ersatz83 t1_ituuck7 wrote
Reply to comment by primitivepal in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
Sure, but since logical positivism claims that it does not, in fact, do the thing, it's not a fallacy in this specific case. The title could just as well be "Why logical positivism fails to adequately answer questions of the human experience despite claiming to do just that."
Just because you can tag a dismissive Latin name for a fallacy (and admittedly, this does precisely meet the naive definition of Tu Quoque) on an argument doesn't make it fallacious.
LukeFromPhilly t1_ituy9pf wrote
ah the fallacy fallacy
ersatz83 t1_itv5u68 wrote
Aka "the problem with reducing every single question to formal logic". Really, the comment I replied to is a perfect example of the flaws in logical positivism - not every question can be reduced to proposition and counter-proposition, much less anything "verifiable" or falsifiable. "Logical fallacy" =/= "wrong".
yourself88xbl t1_itvtyc1 wrote
I may be reaching here but doesn't quantum mechanics exist because you can make much more accurate models of the universe if you build the model on the basis that there isn't much that really is verifiable or falsifiable.
ersatz83 t1_itwivmc wrote
Heh. I'm not a physicist, but if my understanding of quantum theory is at all correct it is a statistical rather than deterministic discipline. In principle, then, the model could be refined to arbitrary levels of precision, down to precisely predicting the probability of individual quantum events within a system. In that case it falls squarely into the magisterium of science, since it can make testable, repeatable predictions about events, even if they are probabilistic predictions.
My argument is that there are elements of the human experience which, even in theory, are not reducible to testable predictions. As a corollary, the /fact/ that in practice there are still many such elements which are not well understood scientifically (and if you disagree with this, I would invite you to find any psychological study of the past fifty years that has been verified to even two sigma of confidence in one or more follow up studies) means that ANY statement about the relationship between science and understanding the human experience is ultimately metaphysical speculation, including this one.
yourself88xbl t1_ity24dk wrote
>ANY statement about the relationship between science and understanding the human experience is ultimately metaphysical speculation, including this one.
That most certainly makes sense to me.
platoprime t1_itv85ta wrote
If you can't verify or falsify you're just speculating. What's the point in pretending there's any philosophical value in baseless speculation beyond exercising your philosophical "muscles"?
daikarasu t1_itvaycw wrote
My guy what? We're talking about philosophy not science. It's all literally just speculating. You think Plato put people in a cave?
BryKKan t1_itvoye9 wrote
Science is a philosophy in this sense, and the discussion is about supplanting it as the single source of valid knowledge.
The thing is, it works. It makes sense. And it doesn't require speculation. Unlike the rest of this hogwash.
platoprime t1_itvg8ej wrote
You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?
>It's all literally just speculating.
Philosophy might be all about speculating when you confine yourself to arguing with the natural sciences about metaphysics. For some of us at least philosophy is more than just unverifiable speculation and is something that should be lived and applied. Or at least the useful parts can be applied.
daikarasu t1_itvkuis wrote
>You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?
Yes, they're literally called Allegories.
>should be lived and applied
I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea. A speculation is forming a theory. You cannot prove or falsify a theory with anecdotal experience because people see the world in such different ways.
It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective. Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
platoprime t1_itvljsx wrote
>It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
I never said that. In my first comment I acknowledged that becoming a better thinker is through philosophical speculation is value speculation provides.
>Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.
Hypothetical discussions and speculative discussions aren't the same thing. Allegories are perfectly capable of conveying verifiable truths.
>I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea.
You're fixating on the word speculate unnecessarily. My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy.
daikarasu t1_itvno6x wrote
>My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy
I'll repeat myself. Anecdotes do not falsify or verify anything. Philosophy is purely anecdotal.
Philosophy is about how you experience things. Your experience can never be an absolute fact, therefore you can never verify anything, nor can you find it false. One person's heaven is another person's hell.
There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.
platoprime t1_itvo4x8 wrote
Just because subjective truths can appear to contradict each other doesn't mean those truths aren't true. The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.
I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.
>There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.
People use axioms all the time in philosophy.
daikarasu t1_itvu7l1 wrote
>Subjective truth
You mean a belief? Because nobody is saying you can't have your beliefs.
>The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.
This is a false equivalency, you can measure the universe and how frames of reference change. You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.
>I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.
Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.
Look, let's use an example. If you take 2 identical space ships and send them through an identical journey across the stars, they will end up in identical places. If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.
That's why I don't think it makes any sense to treat the two in the same way. You can't say that the universe is subjective in the same way as humans because it behaves predictably while humans do not.
platoprime t1_itvuhda wrote
No I don't mean a belief.
>Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.
You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference.
>If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.
What makes you think that?
Edit:
>You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.
That's silly. You just ask.
daikarasu t1_itvvi21 wrote
>You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference
Measurement is the key word here. The issue isn't that they are different, the issue is that they are measurable. You can demonstrate in absolute mathematics what is happening and why it looks different from different perspectives.
I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
>What makes you think that?
Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
platoprime t1_itvvtv9 wrote
>I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?
You ask. It isn't that complicated.
>Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.
That's absurd. Twins only have very similar environments not identical ones.
daikarasu t1_itvwbav wrote
>You ask. It isn't complicated.
Ok great explanation thanks.
Look, this has been fun, but it's pretty clear neither of us is going to budge an inch. We each hold our beliefs quite strongly. This has been an interesting conversation though, and I hope you have a nice day.
platoprime t1_itvwi41 wrote
>Ok great explanation thanks.
A truth being hard to check and there not being a truth are not the same thing.
daikarasu t1_itvwrlp wrote
Byeeeee have a nice day
livebonk t1_itvwcko wrote
You think Einstein actually rode in an elevator to determine if he could tell the difference between that and gravity?
daikarasu t1_itvx25r wrote
Ah man, you got me. It's a shame Einstein doesn't have a ton of mathematics and data to back up his ideas.
SecretHeat t1_itvb343 wrote
Philosophy is not a hard science. Actually, you could probably argue that lack of strict, reliable verifiability is exactly where philosophy begins and the sciences end. Not every question can be settled with airtight logic or an experiment; sometimes all you have is a better or worse argument
civil_beast t1_itvdvb1 wrote
Correct. Science requires the use of the scientific method. Which in some fields of study is impossible to achieve - either because there exists no way to isolate multivariate systems (while maintaining social ethical norms) or the experiment is not repeatable. Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.
platoprime t1_itvfn6y wrote
You can apply the scientific method to anything you can measure.
>Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.
Preposterous. You do not need to demonstrate direct causality to apply the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of investigation that can be applied to anything not a set of direct casual results.
civil_beast t1_itvwgc2 wrote
In theory, yes. But invariably social sciences (and if we are being honest, this is why we even have a taxonomic differentiation) have immense problems when it comes to repeatability. Repeatability is a key requirement. If your hypothesis does not qualify the domain concretely, then when results don’t support the original experiment’s conclusion - they get tossed. Practically, the ability to isolate the differences in the null-case in my experience Make reproduction not viable. Because of this, the social sciences do not have academia in those fields judging experiments by anything other than practical validation of steps taken before publishing. Largely it’s the best we have to garner understanding behaviors, and that is acceptable.
But is it a science? I apologize but no. Without verification, there is no axiomatic leverage that guarantees an outcome.
And don’t get me started with how these sciences abuse the rate of error in order to resolve inconsistent output.
platoprime t1_itvwnen wrote
>But is it a science? I apologize but no.
It's okay. I accept your apology for your ignorance on what the scientific method is.
civil_beast t1_itw0f1x wrote
I believe you are aware of the ongoing debate that has been had for centuries on this very topic. If you would like to comment on why my assertion of repeatability when only problematic propositions (meaning those that rely on statistical domains, and not Boolean) are used.
Seriously, I come here to learn. All in good faith. I respect anyone that uses the term “preposterous” outright… so I want to understand where you’re coming from.
YoungXanto t1_itvklp5 wrote
Even the hard sciences are the domains of inferred causality.
Hume remarks about billiard balls
>if I see one billiard ball rolling toward another, how do I know that the second ball will move when it is struck?
That is, experience is a necessary precursor to knowledge. And our observations are limited to only the confines of the single experiment from which they emerge. Repeated measurements add evidence of a causal outcome, but the state space of our observations is necessarily a subspace of the entire space of observable outcomes and we also assume the state space is time-invariant. We can therfore never be absolutely certain about anything because we can never be absolutely certain about the space we haven't sampled (which is admittedly a bit of a tautology)
platoprime t1_itvffqf wrote
Not every question in the physical sciences can be settled with airtight logic either. I'm not sure how that demonstrates the value of speculation on this.
SecretHeat t1_itvgch9 wrote
What you’re dismissing as ‘speculation’ is just part of the character of philosophy as a discipline
platoprime t1_itvh4ki wrote
Except there is plenty of philosophy that can be applied and tested. It's incorrect to think speculation and unverifiability are inherent to philosophy. Philosophy originally included the investigation of the natural world.
It seems to me the only reason to separate speculative philosophy from the rest and gatekeep it as the only "true philosophy" is to retain the pretense of authority on things like metaphysics compared to physicists who are also capable of engaging in philosophy.
SecretHeat t1_itvj258 wrote
Sure there are philosophical sub fields—probably most notably analytic philosophies of cognition and perception—that are amenable to science, and often the philosophers working in these fields are in dialogue with scientists. But this is pretty far from being representative of the field as a whole.
As far as I’m concerned physicists are as welcome to the party as anyone else but you’re just not going to be settling via the scientific method whether Nietzsche’s account of ressentiment or Schopenhauer’s account of willing are accurate takes on the world anytime soon.
platoprime t1_itvjf19 wrote
So you think the scientific method is the only way to verify truth?
SecretHeat t1_itvl3sy wrote
It depends on what your criteria for ‘truth’ are, which I think is exactly what we’ve been debating here. What degree of uncertainty are you comfortable with? To call a statement ‘true’ does it have to be testable? Repeatable? Is a strong argument good enough?
I think a great deal of philosophy tends to allow for more leeway here than standard scientific practice, and you seem to have stricter criteria than the average philosopher. Personally I think propositions arrived at via the scientific method are probably the ideal form for truth but that for certain questions this isn’t always a possible method of investigation—or not possible at this moment in history. To me, that doesn’t make the ‘speculative’ answers any less interesting or valuable, at least as possibilities, but yeah they could be wrong
platoprime t1_itvn6fb wrote
>stricter criteria than the average philosopher.
Perhaps the opposite. I don't consider subjective contradictions between perspectives to be the same as a paradox or untruth.
YoungXanto t1_itvj0sq wrote
>Not every question can be settled with airtight logic or an experiment; sometimes all you have is a better or worse argument
From the most skeptical point of view, all we ever have is a better or worse argument. That's the basis of statistics, rooted in probability theory (and very Humean).
We can only sample from observable space across time. Our counterfactual probabilities may be vanishingly small, but they can never be zero.
ersatz83 t1_itvbdrd wrote
Really? That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...
All sorts of everyday things refuse to submit to positivist analysis, but we agree to common values anyway. Let's not quibble over what individual things may or may not be good, but the fact that we all (humans) seem to agree that there is such a thing seems somewhat important to me. You may disagree with the idea of "goodness" being used as data, but I think it's probably more dangerous to get embroiled in a philosophy that demands that there can be no such thing.
platoprime t1_itvf87g wrote
>That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...
Nonsense. I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.
WhatsThatNoize t1_itvgmzm wrote
Truth in that framework is entirely meaningless.
Big oof.
platoprime t1_itvhdke wrote
The physical universe itself changes length, position, casual order of events, and the rate of the passage of time depending on your frame of reference. Subjective truths are still true.
WhatsThatNoize t1_itvhz3n wrote
Variations over time aren't "subjective truth", what even are you saying, my dude?
platoprime t1_itvi6rc wrote
I'm not talking about "variations over time". I'm talking about getting two different measurements depending on your frame of reference.
>what even are you saying, my dude?
I'm saying you should probably learn the conceptual basics of special relativity.
WhatsThatNoize t1_itvkhq6 wrote
Variations of location, time, and relative velocity are immaterial to objective reality. They're not "subjective truths", they're second-order measurements.
I'm well aware of special relativity Mr. 200 IQ.
platoprime t1_itvkzfi wrote
>I'm well aware of special relativity
I'm not the one calling differences caused by separate frames of reference "variations over time"
>Variations of location, time, and relative velocity are immaterial to objective reality.
If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality. As you are no doubt aware General Relativity is necessary to correctly describe reality.
WhatsThatNoize t1_itvwojf wrote
No, you're just attributing a meaningless distinction to an important one.
> If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality.
You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.
platoprime t1_itvwykd wrote
>You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.
You're entirely forgetting Relativity has been experimentally confirmed.
ersatz83 t1_itwh2vk wrote
And that's my very point - the fact that two people agree that THERE IS SUCH A THING as goodness is far more relevant than quibbles over whether or not some given action is good.
Also, using physical analogies to describe experiential realities is like using a piano arrangement to analyze a symphony written for a full orchestra. Every human knows that the experience of being alive is far richer and more significant than can be simply described. To describe a life fully is to live it out. To reduce human relationships and joy and suffering to nothing more than the interplay of chemicals and electricity inside a fatty lump of meat may be factual, in the sense that it is all that can be externally verified (and indeed might "truly" be all that there is) but nobody actually lives that way. We live as though there is some quality of reality in our own experience. It MATTERS when someone is in pain.
Logical positivism proposes a world where none of that is actually true, so whether or not it's the most truthful account of the universe, I'm going to keep living in the universe where I can believe that it's actually ontologically better to feed someone, rather than merely being a societally approved action.
VitriolicViolet t1_itwr9fe wrote
>I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.
you can indeed but what about your neighbour? or someone from Iran?
all you can do is state if you think it is moral, not whether or not it is moral.
is it moral to murder someone trying to kill you? is it moral to kill people to save others? if a nation is trying to commit genocide and wont stop can you wipe them all out?
personally i think modern society is immoral in the extreme due to its worship of the individual, 10s of millions are left to rot at the bottom so the thousands at the top can sit on their asses and bludge off the rest and the ones in the middle have the gall to blame the bottom.
Emotional_Penalty t1_itvqg09 wrote
Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus, most of everyday use of language can't be verified this way as it's not based on assertions (on the contrary, standard assertions which can be logically verified are just a tiny part of everyday use of language).
platoprime t1_itvrc47 wrote
>Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus
There is no domain relevant to this conversation where simple logical calculus can verify everything. I also didn't ask for verification for everything or any one thing. I asked what the value is in speculating on things that cannot be verified.
Kyocus t1_itvhok5 wrote
The fallacy fallacy is a dumb fallacy, because the purpose of the initial claim is to hold up an idea as true. If the claim is a fallacy, then there is no longer direct support for the idea, which directly leads to having no support to believe such a thing. The fallacy fallacy is just Gin Rummy in The Boondocks rambling: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", yeah no shit, but you don't go believing there are invisible Russian elves in your oven heating things for you, because you don't have EVIDENCE they're there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVQB1TVcD2k
LukeFromPhilly t1_itvjijg wrote
The fallacy fallacy doesn't apply to arguments that are indeed fallacies but rather that appear to be fallacies.
Kyocus t1_itvowb8 wrote
No it's not, it's literally as I described it, which is why it's stupid.
from Wikipedia: "Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
My point being that the fallacy fallacy is a red herring that leads you away from good epistemology, because the truth of a claim arrived at from a fallacy is irrelevant until substantiated regardless.
LukeFromPhilly t1_itvqxge wrote
Ah, I didn't realize "fallacy fallacy" was actually an established term, I was just being cheeky. The definition I gave was just me stating my intended meaning.
I suppose I agree that the "fallacy fallacy" you're referring to is a red herring although that's not necessarily clear to me either. It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made.
Kyocus t1_itvvj1x wrote
"It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made."
I agree, where we differ is that "A" is a claim of truth, and if that claim is based on a fallacy, Logical Positivism says A should be disregarded until it's been substantiated, which is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time and why I still think the fallacy fallacy is dumb.
LukeFromPhilly t1_ity8yhj wrote
I don't disagree with that though, at least I don't think I do. If there is no evidence for a claim then it should be disregarded. But disregarding it is not the same thing as accepting the negation of it.
Kyocus t1_ityf0zp wrote
Indeed. That's why I called it a Red Herring, because I've never seen anyone commit the falacy.
platitood t1_itvz74i wrote
I think the fallacy fallacy is intended to avoid poisoning the well through an easily refutable argument and favor of some proposition.
If a proposition is argued poorly it can be seen as less true than a proposition that wasn’t argued at all. This is commonly a useful observation, but strictly speaking it is fallacious.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments