= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Juno_Watt comments on What do professional philosophers believe, and why? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (249)
Then there is no reason why some philosopihical claims about human nature could not count as Actual Truths About The World, refuting your original point.
That depends on what you mean by "human nature," but yes, some such claims could. However, they aren't judged based on this (outside of experimental philosophy, of course). So, there is no feedback loop.
Based on what? Is Gresham's law based on "this"?
Just a friendly advice. Having looked through your comment history I have noticed that you have trouble interpreting the statements of others charitably. This is fine for debate-style arguments, but is not a great idea on this forum, where winning is defined by collectively constructing a more accurate map, not as an advantage in a zero-sum game. (Admittedly, this is the ideal case, the practice is unfortunately different.) Anyway, consider reading the comments you are replying to in the best possible way first.
Speaking of which, I I honestly had no idea what the "this" meant. Do you?
If you honestly do not understand the point the comment you are replying to is making, a better choice is asking the commenter to clarify, rather than continuing to argue based on this lack of understanding. TheOtherDave does it almost to a fault, feel free to read some of his threads. Asking me does not help, I did not write the comment you didn't understand.
I believe I did:-
' Based on what? Is Gresham's law based on "this"?'
The point is that if no one can understand the comment, then I am not uncharitably pretending not to understand the comment:
That comment could have been more clear. My apologies.
Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world. This was my original point, which I continue to stand by.
OK, it has been established that you attach True to the sentence:
"Philosophers are not judged based on whether their claims accurately describe the world".
The question is what that means. We have established that philosophical claims can be about the world, and it seems uncontroversial that some of the make true claims some of the time, since they all disagree with each other and therefore can't all be wrong.
The problem is presumably the epistemology, the justification. Perhaps you mean that philosophy doesn't use enough empiricism. Although it does use empiricism sometimes, and it is not that every scientific question can be settled empirically.
Doesn't follow.
You mean there are ideas no philosopher has contemplated?
I'm going to leave this thread here, because I think I've made my position clear, and I don't think we'll get further if I re-explain it.