Help please 'God' a nonsense word?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Help please 'God' a nonsense word? » Help please 'God' a nonsense word?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Help please 'God' a nonsense word?

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/04/09 - 10:52 AM:	#31
Gadfly II wrote: OK. You earlier stated that you don't see the infinite regress in your position. How do we judge a statement as true? (O) We judge a statement true by comparing it to epistemic criteria that fits our purposes (E) God is an empty term by E (assumption) How do we judge that E is true? After all it could be false or misapplied. We apply E2 (another epistemic criteria that fits the purpose of explaining the previous use of and epistemic criteria.) How do we judge that E2 is true? After all it could be false or misapplied. We apply E3... and so on OK. So we judge a statement as true by comparing it to an infinite set of epistemic criteria (E') How do we judge that the choice of E' gives reliable results? We believe that it does. Belief is a state of mind. So, the short answer to O is that it is true if we believe it is true and false if we believe it is false. __________________ Now you may object to this by appealing to empirical criteria, but you will have to abandon the the above criteria for truth in order to construct an empirical method that supports it. Otherwise you're simply begging the question. --------------------------- So, you'll need to show that the above scheme is not a vicious regress or justify the regress by an independent method that itself does not lead to a regress. Judging a claim by reference to some criteria leads to an infinite regress only if the goal is absolute certainty, or capital 'T' Truth--what I referred to the first time I addressed your infinite regress charge--as "Really True". A claim can be judged by reference to some criteria without leading to infinite regress simply by invoking the pragmatics of the situation, as they in fact are in virtually every area of our lives, including the most rigorous science applications. At some point we decide that pragmatically for our purposes we have enough justification and move on with the game. Specific enough for you? Undies still in a bunch, huh? What the hell's with the attitude?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/04/09 - 11:57 AM:	#32
brainpharte wrote: Judging a claim by reference to some criteria leads to an infinite regress only if the goal is absolute certainty, Not true. You claim we judge statements by "epistemic blah blah blah" this is nothing more than saying we judge statements using other statements. There is nothing in your claim that privileges any one or group of statements. Thus any claim that a certain statement S is true is of the form: S is true because S2. Since S2 is not privileged it must be justified by the same operation ad finitum. It won't do to cast about for another vague or complex term to distract from the point of this conversation. Anything you appeal to will be in the form of a statement which by your own insistence is justified by another statement regardless of the contents. My point is that your conception of what constitutes the judgment of the truth of a statement is nothing more than wishful thinking dressed up to look like a reasoned theory. for example: "Judging a claim by reference to some criteria leads to an infinite regress only if the goal is absolute certainty," is judged true by the fact that pragmatics dictates that it is so (S2). S2 is judged true by S3... here we go again. You are correct that at some point we just stop, but this is not philosophy. If the big questions are of no interest to you, philosophy is not for you. why the attitude? Pretentiousness and willful stupidity anger me.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 10/04/09 - 03:19 PM:	#33
180 Proof wrote: If you're not familiar with it, read this synopsis of Wittgenstein's "Private Language Argument" which implies that a phrase like "'inner realms' have evidence ... directly experienced" (i.e epistemic privacy) is nonsensical. Science does not need to "comment upon" grammatical, or conceptual, confusions. I am familiar with W's arguments . It seems that he expressly does not bring the personal subjective under the scrutiny of science. He makes a pragmatic assumption, and such an assumption is only that. It does help me to avoid the sort of global scepticism that might engulf a less pragmatic thinker, but it does not allow science to test my assumption. We can not falsify the claim, even if helps us live live our lives with more ease. Of course, if we want to start allowing pragmatic assumptions... Some people consider a belief in a higher being to be a pragmatic assumption. I would perhaps question what they mean by 'higher being', but I would not deny them their thoughts upon the matter. I would even accpt that they use the term an a social context, the ritual of which (despite the berating of brainpharte on this point)constitutes a language game. Such people can find a great deal of solace in such ideas, and can do remarkable things for themselves and their community as a result. This is not to say that such actions make the belief right, only that such beliefs work for some people. I would suggest that they might speak to each other and believe that each has knowledge of the same thing; just as I might speak to you and believe that we each share the same betel in our box labelled 'conciousness'. It seems that such assumptions are just as valid in their own context. And as you rightly point out, it makes little sense to discuss these things as if there were definite answers. As W and Kant both limited argument, I think it wise to speak not when we have no knowledge - rather than loudly and persistently claiming that we know a binary answer, against all reason and logic. I suppose people will argue about it anyway, but more fool them. Surely you agree?

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 10/04/09 - 03:28 PM:	#34
Gadfly II wrote: OK. You earlier stated that you don't see the infinite regress in your position. How do we judge a statement as true? (O) We judge a statement true by comparing it to epistemic criteria that fits our purposes (E) God is an empty term by E (assumption) How do we judge that E is true? After all it could be false or misapplied. We apply E2 (another epistemic criteria that fits the purpose of explaining the previous use of and epistemic criteria.) How do we judge that E2 is true? After all it could be false or misapplied. We apply E3... and so on OK. So we judge a statement as true by comparing it to an infinite set of epistemic criteria (E') How do we judge that the choice of E' gives reliable results? We believe that it does. Belief is a state of mind. So, the short answer to O is that it is true if we believe it is true and false if we believe it is false. Have you noticed Gadfly, this is proof that all definitions are circular. My cat is a cat because it has a tail and fur. Fur is fur because it is fine and soft, and a tail is a tail because... etc. We always judge truth based upon other criteria, and then use other criteria to judge that. Such arguments must be either circular, or else be true simply as a brute fact.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5118

Posted 10/04/09 - 05:12 PM:	#35
Makarismos wrote: I am familiar with W's arguments . It seems that he expressly does not bring the personal subjective under the scrutiny of science. He makes a pragmatic assumption, and such an assumption is only that. It does help me to avoid the sort of global scepticism that might engulf a less pragmatic thinker, but it does not allow science to test my assumption. We can not falsify the claim, even if helps us live live our lives with more ease. Of course, if we want to start allowing pragmatic assumptions... Some people consider a belief in a higher being to be a pragmatic assumption. I would perhaps question what they mean by 'higher being', but I would not deny them their thoughts upon the matter. I would even accpt that they use the term an a social context, the ritual of which (despite the berating of brainpharte on this point)constitutes a language game. Such people can find a great deal of solace in such ideas, and can do remarkable things for themselves and their community as a result. This is not to say that such actions make the belief right, only that such beliefs work for some people. I would suggest that they might speak to each other and believe that each has knowledge of the same thing; just as I might speak to you and believe that we each share the same betel in our box labelled 'conciousness'. It seems that such assumptions are just as valid in their own context. And as you rightly point out, it makes little sense to discuss these things as if there were definite answers. As W and Kant both limited argument, I think it wise to speak not when we have no knowledge - rather than loudly and persistently claiming that we know a binary answer, against all reason and logic. I suppose people will argue about it anyway, but more fool them. Surely you agree? Maka, I don't see the relevence of this statement in the context of my objecting to your 'propositional claims' about "consciousness".
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/04/09 - 06:57 PM:	#36
Gadfly II wrote: Not true. You claim we judge statements by "epistemic blah blah blah" this is nothing more than saying we judge statements using other statements. There is nothing in your claim that privileges any one or group of statements. Thus any claim that a certain statement S is true is of the form: S is true because S2. Since S2 is not privileged it must be justified by the same operation ad finitum. It won't do to cast about for another vague or complex term to distract from the point of this conversation. Anything you appeal to will be in the form of a statement which by your own insistence is justified by another statement regardless of the contents. My point is that your conception of what constitutes the judgment of the truth of a statement is nothing more than wishful thinking dressed up to look like a reasoned theory. for example: "Judging a claim by reference to some criteria leads to an infinite regress only if the goal is absolute certainty," is judged true by the fact that pragmatics dictates that it is so (S2). S2 is judged true by S3... here we go again. You are correct that at some point we just stop, but this is not philosophy. If the big questions are of no interest to you, philosophy is not for you. I have shown how observation and analysis reveals that people use "true" to certify that the claim at issue has met whatever criteria they've deemed appropriate for that claim. Do you dispute that this is how all scientific claims are established as true--that they meet certain crieria? How about legal judgments? Sports calls by the refs? The validity of a move in chess, checkers, or Parchesi? Using a cancelled check to prove that a bill has been paid? Does that lead to an infinite regress and bring your life to a screeching halt? If instead of investigating how people actually use "true", you'd prefer to join the millennia-old tail chase searching for what capital 'T' True Really means, fine. Have at it. Apparently a lot of people over the ages have agreed with you that such is capital P Philosophy’s Proper Concern and what Real Philosophers Do. How's that Project worked out so far? Much progress made in some 2500 years? why the attitude? Pretentiousness and willful stupidity anger me. I have not pretended anything. I have tried to clearly communicate my observations and analysis of how people use "true"--something I've had an interest in for a long time. I readily admitted what I was unfamiliar with, and apologized if my use of "language game" was misleading. Your attitude, however. is baffling and wholly inappropriate. The mods deleted my previous post in which I expressed a sincere wish for you to have sex with yourself, but the thought is still there. I have no interest in further discussion with a person who behaves so abusively. The final word is yours.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/05/09 - 08:00 AM:	#37
Makarismos wrote: Have you noticed Gadfly, this is proof that all definitions are circular. Don't confuse circularity (begging the question) with an infinite regress. Tautologies, a priori definitions, lexical definitions, etc can be viewed as circular but not viciously circular as in, e.g., "I know exciting philosophers don't exist because if they did exist I would know that they do." circular reasoning is of the form A because A. Infinite regresses are of the form A because B because C...
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 10/05/09 - 04:30 PM:	#38
Gadfly II wrote: Don't confuse circularity (begging the question) with an infinite regress. Tautologies, a priori definitions, lexical definitions, etc can be viewed as circular but not viciously circular as in, e.g., "I know exciting philosophers don't exist because if they did exist I would know that they do." circular reasoning is of the form A because A. Infinite regresses are of the form A because B because C... Oh yeah, my bad - I had meant to say exactly that: you have shown that all arguments involve an infinite regress. Seems like a problem?

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/06/09 - 10:02 AM:	#39
Makarismos wrote: you have shown that all arguments involve an infinite regress. Can you demonstrate the the above conclusion is true? In other words what reasons do you have that lead you to believe that the above conclusion is true? (assume you are explaining this to someone else who hasn't seen my post.)
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 10/07/09 - 02:02 PM:	#40
Gadfly II wrote: Can you demonstrate the the above conclusion is true? In other words what reasons do you have that lead you to believe that the above conclusion is true? (assume you are explaining this to someone else who hasn't seen my post.) Its your idea, anyone reading can refer to your earlyer post on the subject. If you are right, you must be wrong. If you don't think this follows then simply supply one example of a time when an definition does not rely ion any other definitions. Of course, this canot be done, can it?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.