10
   

What is the Virtue of Admitting Ignorance?

 
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 09:13 pm
@MattDavis,
With all due respect Matt, I do not think that existence is pointless...And that I am everything and alone...
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 09:26 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
I am glad you don't!
Neither do I.
I meant that as that is where solipsism leads if it doesn't take into account anything else. That was pretty much my main thrust toward the end of that Buddhist self thread.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 09:27 pm
@MattDavis,
The point being made that perhaps it deserves looking a multiple angles.
*Solipsism
*Empiricism
*Formal Logic
(all of these require basic assumptions to even "get off the ground")
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 09:32 pm
@Falco,
There are lots of circles to run around this, but I think the most convincing argument is simply a plea to the Anthropic Principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 01:58 am
@reasoning logic,
Sorry about the belated reply.

It is naive to assume that "tra
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 02:08 am
@reasoning logic,
Sorry about the belated reply.

It is naive to assume that "traditional logic" (ref Socrates et al) is the arbiter of what we call "knowledge" or its "absence". The process of paradigmatic progress in science relies more on metalogical speculation of theorists who are later shown to have made successful predictions, than it does on logical deduction. (The case of the demise of "the Ether" in physics illustrates the point, with respect to its temporary utility in formulating useful equations). So to admit "we don't know" tends to boil down to "we can't predict and control" rather than to make a statement about some nebulous idea of an undiscovered " reality".
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 06:34 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Sorry about the belated reply.


No need to apologies and if you are unaware i and many others find what you share to be very informative.

OK so you have again shared with me words that I am unfamiliar with and after researching I am now even more confused. Confused

Quote:
The process of paradigmatic progress in science relies more on metalogical speculation of theorists who are later shown to have made successful predictions, than it does on logical deduction.


It seems that Socrates may have been using metalogical speculation when he came to the conclusion that people knew many things that they were familiar with but spoke about other things that they did not know in the same manner.

Do you think that this was Socrates using traditional logic by his questioning?
Is it possible that metalogical speculation is a form of traditional logic being implemented imprecisely?

Quote:
The case of the demise of "the Ether" in physics illustrates the point, with respect to its temporary utility in formulating useful equations). So to admit "we don't know" tends to boil down to "we can't predict and control" rather than to make a statement about some nebulous idea of an undiscovered " reality".


I could be wrong but I think I was looking for a layman's explanation and you gave me this.

I researched what you said but I am almost certain that you would not want me to take my research to have relevance to what you were meaning but if you want a laugh you may want to read this a little and in my opinion it seems creditable at first but I think you may instantly see where they go off the deep end. Embarrassed

http://rense.com/general33/ether.htm



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 06:56 pm
@MattDavis,
There's that old saying that goes something like this; the more you know, you realize the more you don't know.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:01 pm
@reasoning logic,

This is going to sound harsh, I want you to keep in the back of your mind that I do like you and have a lot of respect for you.

I think on just a practical level we should talk about vetting of scholarship and even vetting of speculation (as in the piece above). The academic community has a peer-review process, it has may flaws and a lot of politics, but it does help in regard to filtering out a lot of (to put it indelicately) bullshit.
There is not one reference to any scientifically validated theory or observation (other than the speed of light) in that 'article'.
Speed of thought?
I actually love science fiction. It is entertaining and can be very profound and philosophical. The Dune series for instance is a love of mine. The paper above is science fiction without any plot or character development.

Action at a distance (ie faster than light communication) is something that could be explored much more scientifically. I don't currently have access to a university article database, but here is a wiki to point you in the right direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Don't waste your time with bullshit unless you just want entertainment. Very Happy
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
There's that old saying that goes something like this; the more you know, you realize the more you don't know.


I have a friend who shows little interest in logic but I think he had it correct when he said his father said the more you know the more you have to be wrong about and I added to his fathers statement "the more you have to be right about, confused about and wonder about. Wink
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:09 pm
@MattDavis,
I called it bullshit myself but maybe you were unaware but I could also be wrong.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:25 pm
@reasoning logic,
Sorry RL, I did see that you expressed some doubts about it.
I just don't understand the point of having us verify it's bullshittyness. Wink
Use also that bullshittyness filter when evaluating anything I or anyone else writes.

Bullshitfilter™ patents pending.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:29 pm
@reasoning logic,
My point is that if you are going to speculate at least use some other research/ thought tradition to back it up.
It definitely doesn't hurt to provide a way that the speculation could be tested.
"falsified".
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:32 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
My point is that if you are going to speculate at least use some other research/ thought tradition to back it up.
It definitely doesn't hurt to provide a way that the speculation could be tested.
"falsified".


OK do I understand you correctly? If I find something to be bullshit and I think you will as well you would like me to provide a way that the speculation could be tested.
"falsified"?

Why?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 08:31 pm
@reasoning logic,
No I am saying your own bullshitfilter should start a buzzin' when you read a paper like that.
Because.... of the reasons we talked about.
No evidence to back up claims. No provision or suggestion for falsifiability provided. What "philosophical problem" does the speculation hope to correct?
Does it correct it in some way (either partially or impartially)?
If it doesn't right some intellectual wrong, then why should we believe it?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 08:37 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
No I am saying your own bullshitfilter should start a buzzin' when you read a paper like that.
Because.... of the reasons we talked about.
No evidence to back up claims. No provision or suggestion for falsifiability provided. What "philosophical problem" does the speculation hope to correct?
Does it correct it in some way (either partially or impartially)?
If it doesn't right some intellectual wrong, then why should we believe it?


I was only sharing with you all what I thought was bullshit and was curious what you all may have thought about it. I was not backing it but was rather interested if anyone else would back it. Wink
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 09:15 pm
@reasoning logic,
I for one concur. The 'theory' as yet little supported, carries very little credibility. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:10 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
So in answer to the question "is it virtuous to admit ignorance ?", my answer would be yes from the willful point of view, provided that the speaker understood the constructionist argument about "facts". It is not virtuous to admit that ultimate truth or reality is "inaccessible" because that presupposes their "existence".


We could very well drop the "ultimate" out from the sentence and go strait to yours "what it works" and just ask whatever is the case of range of a contextual phenomenal manifestation the criteria for it being "true" or "real" must appeal or recur to any justification other then "itself " working ? Since when range must be absolute if the conditions the medium or the language changes ?

...you see the criteria for constructions is exactly the same criteria for deconstructions concerning the true value one apply s to it...
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I tend toward agreement.
I admit little familiarity with deconstructivism, but it does have the ring of a 'truism', from my perspective.
I'll try to read a little more on Derrida.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:02 am
@MattDavis,
Have you noticed no matter what we can think or come up with as being false or not true one always recurs to true parts or little bits or pieces of true things, to build the mosaic of what is not the case ? I am sure you did...and then again there we go with languages and fields and ranges..."false" describes normally a construction or cross sections between different miss arranged fields or levels of language, a mix of components which doesn't quite match in an integer system...deconstructionism falls exactly in the same problem constructivism is in...exactly why I ultimately appeal for the phenomena itself as foundation.
 

Related Topics

Epistemology question - Question by surfaceair
Mathematical Mapping Theory of Truth - Discussion by PeteOlcott
EPISTEMOLOGY AND METPHYSICS - Question by ECCE HOMO
Science and morality - Discussion by Briancrc
Toward the Unification of Epistemology - Discussion by Ellok Latrom
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Reality! - Question by Cyracuz
The Half-life of Facts. - Discussion by fresco
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 09:13:13