|
What Are You Reading? Part Deux. (pg. 48)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Or because it makes life much, much easier ;) |
still doesn't mean you know anything though. Pragmatic responses like yours also still take things for granted, and make knowledge claims (hence irrational, and dogmatic)...
for example, even saying it makes life easier implies you know that life is made easier... why do you know that? what is that based on? etc ;) |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
still doesn't mean you know anything though. Pragmatic responses like yours also still take things for granted, and make knowledge claims (hence irrational, and dogmatic)...
for example, even saying it makes life easier implies you know that life is made easier... why do you know that? what is that based on? etc ;) |
I'm saying that acting as if things are most likely the case is most likely easier than constantly thinking that nothing is real and you don't know anything. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take many things for granted. Things like gravity, mathematics, etc.
Everything is irrational when you get down to it. Thinking there is no knowledge is quite irrational. Irrationality/skepticism/etc is definitely an interesting idea, and I am fond of Schrödinger/Heisnberg/Brain in a vat etc, but in the end it's academic bull and not really helpful in living day-to-day.
And I would argue that my pragmatic response is actually true (and I know it's to be true), because it is much quicker to write "something is the case" than "something is most likely the case." Therefore, it's easier. If I had to say 'most likely the case' all the time, it would take up quite a bit of time. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I'm saying that acting as if things are most likely the case is most likely easier than constantly thinking that nothing is real and you don't know anything. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take many things for granted. Things like gravity, mathematics, etc.
Everything is irrational when you get down to it. Thinking there is no knowledge is quite irrational. Irrationality/skepticism/etc is definitely an interesting idea, and I am fond of Schrödinger/Heisnberg/Brain in a vat etc, but in the end it's academic bull and not really helpful in living day-to-day.
And I would argue that my pragmatic response is actually true (and I know it's to be true), because it is much quicker to write "something is the case" than "something is most likely the case." Therefore, it's easier. If I had to say 'most likely the case' all the time, it would take up quite a bit of time. |
it depends what you're doing really. If its a philisophical or scientific investigation its irresponsible to be 'ok' with likelihood when the whole point of it is to achieve certainty (even if the certainty reached is that there can't be certainty). Problem with most philisophical and scientific investigations is it takes the everyday things we take for granted (we're probably right) as Knowledge. That's what the book is disputing. I don't disagree that its easier to say something is most likely the case in casual situations though.
It depends on what concepts we're using and the terms anyway, but the point is most people DO NOT think that nothing can be known (philosophy and science try to prove, not just looks for probabilities), and the pragmatic thing isn't really good enough for challenging sceptical problems, since its just a really weak epistemological cop out anyway... |
|
|
| nefardec |
just finished 'female chauvinist pigs' by ariel levy
now reading
 |
|
|
| Happymess |
Most excellent.
I just bought a copy. =) |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
it depends what you're doing really. If its a philisophical or scientific investigation its irresponsible to be 'ok' with likelihood when the whole point of it is to achieve certainty (even if the certainty reached is that there can't be certainty). Problem with most philisophical and scientific investigations is it takes the everyday things we take for granted (we're probably right) as Knowledge. That's what the book is disputing. I don't disagree that its easier to say something is most likely the case in casual situations though.
It depends on what concepts we're using and the terms anyway, but the point is most people DO NOT think that nothing can be known (philosophy and science try to prove, not just looks for probabilities), and the pragmatic thing isn't really good enough for challenging sceptical problems, since its just a really weak epistemological cop out anyway... |
How is it irresponsible to be '99.999% certain' if that is the best we can get?
Maybe I've been lucky with my science and philosophy teachers. I've never had a teacher try to prove something 100%. They've always taught me that we can never be certain about anything and that nothing is ever known for sure, but that we do as best as we can. And considering that the best we can is 99.99999999999% that's good enough for me to "believe" in stuff and ride airplanes and all that . |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Almost done with it, and I'm shocked just how far and in how many ways the "mind virus" idea works. |
I put that on my wish list. I'll get it eventually. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Slmost done with it, and I'm shocked just how far and in how many ways the "mind virus" idea works. |
Read about discourse analysis: It's the same thing without the biological metaphors... and obviously reaching far more than just religion. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Reading Idoru at the moment. Before that Count Zero and before that The Fountains of Paradise.
Sci-fi binge. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
How is it irresponsible to be '99.999% certain' if that is the best we can get?
Maybe I've been lucky with my science and philosophy teachers. I've never had a teacher try to prove something 100%. They've always taught me that we can never be certain about anything and that nothing is ever known for sure, but that we do as best as we can. And considering that the best we can is 99.99999999999% that's good enough for me to "believe" in stuff and ride airplanes and all that . |
So, Unger is right, right? :conf: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
So, Unger is right, right? :conf: |
I'm not sure we can ever really know that ;) :D |
|
|
|
|
