Science, truth, and knowledge

[Reg Prescott]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My first answer still applies.

 

Your first answer won't do, I'm afraid. I may not have been as clear as I might have been last night, though, so let me try to state this clearly now. First, to remind ourselves, I had said...

"We can first of all say that one cannot know what one does not believe" to which you objected "Sure you can: I know smokings bad but I don't believe it'll affect me."

 

Now, what I'm saying is, you cannot know something without believing it. That is, you cannot know something without believing the very same thing.

Or put another way, "You cannot know X without believing X",  where X stands for a particular statement, proposition, hypothesis or whatever. The same one.

 

However, your proposed counterexample takes the form "I know X but I don't believe Y"

Therefore it doesn't have the right form to constitute a counterexample.

 

 

 

Hi Eise. Glad to see you back and hope you'll be joining the fun and frolics. A few fast shots in return...

 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

But I could not let this pass:

Dennett is definitely not a behaviourist. It seems to me you have never read something from him. Maybe just about him. I could not find an online version of it, but maybe you can find it: "Skinner skinned", from Dennett's book "Brainstorms".

I know Dennett's work pretty well, Eise, but not much of a fan of his philosophy. He's certainly an engaging writer, though. I have two of his books propping up my computer screen as we speak as a mark of "respect" haha! (and a Sam Harris book as a soggy beermat).

Now, I'm not sure whether Dennett ever describes himself as a behaviorist, but the behaviorist leanings are replete and unmistakable in his philosophy, not surprising given his tutelage under Quine.

Presumably you're familiar with his work on consciousness and the mind in general. Dennett is one of those strange people who subscribes to (a form of) "eliminativism", i.e. the mind and all her furnishings -- beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, even consciousness itself -- do not exist, at least as commonly understood. A belief, for example, for Dennett is not psychologically real. You won't find beliefs in the brain. The only reality that he imputes to beliefs (and all the rest) is patterns of behavior. Our ascription of beliefs, on his account, are real only insofar as they allow us to predict and explain behavior; a task which would be practically impossible using physics. This is what he calls "the intentional stance". The patterns (i.e. patterns of behavior) are real; the beliefs qua mental states realized in the brain are not.

7 hours ago, Eise said:

[Ignore this. Damn quote function!!!!]- RP

Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" might have been more aptly entitled "Consciousness Explained Away". And as John Searle likes to scoff, whenever you meet one of these guys who deny consciousness, you just want to go up and pinch them. I suspect he means "punch" rather then "pinch" but that would be rude.

Consider this, for example, that I just googled:

Quote

Behaviourism flourished in the first half of the twentieth century. Philosophers from that period with behaviourist leanings include Carnap, Hempel, Russell, WITTGENSTEIN, and RYLE. Arranging some contemporary philosophers on a spectrum from the most behaviouristically inclined to the least finds QUINE at the behaviourist end, and SEARLE at the other. DAVIDSON, DENNETT and DUMMETT are closer to Quine than Searle, with FODOR, DRETSKE (and many others) closer to Searle than Quine. Armstrong and LEWIS are squarely in the middle.

http://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/behaviourism.html

 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

I can imagine that it is difficult to see where Reg stands: maybe it helps to see that Reg is not attacking science in itself, but more the accounts many people have of understanding what science can accomplish, and how it accomplishes it. It is about what knowledge means, what truth is, what facts and theories are, etc. 

 

Quite so. A lot of scientists and science fans are simply unfamiliar with the philosophy of science, hostile even. What they don't realize is that, by and large, the majority of philosophers of science are unequivocally pro-science; they're just trying to enhance understanding as you rightly note.

This is a bitter pill for many to swallow: "Who understands science better than scientists themselves, asshole!!!???"

To which I'd reply, we'd be foolish indeed not to listen to what the scientists have to say. But just because Ronaldo, say, is the greatest footballer in the world, if it's an accurate account of the history and philosophy and football you want, including North Korean strikers of the 1930s and the influence of the Internet on Greek premier league soccer, Ronaldo may not be the best man to consult.

Personally I find it a delight to read the popular works of philosophically versed scientists such as Gould and Lewontin, say. Extremely clever, sophisticated men. On the other hand, though, those most clueless of and hostile to philosophy -- Krauss and Dawkins (aaarrrggghhh!!!) -- are almost painful to have to listen to as they advance one screaming absurdity after another.

 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Arrggghh. I did it again. Hit the wrong key. Ignore this. Dunno how to remove it.

 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

It is notoriously difficult to give an account of the relation between language and reality (and what latter exactly is...). As science must use language (even if it is 'just' mathematics), the difficulties in this respect work through all the way to science. It might even be impossible to give a consistent account of the relation between language and reality. (Because such an account must be given in language...?)

 

Wise words, my good man. Perhaps we can lock horns together sometime in a thread on the philosophy of language sometime. One of my passions. You're Dutch, right? Bring Grolsch. I'll bring bad breath. Haha!

Edited November 2, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Reg Prescott]

@ Studiot

First let me see if I understand you exactly, then proceed.

We'll assume here, for the sake of argument, that your senses are infallible -- no Matrix, no hallucinations, no Cartesian demon, no evil scientist probing your cortex. What you call "pure knowledge", then, is that which is directly perceived. (Your pure knowledge is also, of course, belief inasmuch as it is true and justified.) If you think you see an object buzzing around the daffodils, then there is an object buzzing around the daffodils. Right?

We're further assuming that there exists a taxonomy (of which you are originally unaware in the tale below) which distinguishes moths from butterflies (to quote yourself: "specialists distinguish for reasons unknown"). They are two different kinds of insects. Whether this taxonomy actually carves nature at her joints needn't concern us. All that matters is that there is such a taxonomy. Right?

May I now spin a yarn to see if it captures the distinctions you want to make? Shout if I get derailed.

Studiot spent the first 20 years of his life locked in a dungeon. He has the concept INSECT and uses the word "insect" competently. He's even had a few creepie-crawlie visitors in his dungeon from time to time: flies, ants, Madagascar hissing cockroaches, maybe even a tapeworm in his gruel for good measure, whatever.

Studiot, however, has never seen a moth or a butterfly. Studiot has never even heard the words "butterfly" and "moth".

Upon his release, Studiot understandably spends a lot of time in the park, reveling in his emancipation. To his delight he discovers a new kind of pretty flying insect he hadn't known existed: some are blue, others are green. He names this new insect kind "broth". Some broths are blue and others are green; they are all broths to him nevertheless.

(Studiot, your own choice of names -- Red Admiral Butterfly and Hawk Moth -- I fear will lead to confusion. Your names presuppose, or might be taken to presuppose, knowledge of moths and butterflies, but you've never heard the words before, right?)

Is this conceptually right so far?

Now, one day Studiot has a chat with another stroller in the park, and excitedly tells his new friend of his discovery. He even points out blue broths and green broths flying above them. The new friend explains:

"Ah, you're wrong. They do indeed look similar, but these are not two varieties of the same insect kind. They are two different kinds of insect. One is a moth; the other is a butterfly".

"How can I tell which is which?" Studiot implores, with no reason to believe his companion is making this up.

"The green ones are... aaaarrggghhhh!!!!", upon which Studiot's new friend succumbs to a massive coronary and drops dead.

 

Right so far?

 

So, by hypothesis, you know (and believe) there are such things that you call broths. Their existence is not in doubt. You've been told, though, that what you call a green broth and a blue broth, and take to be varieties of the same kind, are actually different kinds of insects. One is a moth, the other a butterfly; you don't know which is which.

Now, the existence of broths is what you refer to as "pure knowledge", since it was directly perceived. 

That there is a distinction in kind (not just color or variety) between green broths and blue broths is what you refer to as "pure belief".

I assume you call it pure belief because your information is "second hand" so to speak. That there exists a distinction in kind between the two critters, whatever we call them, is something you're taking someone else's word for.

The distinction between the two sources of your information, then, seems quite legitimate. We might describe it as sensation vs testimony, or first hand info vs secondhand info, or direct vs indirect learning.

What I don't think can be upheld is the distinction you're making, I think, between the former being knowledge ("pure knowledge" in your own terminology) and the latter being mere belief ("pure belief").

The former is knowledge, by hypothesis. But why can't the latter be knowledge, too? Wouldn't this depend on the reliability of your tragically deceased new buddy?

Supposing your now decomposing pal was the world's leading authority on lepidoptera. His testimony on these matters would be as reliable as one could hope for. Thus, you would not only have a belief that moths are distinct in kind from butterflies, your belief would be justified, moreover true. And that sounds an awful lot like knowledge to me.

Have I gone wrong anywhere, Studiot? Looking forward to your reply.

 

Oh, finally, you asked:
 

Quote

I also underlined a question, in my quote, you have yet to answer which was that you linked three notions in your original thesis but omitted 'belief', leaving the introduction of that notion till later. Surely there can be no hidden agenda in my asking why?

No reason of any significance at all. We could rename the thread "Science, Knowledge, Belief, and Truth" if you like. Will it improve ratings?

Edited November 2, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Reg Prescott]

Correction: 2nd paragraph (to Studiot):

I wrote: (Your pure knowledge is also, of course, belief inasmuch as it is true and justified.)

should say: (Your pure knowledge is also, of course, belief inasmuch as it is true and justified.)

Whoops! 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Quite so. A lot of scientists and science fans are simply unfamiliar with the philosophy of science, hostile even. What they don't realize is that, by and large, the majority of philosophers of science are unequivocally pro-science; they're just trying to enhance understanding as you rightly note.

By and large I agree with you, but the problem is not with the greater majority of philosophers, it is your misinterpretation/s of scientific theories and models and the application of the scientific methodology, along with other things.

Quote

Personally I find it a delight to read the popular works of philosophically versed scientists such as Gould and Lewontin, say. Extremely clever, sophisticated men. On the other hand, though, those most clueless of and hostile to philosophy -- Krauss and Dawkins (aaarrrggghhh!!!) -- are almost painful to have to listen to as they advance one screaming absurdity after another

I find as most other members here do, that your own lack of knowledge of science is far greater then the reputable Krauss, and Dawkins and there attitude towards philosophy which is more or less directed at those minority of philosophers that seem to make the most noise and the least sense.

 

PS: The quote you have attributed to me and which you are rather backward in commenting on was........."While Reg is certainly and obviously practising his philosophy he has learnt, he also just as certainly made some monumental scientific gaffs. And that primarily is why he has had such a big problem. I also am in a period of much to do with little time to do it in".

[with a correction of a typographical error on ref] That of course is 100% factual.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

On 10/30/2018 at 5:53 PM, Reg Prescott said:

In this thread I'd like to explore the various relationships that obtain between science, truth, and knowledge, 

Science is knowledge and/or the pursuit thereof.

Quote

and perhaps help to ameliorate some very deep confusions that have been brought to my attention through discussion with fellow members.

I have certainly seen confusion, and mostly based on invalid scientific claims from yourself actually.

 

Quote

I've noticed that, in contexts related to science, some members are extremely reluctant to make any mention of the word "truth" (and its cognates: true, truly, etc.), a tendency that struck me as quite inexplicable until the reason, I think, for this misguided reticence was exposed in a very revealing comment recently.

I have found that most people I have come across that see the need to discuss truth, will inevitable have some form of ID agenda.

Quote

If I may paraphrase: "The making of claims to truth would compromise the open-minded character of the scientific enterprise  and render it more like a religion."

The scientific discipline has as its foundations the scientific methodology. That essentially means that this truth is not the goal of science.

Quote

 

Knowledge, as traditionally defined since antiquity, is justified true belief. Certain inadequacies in this definition (Gettier type counterexamples) have been brought to light in recent decades, though they needn't concern us here. The above definition will be assumed in all that follows.

To have knowledge of a certain proposition, to know that proposition, then, requires three conditions to be satisfied:

 

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

 

 

Quote

(1) One must believe the proposition
(2) One must have sufficient justification for believing that proposition
(3) The proposition must be true

Not really......One accepts a proposition/theeory based on observational and experimental evidence that supports it. The truth is nether here nor there.

Quote

Now, since truth is one of these necessary conditions for knowledge, any untrue claim -- scientific or otherwise -- cannot constitute knowledge. Without truth there can be no knowledge.

Rubbish. The beauty of the scientific method is that it can be modified, changed, added to, or invalidated as new observations are obtained. This simple basic premise is something you keep ignoring in your many threads.

Quote

Therefore, those who deny that science -- at least in some cases -- yields truth (i.e., true propositions, statements, laws, theories, hypotheses, etc.) must also deny that science produces knowledge.

But no one has ever said that that I am aware of.....This hairy fairy truth is not the object...If it happens to be hit upon accidentley, all well and good. But you seem to have come around to  scientific thinking as dictated by the scientific method [the bit I highlighted] Why could'nt you just openly admit that?

Quote

How much knowledge has science produced about the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies, the planets?
How much knowledge has science produced about evolution?
How much knowledge has science produced about atoms and molecules?
How much knowledge has science produced about anatomy, the brain, medicine?

Quote

... the denier of truth, on pain of inconsistency, must answer: "Zilch! Zero! Nada! Not a jot! Absolutely none!".

That is simply rubbish once again......This once again highlights the facts of how you twist, misinterpret, place your own meanings on words, and indulge in obtuseness when confronted with evidence to the contrary. And then you scream victim when someone alludes to the probability that you have an agenda? 

Quote

 

As a footnote, one occasionally hears on these forums clandestine whispers of "absolute truth" or "universal truth". I personally haven't a clue what is being alluded to. The terms mean nothing to me. For the student of language, "true" and "false", are rather mundane predicates that apply to assertive sentences, from the most pedestrian ("My haemorrhoids are playing up again") to the sublime ("Jesus is the only begotten son of God"). Both sentences make assertions, and thus both are -- at least in principle -- truth evaluable.

 

Now, who's afraid of the big bad truth?

 

Evolution is as close to being fact as we can hope...We have tremendous amount of knowledge re astronomy, cosmology etc, aided by modern technological advancements, as well as the particle zoo. In fact at least in my opinion, what makes our knowledge so great is how the principal theories covering these disciplines, the BB, SR/GR and our particle zoo, seem to all fit snugly together like a jig saw puzzle. But of course that does not mean more knowledge is not to be found...We still have only seen the tip of the iceberg...DE, DM, are two areas that we have barely any knowledge of at this time.

So my question to you is why are you so afraid of knowledge and science in general?

Edited November 2, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

We'll assume here, for the sake of argument, that your senses are infallible -- no Matrix, no hallucinations, no Cartesian demon, no evil scientist probing your cortex. What you call "pure knowledge", then, is that which is directly perceived. (Your pure knowledge is also, of course, belief inasmuch as it is true and justified.) If you think you see an object buzzing around the daffodils, then there is an object buzzing around the daffodils. Right?

Please don't do this.

It is most definitely and emphatically not what I proposed.

It is also what I respectfully submit is what upsets many other responders here.

It is also the reason I mentioned the 'level of know' and specifically excluded the interaction between thought processes and sensory perception.

This is all a great shame as your following story piece is so much better thought out (not quite what I meant but sure we can talk about that).
I won't quote it all since its quite long.

Unfortunately your great mission to simplify has lead you to completely miss the difference in 'know' that I am trying to highlight.
I apologise if my words are not up to this, but you are the self proclaimed Philosopher so should be better equipped than I am to tease the intended meaning from utterences.

 

The point is that, by corroboration from various sources not least seeing tree diagrams of living creatures in general and insect in particular, I know that experts in this field (not just one dead friend) categorise butterflies and moths differently.

The word of one dead friend (however expert) is not enough to say that I 'know'.

Nor is it enough for me to believe (although the alleged word of one dead Jesus is enough for some to believe)

I chose Red Admirals and Hawk Moths because I see a lot of these and have learned to identify them.

There are many varieties that I could not distinguish as either a butterfly or a moth or even identify reliably as one of these varieties and not something else such as a damsel fly.

(Are tapeworms insects?)

 

So in summary these are facts:

 

I know a Red Admiral when I see one, from repeated practical experience.

By practical experience I can distinguish between a Red Admiral and a Hawk Moth.

 

I believe almost to the extent of 'know' there is a difference between 'moth' and 'butterfly' from corroborative deduction and other indirect information.

 

I know  my depth of knowledge is insufficient to identify that difference (There are many small brown moths and butterflies on our moors I can't tell which is which; certainly the obvious differences between the Red Admiral and the Hawk Moth won't do)

 

This is entirely in line with what I first said about this example.

I hope the notion of 'depth of knowledge' bring clarification at the expense of reeuction in simplification.

 

Thank you for finally answering my first question

Yes, I think adding the missing word would improve the discussion.

You may even find that further additions are warranted by the end of the discussion.

 

On 30/10/2018 at 9:26 AM, studiot said:

Your overlimiting proposition thesis is more like the man who sees a tree and says "Forest".

Or the man who says "There are three platonic solids" 

Are these right or are these wrong?

Yes your answer (predictably)  identifies the question of the definition of Forest (and tree).
There is a whole discussion to be had about this in the light of my recent experiences. I read in Saturday's Times that London is officially a forest since it has more than 20% tree cover.
Last week I was looking at the photographic records of the great storm of 1953 in NE Scotland. Flattened tree trunks everywhere, none standing. Is that still a Forest?

But both this and the subsequent question was designed to elucidate Truth and the non binary natature of right and wrong.

Most common usage of the statement "There are X Platonic solids" are used to actually mean there are only or exactly X.

In fact there are more than three, therefore there are three but that in not all of them.

Note again my theme that the method of reduction misses possibilities and that Nature and the Universe is more complicated than our categorisation.
This is not to say that Nature does not have a place for things which actually fit the categories, just that she is constantly spring suprises on us.

[Reg Prescott]

Ah Studiot. I did my best, trust me, trying to bring some measure of clarity to what did not seem to me clearly articulated ideas (kept me up till 2:00am too! Haha!). I'm not blaming yourself for this. Probably my own fault. I was just trying to simplify in order to understand your intriguing example better; not with any intent to distort.

Maybe I'll try again tomorrow, maybe not. Kinda sick of all the hypocrisy and nastiness on this site right now (this is not directed at your good self).

But for now... 

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

I believe almost to the extent of 'know' there is a difference between 'moth' and 'butterfly' from corroborative deduction and other indirect information.

This seems to me the crux of the issue. I don't think knowledge is that which materializes when a certain threshold of belief is attained. One can believe to the point of announcing absolute certainty yet still not KNOW, right?

Anyway, be well. Ta-ta.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

While Reg is certainly and obviously practising his philosophy he has learnt, he also just as certainly made some monumental scientific gaffs. And that primarily is why he has had such a big problem.

I don't think he made such terrible 'gaffs' (new word of the day for me ). As far as I remember you did not understand the point Reg was trying to make. But I do not want to recap the whole argument again here. As far as I remember the discussion was about naive falsificationism, which nearly nobody adheres to anymore, except maybe a few naive scientists.

I know that it can be difficult to keep calm at Reg's posts, because of his 'know-it-all' and cynical style, but if you feel angry because of that, just take a deep breath, and concentrate on the contents. Are you sure you understands what he says? If not, ask. If you are, give counterarguments; but do not dismiss them just out of hand. Philosophy is not trying to dismiss the other, but proof the validity of arguments. In my impression the threads were not just closed by Reg's tone, but also by those of others. Any discussion, be it in science, philosophy or daily life, is done best by taking a disinterested stance, by not identifying oneself with the arguments, and so feeling attacked when somebody does not agree with you.

And again, @Reg Prescott, please temper your tone. It could be much more productive.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Eise
Stupid typo

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Ah Studiot. I did my best, trust me, trying to bring some measure of clarity to what did not seem to me clearly articulated ideas (kept me up till 2:00am too! Haha!). I'm not blaming yourself for this. Probably my own fault. I was just trying to simplify in order to understand your intriguing example better; not with any intent to distort.

Maybe I'll try again tomorrow, maybe not. Kinda sick of all the hypocrisy and nastiness on this site right now (this is not directed at your good self).

But for now... 

This seems to me the crux of the issue. I don't think knowledge is that which materializes when a certain threshold of belief is attained. One can believe to the point of announcing absolute certainty yet still not KNOW, right?

Anyway, be well. Ta-ta.

Yes sleep well.

5 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

This seems to me the crux of the issue. I don't think knowledge is that which materializes when a certain threshold of belief is attained. One can believe to the point of announcing absolute certainty yet still not KNOW, right?

 

 

Eise is correct in that you have to also examine the relationship between Language and Philosophy.

You have found it necessary (and you are not alone) to introduce new words (language) to the discussion.

'Absolute certainty' in this case.

Your comment only makes sense in the context of binary choices.

I keep on banging the 'more complicated than binary' drum.

It is physically possible for there to be an international conspiracy dating back centuries to hoodwink the non specialist in the classification of species (I don't even know if moths and butterflies are species or another term).

But I consider the probability of that sceanrio to be vanishingly small.

So I could be said to believe to the point of absolute certainty.

 

But we then need to introduce the formal definition of probability and the fact that there are three different interpretations (all valid) for absolute certainty = probability of 1.

7 minutes ago, Eise said:

As far as I remember the discussion was about naive falsificationism, which nearly nobody adheres to anymore, except maybe a few naive scientists.

Was it?

It doesn't sound like that is what I understood, but then since I don't actually know what naive falsification is please clarify.

[DrP]

Just now, Eise said:

philosophy

I asked before but it got lost in text in another thread.  Is it common for year 1 philosophy students to be sent out on campus to find science students to engage in such arguments as 'trees falling in woods not making sound if anyone is not around'?  Back when I was a first year undergrad we myself and several other chemists and physicists were approached to 'discuss' the topic. You probably know how the argument goes....  it can go round in circles and has no definite conclusion as it just gets into definitions of words and sophism imo. After some time we found out that their lecturer had sent them out to actively start these conversations as he wanted them to practices their debating skills - He know there was no conclusion to the argument and his set goal was not for them to win the argument but to keep the conversation going as long as possible (even if it made the arguer look foolish it seemed to us). 

Is this or do you know if this is a common practice that every year one philosophy student gets told to do everywhere or did it just happen at our university? 

It reminds me of this thread because their arguments always reduced down to just 'yea - but how can you truly know that' when given a logical progression of stating that 'of course it makes a sound - if you go by the dictionary definition of 'sound''.   The whole argument to me is as daft as asking 'do the people behind you really exist if you turn your back on them - how can you really KNOW they are there'. As eager young scientists we all bit and argued heatedly for hours.....  which was the intention of the philosophy lecturer - he knew we'd bite.   

 

 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

I asked before but it got lost in text in another thread.  Is it common for year 1 philosophy students to be sent out on campus to find science students to engage in such arguments as 'trees falling in woods not making sound if anyone is not around'?  Back when I was a first year undergrad we myself and several other chemists and physicists were approached to 'discuss' the topic. You probably know how the argument goes....  it can go round in circles and has no definite conclusion as it just gets into definitions of words and sophism imo. After some time we found out that their lecturer had sent them out to actively start these conversations as he wanted them to practices their debating skills - He know there was no conclusion to the argument and his set goal was not for them to win the argument but to keep the conversation going as long as possible (even if it made the arguer look foolish it seemed to us). 

Is this or do you know if this is a common practice that every year one philosophy student gets told to do everywhere or did it just happen at our university? 

It reminds me of this thread because their arguments always reduced down to just 'yea - but how can you truly know that' when given a logical progression of stating that 'of course it makes a sound - if you go by the dictionary definition of 'sound''.   The whole argument to me is as daft as asking 'do the people behind you really exist if you turn your back on them - how can you really KNOW they are there'. As eager young scientists we all bit and argued heatedly for hours.....  which was the intention of the philosophy lecturer - he knew we'd bite.   

 

 

That is why I am fighting so hard to establish the 'level of know' - To prevent another discussion falling into that chasm.

and yes I remember you posting your undergrad experience - obviously your university was different from mine as we were always to sozzled to remember debates though there were many 'philosophical' and other debates.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by studiot

[Eise]

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Presumably you're familiar with his work on consciousness and the mind in general. Dennett is one of those strange people who subscribes to (a form of) "eliminativism", i.e. the mind and all her furnishings -- beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, even consciousness itself -- do not exist, at least as commonly understood.

One could change your sentence in a way that it literally says the same, but completely changes its meaning:

 the mind and all her furnishings -- beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, even consciousness itself -- do exist, but not as commonly understood.

Of course, the traditional science of consciousness is not very successful, and Dennett is pretty clear why: because our intuitions fail. Especially the intuition of the Cartesian theatre: dualists suffer from it, as do materialists denying that we have free will.

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

he only reality that he imputes to beliefs (and all the rest) is patterns of behavior.

That is definitely not true: his method of heterophenomenology is not behaviourist.

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" might have been more aptly entitled "Consciousness Explained Away".

That bon mot is found everywhere on the internet. Depending on how you understand it, it is true and false at the same time.

Take one of Dennett's early favourite examples: a doctor explains the effectiveness of sleeping pills because it contains vitus dormitiva. Did he explain anything? Of course not. Explaining the workings of the sleeping pills must be build on lower level mechanisms. With consciousness is the same: trying to explain it with conscious subelements means that you did not even start explaining consciousness. At most you are are building up a phenomenology of consciousness. (there is nothing wrong with such a phenomenology, but it is no explanation of consciousness). So explaining consciousness means to explain by processes that are not conscious themselves. And where this principle is accepted in nearly every science, when it is about consciousness suddenly people raise up, complaining that consciousness is explained away. So, yes, the bon mot is true in the sense that every explanation is sort of explaining away, but it is false in the sense that it is a real explanation. Life is not explained away by pointing to the fact that life is 'nothing else' than a very complex chemical process. The 'nothing else' however is very tricky: one could understand it as 'chemical reactions are not life, so it means life does not exist'. Those who say Dennett 'explains consciousness away' do the same with Dennett's theory of consciousness. Do you really think that Dennett would say consciousness does not exist?

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

And as John Searle likes to scoff, whenever you meet one of these guys who deny consciousness, you just want to go up and pinch them.

If John Searle thinks Dennett denies consciousness, then he is wrong. I am pretty sure Searle does not understand Dennett. And as he is still sticking to his faulty 'Chines room' intuition pump, he is disqualified in my eyes.

32 minutes ago, DrP said:

It reminds me of this thread because their arguments always reduced down to just 'yea - but how can you truly know that' when given a logical progression of stating that 'of course it makes a sound - if you go by the dictionary definition of 'sound''.  

I think this is the whole point: the answer on the question depends on how you define 'sound': is it the vibrations in the air (then yes, the tree made a sound); or is it only sound when it is heard (then no, the tree did not make a sound). Philosophers should be trained very well in shifting of meanings of words. I notoriously get into these kind of problems when discussing e.g. free will. I can explain a hundred times what I understand under free will, but when arguing I soon observe that my 'opponents' return to their own meaning. Their intuitions about what free will is supposed to be are so strong, that they cannot leave it behind in understanding what I am trying to say. Dennett has the same problem with explaining consciousness: the intuition of the Cartesian theatre is so strong, that even when people understand the notion, when evaluating Dennett's arguments they unconscious (!) they fall again for the illusion.

And as a real life example in this forum: ask Koti about see1 and see2... He probably gets a nervous breakdown when he reads this...

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

You're Dutch, right? Bring Grolsch.

Did you read that somewhere here? Or can you recognise my Dutch accent from my writing???

Pity for you I do not live in the Netherlands anymore. So no Grolsch, sorry. But you are right it is much better than Heineken and Amstel.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Eise
Typos again...

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

I don't think he made such terrible 'gaffs' (new word of the day for me ). As far as I remember you did not understand the point Reg was trying to make. But I do not want to recap the whole argument again here. As far as I remember the discussion was about naive falsificationism, which nearly nobody adheres to anymore, except maybe a few naive scientists.

I would suggest you review his past threads. He most certainly has/did make invalid scientific claims, but they are off topic here.

Quote

I know that it can be difficult to keep calm at Reg's posts, because of his 'know-it-all' and cynical style, but if you feel angry because of that, just take a deep breath, and concentrate on the contents. Are you sure you understands what he says? If not, ask. If you are, give counterarguments; but do not dismiss them just out of hand. Philosophy is not trying to dismiss the other, but proof the validity of arguments. In my impression the threads were not just closed by Reg's tone, but also by those of others. Any discussion, be it in science, philosophy or daily life, is done best by taking a disinterested stance, by not identifying oneself with the arguments, and so feeling attacked when somebody does not agree with you.

I'm neither upset or in any other way angry at Reg's claims and his poor philosophical take on science. This is after all just a science forum and his claims here in time will be lost in cyber space never to be heard of again! That doesn't mean that I should not point out the most basic areas of false claims, erroneous judgements, continued claims of no agenda, and poor philosophical opinions that he is plastering this forum with. You question my understanding of what he says? My criticism is first and foremost directed at some of his fanciful conclusions. One prominent criticism of mine is his continued accusations against most on this forum, and the making of absolute statements, when it is he making those absolute statements. eg: He seems now to have backed away somewhat in his claim that science is the search for truth and reality, when it has been pointed out to him that this is not always the case. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

13 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

This seems to me the crux of the issue. I don't think knowledge is that which materializes when a certain threshold of belief is attained. One can believe to the point of announcing absolute certainty yet still not KNOW, right?

 

The response from another poster (DrP) makes clear that my remark above has been completely misunderstood.

 

What I am not saying (but this is how you are reading me), is "You can have a belief that is so well justified, so indubitable, so manifestly obvious that only some goddamn pie-in-the-sky philosopher would withhold from claiming to know it."

 

What I am saying is: "You can have a belief of whose truth you are so utterly convinced that your degree of confidence approaches, or even attains, certainty; nonetheless that belief does not enjoy the degree of epistemic warrant necessary for knowledge. There may indeed be no good reason whatsoever to support your belief, self-professed certainty notwithstanding".

 

See madhouses with people who think they are Napoleon. See religion. See a few people on this site, too.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

See madhouses with people who think they are Napoleon. See religion. See a few people on this site, too.

Calm down Reg! 

What I will advise you to do [no thanks necessary] is to take some notice of what another philosopher has said, and his criticism of you and your claims and style.

[DrP]

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The response from another poster (DrP) makes clear that my remark above has been completely misunderstood.

Which response about which remark?   Spell it out - there are three pages of discussion here - how can we know which response to which remark you are talking about. How can you expect people to follow or understand what you say when you are not clear like that?  Quote me where I didn't understand you - don't just make the claim like that.  

 

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

What I am saying is: "You can have a belief of whose truth you are so utterly convinced that your degree of confidence approaches, or even attains, certainty; nonetheless that belief does not enjoy the degree of epistemic warrant necessary for knowledge. There may indeed be no good reason whatsoever to support your belief, self-professed certainty notwithstanding".

So what - millions of people have beliefs like that. Religion for one - people are convinced that they KNOW their religion is correct, that they KNOW their god....  but people of other religions think what they are saying is correct also - they can't both be correct. The beauty of science is we don't claim to KNOW - we claim to have tested and report what happens. Sometimes the test throw up new mysteries and show us our own ignorance. Very often the results of such tests prove that people do not actually KNOW what they are talking about and that people think they know all sorts of things which just aren't true. What's your point?....  that science is also a religion and a belief system?...  we have been through all that already - it changes it's 'beliefs' as new evidences come to light - which many religions don't do.  What is you point? 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

eg: He seems now to have backed away somewhat in his claim that science is the search for truth and reality, when it has been pointed out to him that this is not always the case.

Are you sure you'e understood him properly? 

[Reg Prescott]

@ Eise,

I enjoyed reading your comments above on Daniel Dennett's philosophy. You clearly know his work well and are passionate about it, as I am myself. By that I mean, Dennett is a delight to read, a creative, clever, and witty observer, and as you note, never afraid to challenge orthodoxy. Kudos for all that. It's just that, at the end of the day, I find myself in disagreement with almost everything he says. Haha! Clearly, you feel differently, and that's hunky-dory too.

It is intriguing that our intuitions are pulled to extremes on the topics we've touched on. Those sympathetic to the Dennett camp look on his views being more closely tied to hard-nosed science, sometimes dismissing those of a more realist persuasion (e.g. John Searle) as "mystics". Conversely, those at the Searle end of the spectrum, including myself, find it hard to take Dennett and his ilk seriously since they appear to deny the very data which is most indisputable, i.e., our own mental life and its concomitant subjective, qualitative states: "qualia" (see below), or for the uninitiated, consciousness.

Stub your toe, poke your eye, put your hand in a fire, or listen to Barry Manilow's Greatest Hits. Yes, that's qualia, of the pain variety. This is -- among other things -- what Dennett denies is real.

I believe some things you said above are mistaken, Eise, and will try to provide evidence below to support this. Before we get started, though, I do want to emphasize that "winning" or "losing" is of little moment to me. It's a rare pleasure just to discuss these things with someone as obviously passionate, knowledgeable and intelligent as yourself.

 

20 hours ago, Eise said:

Do you really think that Dennett would say consciousness does not exist?

As far as I'm aware, Dennett has never come flat out and asserted "consciousness does not exist". With good reason, too -- people might think he's stark raving mad! Haha!

But I do think, as many other commentators do, that's exactly what he's saying, just not in so many words. On occasion, he comes ever-so-close to stating it baldly himself, though always seems to back off slightly as if not quite daring to confess his sins. Take this passage, for example:

 

Quote

But he concludes, bizarrely, that therefore qualia are fictions, “an artifact of bad theorizing.” If we lack qualia, then we are zombies, creatures that look and even behave like humans but have no inner, subjective life. Imagining a reader who insists he is not a zombie, Dennett writes:

“The only support for that conviction [that you are not a zombie] is the vehemence of the conviction itself, and as soon as you allow the theoretical possibility that there could be zombies, you have to give up your papal authority about your own nonzombiehood.” Think you’re conscious? Think again.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-consciousness-real/

To repeat for those who may not be au fait with the jargon, "qualia" just are these subjective states, those "what-it's-like"states, those raw feels, that we're all so familiar with. Pains, tickles, itches, orgasm (!), sadness, euphoria, the smell of cinnamon, the taste of Grolsch beer... These are qualia. These are the stuff of consciousness.

Those of you who have no such states are invited to join Dennett in Zombieland for a dirty weekend of water, British food, Korean soap operas, and other forms of emptiness.

 

20 hours ago, Eise said:

(The only reality that he imputes to beliefs (and all the rest) is patterns of behavior) - Reg

That is definitely not true: his method of heterophenomenology is not behaviourist.

Take a look at this then:
 

Quote

1.3 Interpretationism

Interpretationism shares with dispositionalism the emphasis on patterns of action and reaction, rather than internal representational structures, but retains the focus, abandoned by the liberal dispositionalist, on observable behavior—behavior interpretable by an outside observer. Since behavior is widely assumed to be physical, interpretationism can thus more easily be seen as advancing the physicalist project. The two most prominent interpretationists have been Dennett (1978, 1987, 1991) and Davidson (1984; see Donald Davidson).

To gain a sense of Dennett's view, consider three different methods we can use to predict the behavior of a human being. One method, which involves taking what Dennett calls the “physical stance”, is to apply our knowledge of physical law. We can predict that a diver will trace a roughly parabolic trajectory to the water because we know how objects of approximately that mass and size behave in fall near the surface of the Earth. A second method, which involves taking the “design stance”, is to attribute functions to the system or its parts and to predict that the system will function properly. We can predict that a jogger's pulse will increase as she heads up the hill because of what we know about exercise and the proper function of the circulatory system. A third method, which involves taking the “intentional stance”, is to attribute beliefs and desires to the person, and then to predict that he will behave rationally, given those beliefs and desires. Much of our prediction of human behavior appears to involve such attribution (though see Andrews 2012). Certainly, treating people as mere physical bodies or as biological machines will not, as a practical matter, get us very far in predicting what is important to us.

On Dennett's view, a system with beliefs is a system whose behavior, while complex and difficult to predict when viewed from the physical or the design stance, falls into patterns that may be captured with relative simplicity and substantial if not perfect accuracy by means of the intentional stance. The system has the particular belief that P if its behavior conforms to a pattern that may be effectively captured by taking the intentional stance and attributing the belief that P. For example, we can say that Heddy believes that a hurricane may be coming because attributing her that belief (along with other related beliefs and desires) helps reveal the pattern, invisible from the physical and design stances, behind her boarding up her windows, making certain phone calls, stocking up provisions, etc. All there is to having beliefs, according to Dennett, is embodying patterns of this sort. Dennett acknowledges that his view has the unintuitive consequence that a sufficiently sophisticated chess-playing machine would have beliefs if its behavior is very complicated from the design stance (which would involve appeal to its programmed strategies) but predictable with relative accuracy and simplicity from the intentional stance (attributing the desire to defend its queen, the belief that you won't sacrifice a rook for a pawn, etc.).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

 

Finally...

20 hours ago, Eise said:

Did you read that somewhere here? Or can you recognise my Dutch accent from my writing???

Pity for you I do not live in the Netherlands anymore. So no Grolsch, sorry. But you are right it is much better than Heineken and Amstel.

 

Hmm, good question. You must've betrayed your Dutch roots in the forums somewhere I suppose. Or else it was telepathy. By the way, I've enjoyed reading your input to other threads, Eise. Always insightful. What a clever clogs you are. Geddit!?

Hey, and when you say Grolsch is "better" than Heineken and Amstel, I assume you mean it tastes better. But, but, buuuuuuuttttttt.....oh never mind. Let's just guzzle the beer.

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, DrP said:

So what - millions of people have beliefs like that. Religion for one - people are convinced that they KNOW their religion is correct, that they KNOW their god....  but people of other religions think what they are saying is correct also - they can't both be correct. The beauty of science is we don't claim to KNOW - we claim to have tested and report what happens. Sometimes the test throw up new mysteries and show us our own ignorance. Very often the results of such tests prove that people do not actually KNOW what they are talking about and that people think they know all sorts of things which just aren't true. What's your point?....  that science is also a religion and a belief system?...  we have been through all that already - it changes it's 'beliefs' as new evidences come to light - which many religions don't do.  What is you point? 

 Dude (I assume), this is so manifestly false it almost beggars belief. Pardon da pun.

Do an experiment. Enter the words "know" and "knowledge" into the site's search engine and see what you come up with.

If not, I'll do it myself.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

What I am not saying (but this is how you are reading me), is "You can have a belief that is so well justified, so indubitable, so manifestly obvious that only some goddamn pie-in-the-sky philosopher would withhold from claiming to know it."

Good morning Reg. I hope you slept well.

 

Once again you are ignoring my response to this assertion, perhaps because you have no answer I really can't tell.

It was, after all part of your conversation with me, not other members.

 

And once again I assert that I do not accept it because it relies on there only being a simple binary choice available and I have already fully demonstrated that that is not the case.

[Reg Prescott]

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

Once again you are ignoring my response to this assertion, perhaps because you have no answer I really can't tell.

It was, after all part of your conversation with me, not other members.

Good morning to you, too. Yes, you're right. I have no answer. I'm afraid I can't understand you, and not eager to lose more much-needed beauty sleep tonight. Perhaps another member can help (Eise?)

 

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

And once again I assert that I do not accept it because it relies on there only being a simple binary choice available and I have already fully demonstrated that that is not the case.

Ok. Again, the purported demonstration eludes me. 

 

 

2 hours ago, DrP said:

So what - millions of people have beliefs like that. Religion for one - people are convinced that they KNOW their religion is correct, that they KNOW their god....  but people of other religions think what they are saying is correct also - they can't both be correct. The beauty of science is we don't claim to KNOW - we claim to have tested and report what happens.

Sigh! If you need something done around this place....

Well, I did my own search. Over 5000 hits for the word "know". Here's a sample:

 

"... everything we know about a black hole is "available" at the horizon."

"However this drag has nought to do with the drags in the MMXs & MGX & the HX, these three Xs relate to a velocity based drag, & we know that the velocity based aetherdrag is 00%."

"Just because we don't know everything it doesn't mean we don't know anything. Science is constantly updating itself ..."

"No it doesn't. This shows a profound lack of knowledge of how the brain works. Pretty much everything you see is created by the brain, and largely created by the brain to fool you." [unlike others who do not lack this knowledge - RP]

"We know a lot about dark matter (less about dark energy)."

"True. Obviously, I was only referring to what we currently know."

"Also if you would go to MACS0647 and send me a tweet it would make no difference in your argument. We detected it that means we know where it was billions of years ago."

"But the way you phrase it makes it seem like you are thinking of the time dimension as completely separate from the others. This is not the case; we know they are all inextricably linked."

 

 

Oh, and this one kept popping up for some reason...

 

"Science is what you know; Philosophy is what you don't know"

Edited November 3, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

2 hours ago, DrP said:

Are you sure you'e understood him properly? 

Pretty sure, he has in different posts claim no absolute truth and then elsewhere claims he has never inferred any absolute truth. If the facts and his methodology be known, he is too fanatical in simply being contrary for contrariness sake, and wrong in the process, rather then address the real issues at hand.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Oh, and this one kept popping up for some reason..."Science is what you know; Philosophy is what you don't know"

It keeps popping up because it is basically correct, although I'm sure Russell was probably referring to bad philosophical statements from poor philosophers.

You of course while pretending to ignore me, seem to forget thatyour outrageous statements, claims, interpretions etc, are just part of a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick, Harry or Reg, and will in time be lost forever in cyber space. Don't take them too seriously...no one else does. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by beecee

[DrP]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, I did my own search. Over 5000 hits for the word "know". Here's a sample:

The word has different levels of understanding attached to it depending on the context. The language isn't perfect maybe.  Of course we 'know' some things (to the best of our knowledge). There are many things that are considered facts. There are many things that were once considered facts which we now 'know' not to be in light of updated evidence.  That's what we have been doing over thousands of years of learning - updating our understanding.

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Good morning to you, too. Yes, you're right. I have no answer. I'm afraid I can't understand you, and not eager to lose more much-needed beauty sleep tonight. Perhaps another member can help (Eise?)

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And once again I assert that I do not accept it because it relies on there only being a simple binary choice available and I have already fully demonstrated that that is not the case.

Ok. Again, the purported demonstration eludes me. 

 

 

Would you agree that the tap on my basin can be on or off  ?

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

different levels

Someone understands me  +1

[Reg Prescott]

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

Would you agree that the tap on my basin can be on or off  ?

Yes, of course. There are clear cases where everyone, or almost everyone, would agree that your tap is on or off.

What to do about these pesky borderline cases though? We skirted with this a little earlier, and if it's a solution to the sorites paradox you seek, yours truly ain't got one.

Bivalence is a bitch, if you'll pardon my French.

The alternative, though, seems to offer even less succor. Denying any difference between the respective pates of Lemmy and Yul Brynner? You may even have to deny the rationality of science! *shudder*

Worst of all, it might sound the death knell to my already beleaguered thread.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Yes, of course. There are clear cases where everyone, or almost everyone, would agree that your tap is on or off.

Thank you.

 

And yet there is a world of difference between the state 'on' and the state 'off' in that there is a huge range from drip to trickle to running to full bore for the on state but there is no such range available to the off state.

 

[philosophical aside]

I all to often see folks trying to create some argument categorising a binary choice by defining the wrong quantity of a pair first , say xxx, (infinity and finite are good examples) and the other one as nonxxx.

So here the correct choice is to define 'off' and everything else is 'not off'

Doing it the other way round leads to logical difficulties

[/aside]

Edited November 3, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

I would suggest you review his past threads. He most certainly has/did make invalid scientific claims, but they are off topic here.

I'm neither upset or in any other way angry at Reg's claims and his poor philosophical take on science. This is after all just a science forum and his claims here in time will be lost in cyber space never to be heard of again! That doesn't mean that I should not point out the most basic areas of false claims, erroneous judgements, continued claims of no agenda, and poor philosophical opinions that he is plastering this forum with. You question my understanding of what he says? My criticism is first and foremost directed at some of his fanciful conclusions. One prominent criticism of mine is his continued accusations against most on this forum, and the making of absolute statements, when it is he making those absolute statements. eg: He seems now to have backed away somewhat in his claim that science is the search for truth and reality, when it has been pointed out to him that this is not always the case. 

!

Moderator Note

Please stay on topic. Talking about Reg is not the subject of the thread

 

11 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

See a few people on this site, too.

 

Quote

Maybe I'll try again tomorrow, maybe not. Kinda sick of all the hypocrisy and nastiness on this site right now (this is not directed at your good self).

 

!

Moderator Note

Similar to what I noted in another thread, such potshots are off-topic.