Re: How much intelligence?


"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44150aae.30999317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:32:31 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
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.

Science as we know it today started from empiricism. Whether or not you
think that's a good thing is up to you. But today I don't think you can
call something science -- at least referring to the organized study of
science -- without acknowledging what it gets from philosophy and
empiricism.


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.

Well, tell me what other course of study will even study what it means for
something to be true or not true? When you talk about your notion of
difference between differences, you are doing philosophy -- even if you
don't know it.


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.

Science can't address truth, unless you want it to be much, much different
than it is today. The scientific notion of truth IS naturalized
epistemology, where we try to determine what truth is or what knowledge is
by looking at the many ways in which we use the term and generalizing from
that. It tells us what we THINK truth is, but not what truth OUGHT to be,
and so is useless.

At least in philosophy, you can ask what truth ought to be ...

I think both philosophers and empirics are so
used to ambiguous standards of truth they have no idea what truth is.

But, see, philosophers are trying to figure that out. Empirics aren't.

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.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The hypothetical-deductive model brings
rationalism into the picture as well.

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.

Oh, I agree with these problems, but I blame it on modern academics rather
than on philosophy. In order to get funding, your research has to look
cool. Saying things work in the ways that everyone common-sensically expect
them to work is not cool, and so isn't funded.

I shudder at what I read of some of the other philosophy students I've been
in classes with. It's full of sound and fury, but says nothing.

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.

Well, when you can't prove the answer true you have to make an assumption
and see if you can make everything work out until someone manages to prove
what is or isn't true.

It isn't the ASSUMPTIONS that generally get philosophers in trouble, but the
fact that the key questions are not proveable.



.

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)