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
If you can't determine an absolute truth, it is impossible to say that truth corresponds to a physical reality. Empiricism says otherwise, because it accepts sensory input as a concrete indicator of truth (although not always directly, of course).
Click to expand...

Do you really think the highlighted bit is true? (Not sure, by the way, what "absolute" means here.)

It seems to me that there is nothing obviously contradictory in thinking that there are true propositions about the physical world which man is incapable of confirming, even in principle. In fact, I guess that's the nature of physical laws, for instance.
 
phiwum said:
Do you really think the highlighted bit is true? (Not sure, by the way, what "absolute" means here.)

It seems to me that there is nothing obviously contradictory in thinking that there are true propositions about the physical world which man is incapable of confirming, even in principle. In fact, I guess that's the nature of physical laws, for instance.
Click to expand...

I think it's more like saying we can't know that rather than rejecting that it's possible. I don't know if the term "false" is used correctly in the Wiki excerpt I quoted. I'm partially learning as I go here though. My familiarity with this area of philosophy is a bit distant and foggy. I've always been more interested in political philosophy than anything.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I think it's more like saying we can't know that rather than rejecting that it's possible. I don't know if the term "false" is used correctly in the Wiki excerpt I quoted. I'm partially learning as I go here though. My familiarity with this area of philosophy is a bit distant and foggy. I've always been more interested in political philosophy than anything.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see you edited your post after I quoted it. Now your comment seems much more plausible to me.
 
phiwum said:
Do you really think the highlighted bit is true? (Not sure, by the way, what "absolute" means here.)

It seems to me that there is nothing obviously contradictory in thinking that there are true propositions about the physical world which man is incapable of confirming, even in principle. In fact, I guess that's the nature of physical laws, for instance.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

What do you mean by true propositions?
 
phiwum said:
Do you really think the highlighted bit is true? (Not sure, by the way, what "absolute" means here.)

It seems to me that there is nothing obviously contradictory in thinking that there are true propositions about the physical world which man is incapable of confirming, even in principle. In fact, I guess that's the nature of physical laws, for instance.
Click to expand...

Kant's things in themselves are a fit.
 
Senex said:
It seems to me if philosophers don't all agree then some don't know their job.
Click to expand...

Since philosophers are more or less known for their willingness to disagree with each other, it follows that some don't know their job. Assuming, of course, that there is any truth to what you said.
 
Manopolus said:
Would you like to name any group of academics that all agree about everything in their field?
Click to expand...

How many of us have wandered the streets of a city, with a bunch of other academics attending the same conference but unable to find any of the many, many restaurants suitable?

Always drove me bloody mad, back when I was an active conference goer. How hard is it? In Europe, go to a durum doner shack, always acceptable. In America, pizza. As my buddy used to say, it's like sex. When it's good, it's really, really good, and when it's bad, it's still pretty damned good[1].

So, I digress, but it's not in the nature of academics to agree, and philosophers (in the modern sense) are academics.

[1] Not true of Domino's. Or anything where they put extra fat into the crust. The saying is a touch dated.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Why not?

phiwum said:
Since philosophers are more or less known for their willingness to disagree with each other, it follows that some don't know their job. Assuming, of course, that there is any truth to what you said.
Click to expand...
If your only job is to philosophize, and both logic and knowledge are part of philosophy, then all true philosophers should agree.

jaydeehess said:
I don't see how the one follows the other.

...and why the "all"/"some"?
Click to expand...
See above and I like to think more than one philosopher has it right.

Manopolus said:
Would you like to name any group of academics that all agree about everything in their field?
Click to expand...

Academic philosopher skeptics
 
Senex said:
Why not?


If your only job is to philosophize, and both logic and knowledge are part of philosophy, then all true philosophers should agree.
Click to expand...

Logic is more or less easy, but figuring out which beliefs are knowledge and which beliefs aren't has a reputation for being difficult. Especially in philosophy, to a much greater extent than science or math.

In any case, you've given us just another conditional statement that is silly.

Academic philosopher skeptics
Click to expand...

Unless you mean folks who proclaim, "I literally believe nothing," then no. And as for those who believe nothing, well, it's a little hard to get the publication requirements if you have nothing much to say.

You have truly bizarre beliefs about the nature of philosophy.
 
phiwum said:
Logic is more or less easy, but figuring out which beliefs are knowledge and which beliefs aren't has a reputation for being difficult. Especially in philosophy, to a much greater extent than science or math.

In any case, you've given us just another conditional statement that is silly.


Unless you mean folks who proclaim, "I literally believe nothing," then no. And as for those who believe nothing, well, it's a little hard to get the publication requirements if you have nothing much to say.

You have truly bizarre beliefs about the nature of philosophy.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah,

At least my beliefs aren't influenced because of money.

You've already admitted to being an academic. You are invested in the status quo. I challenge the fact all people with a PhD in Philosophy really know their stuff and you accuse me of having bizarre beliefs.

Have a pizza on my tuition dime.
 
Senex said:
Oh yeah,

At least my beliefs aren't influenced because of money.

You've already admitted to being an academic. You are invested in the status quo. I challenge the fact all people with a PhD in Philosophy really know their stuff and you accuse me of having bizarre beliefs.

Have a pizza on my tuition dime.
Click to expand...

I am an adjunct these days, teaching because I enjoy it. I haven't applied to tenure track in years. If I'm being paid off, then my price is embarrassingly low.

Your "accusation" is uninformed nonsense. That said, of course I don't believe that all PhDs in any topic know the subject well. Sadly, some morons get through every program, but your reasoning that all philosophers ought to agree is simply a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the discipline.

You might also look up the ad hominem fallacy since you fairly egregiously committed it in this post.
 
phiwum said:
I am an adjunct these days, teaching because I enjoy it. I haven't applied to tenure track in years. If I'm being paid off, then my price is embarrassingly low.

Your "accusation" is uninformed nonsense. That said, of course I don't believe that all PhDs in any topic know the subject well. Sadly, some morons get through every program, but your reasoning that all philosophers ought to agree is simply a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the discipline.

You might also look up the ad hominem fallacy since you fairly egregiously committed it in this post.
Click to expand...

It isn't ad hominem if it's true.

My "accusation" about money may have been out of line (but you saying I had truly bizarre beliefs was asking for it) and you do represent part of the status quo when it comes to the state of philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom