So basicaly the question is how do I become more consistent in my beliefs as a skeptic? If im hearing you right? While I do agree that being consistent is kool I kinda dont agree that one should focus on being more consistent I have found it only leads to less of it instead...
yes, I am asdvocating consistency in one's skepticism, among other things... but note, not really "consistency" but using consistency to figure out the logical and material ramifications.
"It is still questioned whether many of the objects of the most valuable and indispensable hypotheses in present use have actual existence; the existential status of the electron is still, for example, a matter of controversy. In many cases, as in the older theory of the nature of atoms, it is now clear that their worth was independent of the existential status imputed to their subject matter; that indeed this imputation was irrelevant and as far as it went injurious." John Dewey (QC) pp.191
From a psychological standpoint i think the skeptics fail to appreciate the extreme leap of faith that any truth that will be acknowledged 50 years from now requires today. I use the word faith intentionally, because i don't think people quite understand how extremely high psychological pressure an Einstein or Copernicus must have felt early on, and how bold - and frankly - naive, they must have been originally.
yes, and Einstein is an excellent example, relativist, materialist, willing to lay his ideas down on skeptical criteria, and still, very much the possessor of an idealized abstraction, his aesthetic about physics, how it conserved itself, what sort of balance that could be expected, which not.
So because he developed a theory that was falsifiable, he therefore is both a materialist and skeptic?
Don't you see how broad and silly this gets? Cheif philosophical background of Einstein was Hume (a skeptic one might say), Kant (word starts to lose its meaning) and Karl Pearson (who took after Kant and went further into idealism).
The latter through his book "The grammar of science" has perhaps had the most direct influence on Einstein's revolutionary thought.
I don't think that prioritizing the ontology of the physical is getting rid of metaphysics at all. In fact, it might be more radical to distrust hypotheses instead of "the senses." That is, only by temporalizing the procedures that solve problems, can we then be more open for revision when our previously workable hypotheses are running us aground. Only by adjusting our treatment of phenomena do we generate data. But the data is not the essence of the objects. It merely informs our actions.
As has been said of so many...when you try to drop metaphysics, you end up rehabilitating it in your own terms. The Deweyan-Heideggerian point that phenomena is a result of "standing-in-relation-to" versus "standing-back-from," or "being-toward" versus "being-in-itself," construes metaphysics as almost inevitable. I like Mark Kingwell's point that "there is no theory big enough to encompass theory." This is the old Emersonian trope that every circle can always be circled.
but if can be skeptical about our skepticism, then we can also be skeptical about our skepticism of skepticism, rendering the second stance meaningless. I just take every issue by ittself and try to avoid labels.
It depends what you mean by skepticism. I don't think that a skeptical analysis of our skepticism in any given situation needs to lead to a vicious regress which has us throwing our hands up and saying "What does it matter. Never mind." If you take skepticism as more of a process than a stance then you can recognise that there may be a kind of a regress because the process can always be extended without it being a vicious one.
So basicaly the question is how do I become more consistent in my beliefs as a skeptic? If im hearing you right? While I do agree that being consistent is kool I kinda dont agree that one should focus on being more consistent I have found it only leads to less of it instead...
magpiesmn 2 years ago
yes, I am asdvocating consistency in one's skepticism, among other things... but note, not really "consistency" but using consistency to figure out the logical and material ramifications.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
"It is still questioned whether many of the objects of the most valuable and indispensable hypotheses in present use have actual existence; the existential status of the electron is still, for example, a matter of controversy. In many cases, as in the older theory of the nature of atoms, it is now clear that their worth was independent of the existential status imputed to their subject matter; that indeed this imputation was irrelevant and as far as it went injurious." John Dewey (QC) pp.191
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
it depends what you mean by "exists"
pyrrho314 2 years ago
By "exists" I mean to take issue with Ian Hacking's "Representing and Intervening."
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
From a psychological standpoint i think the skeptics fail to appreciate the extreme leap of faith that any truth that will be acknowledged 50 years from now requires today. I use the word faith intentionally, because i don't think people quite understand how extremely high psychological pressure an Einstein or Copernicus must have felt early on, and how bold - and frankly - naive, they must have been originally.
CPLains 2 years ago
yes, and Einstein is an excellent example, relativist, materialist, willing to lay his ideas down on skeptical criteria, and still, very much the possessor of an idealized abstraction, his aesthetic about physics, how it conserved itself, what sort of balance that could be expected, which not.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
So because he developed a theory that was falsifiable, he therefore is both a materialist and skeptic?
Don't you see how broad and silly this gets? Cheif philosophical background of Einstein was Hume (a skeptic one might say), Kant (word starts to lose its meaning) and Karl Pearson (who took after Kant and went further into idealism).
The latter through his book "The grammar of science" has perhaps had the most direct influence on Einstein's revolutionary thought.
CPLains 2 years ago
I don't think that prioritizing the ontology of the physical is getting rid of metaphysics at all. In fact, it might be more radical to distrust hypotheses instead of "the senses." That is, only by temporalizing the procedures that solve problems, can we then be more open for revision when our previously workable hypotheses are running us aground. Only by adjusting our treatment of phenomena do we generate data. But the data is not the essence of the objects. It merely informs our actions.
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
you don't get rid of metaphysics?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
As has been said of so many...when you try to drop metaphysics, you end up rehabilitating it in your own terms. The Deweyan-Heideggerian point that phenomena is a result of "standing-in-relation-to" versus "standing-back-from," or "being-toward" versus "being-in-itself," construes metaphysics as almost inevitable. I like Mark Kingwell's point that "there is no theory big enough to encompass theory." This is the old Emersonian trope that every circle can always be circled.
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
odd, I see that oppositely, it's the connectivity of everything that makes the need for an "unconnected force" (oxymoron) or metaphysic.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Comment removed
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
Hey pyrrho... i made a video that kind of relates to this video.... but you say it so much better.
I like.
Decky11 2 years ago
which one?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
The Positivity vid.... i talk about skepticism and pessimistic thinking
Decky11 2 years ago
We need to be skeptical even of our skepticism. Sounds pretty sensible to me.
23discordians 2 years ago
but if can be skeptical about our skepticism, then we can also be skeptical about our skepticism of skepticism, rendering the second stance meaningless. I just take every issue by ittself and try to avoid labels.
qpwnsall 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but if we*
qpwnsall 2 years ago
It depends what you mean by skepticism. I don't think that a skeptical analysis of our skepticism in any given situation needs to lead to a vicious regress which has us throwing our hands up and saying "What does it matter. Never mind." If you take skepticism as more of a process than a stance then you can recognise that there may be a kind of a regress because the process can always be extended without it being a vicious one.
23discordians 2 years ago
I used to avoid labels, but I think it's best to use them wisely, to organize thing, on removable/movable stickers.
pyrrho314 2 years ago