Re: How much intelligence?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:32:31 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44130aad.17671108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:46:30 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
(As a hint, there have been many discussions on this newsgroup about
behaviourism over the years. If behaviourism is true, not only is it the
case that whether or not anyone is convinced is outside of their control,
but also whether or not you or anyone else ARGUES for a particular side
is
outside of their control. Making everything pointless.)

Where I think you may have a problem with this line of reasoning,
Allan, is showing that philosophers have ever had anything worth
saying on scientific subjects.

Since it was the philosophers who STARTED science (science started from
empiricism, which merged with rationalism to become the science we know
today), I don't think I really need to show any more [grin].

Science really started much earlier than empiricism. Certainly science
begins with speculation. But by the time speculation becomes
sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife
with a whole host of speculative and undemonstrated assumptions.

It's philosophy who'll tell us what limits science has. It's philosophy
that will keep science in check when it attempts to ditch the subjective.

I disagree here, Allan. It is "true" and "not true" which tells us
what limits science has. Philosophy does not subject itself to
demonstrable standards of "true" and "not true" that I'm aware of.
Certainly philosophies usually honor standards of "true" and "not
true" but not in any mechanically definitive or reductive terms.

It's philosophy that points out what social issues certain scientific
methods and "conclusions" have. While philosophy doesn't do science well,
that's not what it's for.

Well I can agree here that systematic disciplined speculation is
certainly preferable to undisciplined argumentation. And that
philosophy is a useful kind of disciplined speculation for topics
science doesn't or can't address very well. On the other hand it
isn't an appropriate vehicle for speculation on a variety of topics
from truth on down which science can and should address even if it
hasn't succeeded as yet. I think both philosophers and empirics are so
used to ambiguous standards of truth they have no idea what truth is.
But especially pernicious are attempts to substitute philosophy for
truth in mechanical terms. Which is exactly what monism, naturalized
espistemology, materialism, and behaviorism have done.

The problem is Glen and behaviorism
start of with philosophy - monism, naturalized epistemology,
materialism, and behaviorism - so they can't wind up with anything
better than philosophy.

Of what you've listed, 3 of the 4 are basic assumptions that are made in
modern science ...

Of course they are. The problem is they're ASSUMPTIONS. (Please
forgive my shouting). There is no demonstrable regression to truth.
Modern "science" is nothing more than raw empiricism. Even math
rests on purely specualtive empirical assumptions known as axioms
despite its adherence to tautological regressions of consistency for
theorems with those axioms. Monism is assumed because the only
standard empiricism recognizes is utility and monism provides the
only basis for utility empricism has for its subject matter, material
interactions generally. But monism nonetheless remains an assumption.

As far as I can tell philosophy is just so
much special pleading and circular reasoning. The best philosophers
give clear definition to their reasoning and admit when those limits
are exceeded. But they almost never come to any demonstrably true
conclusions.

Today, that's because that what's left for philosophy are those conclusions
that you cannot scientifically prove true. How can we demonstrate true
conclusions easily about those things that you cannot easily prove true?

Quite simply by recognizing that "truth" does not depend on empirical
testing and contradiction, that "truth" cannot be determined by
assumption and must be inferred universally from "false" alternatives
and self contradictory alternatives are necessarily and exhaustively
false. That's what science means and not just empirical testing.

This is exactly what I'm referring to with philosophical speculation.
Most philosophers pay homage to the truth but then just go on with
speculative assumptions as to what's true and what's false. And with
no unambiguous concept of truth their philosophy of science or
anything else can only prove more or less useful. That's been the
thrust of everything I've written so it seems a little surprizing you
don't seem aware of the critical significance of the issue to science.

I suppose one could say that occasional philosophers have actually
had significant things to say on science and other subjects over the
course of history. Descartes comes to mind in this respect. But I'm
still reluctant to concede the general idea of philosophy as a
substitute for truth in universal terms. I think that recommending
philosophy is what gets people into trouble to begin with because even
if one knows the truth choice in philosophy is not a matter of truth.

I recommend philosophy to everyone because it discourages one from dogmatic
adherence to one view about the world. Since none have been proven correct
yet, philosophy points this out in great detail.

Well I certainly disagree that none is demonstrably correct. And
even if not widely accepted I see philosophy in the absence of any
mechanically demonstrable basis of truth precisely as dogmatic
adherence to one world view as opposed to others.

~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Science really started much earlier than empiricism. ... sufficiently organized to be called philosophy it is invariably rife ... given the truth of its axioms. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)