May 27, 2015
As I hinted in my previous post, I want to discuss some aspects of Searle’s theory of perception.
Searle makes a good start with:
I believe the worst mistake of all is the cluster of views known as Dualism, Materialism, Monism, Functionalism, Behaviorism, Idealism, the Identity Theory, etc. The idea these theories all have in common is that there is some special problem about the relation of the mind to the body, consciousness to the brain, and in their fixation on the illusion that there is a problem, philosophers have fastened onto different solutions to the problem. (page 10).
I agree that those are mostly mistakes. Searle continues with:
A mistake of nearly as great a magnitude overwhelmed our tradition in the seventeenth century and after, and it is the mistake of supposing that we never directly perceive objects and states of affairs in the world, but directly perceive only our subjective experiences.
That is Searle’s statement about his direct realism. I do support the view that perception is direct, but I avoid the term “direct realism” because the word “realism” seems to carry some unnecessary metaphysical baggage.
read more »
September 13, 2014
This morning, I came across a blog comment which is a good example of where I see metaphysics leading us astray. I replied to that comment, and this post will mainly be quoting my reply.
Here’s what I wrote, starting with a quote from the comment to which I was responding:
Kantian Naturalist: More precisely, the point of the act/potency distinction (energeia and dunamis, respectively) is to characterize how the world must be in order for there to be modally robust empirical generalizations.
As a piece of metaphysics — indeed, a fundamental position in what might be called “transcendental realism” — it strikes as perfectly right that we should ask “how must the world be in order for science to be possible?” as well as the Kantian question, “how must the mind be in order for science to be possible?” And in answering the former question, it seems perfectly right to say that the world must have modal structure, otherwise there is nothing to make our counterfactuals correct or incorrect. (This is different from the epistemological question of how to explain our conceptual grasp of modality.)
To me, this reads like philosophy’s version of “Adam and Eve.” That is to say, it comes across to me as the origins myth that is the founding belief of philosophy seen as religion.
I prefer the alternative: it is obvious that science is possible, so let’s investigate how does it actually work. Let’s not start with a dubious a priori assumption, that it works by generalization (induction).
September 11, 2014
I’ve occasionally suggested that I don’t do metaphysics. One of the comments to my previous post took me to task over that, saying that it was an example of doing metaphysics and that I was therefore contradicting myself.
Such literalism. This kind of quibbling is part of why many scientists are dismissive of philosophy. Here, I’ll try to clear up that confusion.
What I’m against
Of course, every thinking person will do some thinking about metaphysical questions, self-included. We can’t help it. We are confronted with these questions, posed by others. They may be questions that have no answers. But we will think about them anyway.
What I oppose, is using metaphysical assumptions as a basis for other reasoning, such as reasoning about knowledge.
I’ll illustrate the point with mathematics. There, I avoid platonist assumptions. I usually consider myself a fictionalists (mathematical entities are useful fictions). And I suppose that, technically, fictionalism is considered a metaphysical position. But the point of fictionalism is to avoid making assumptions about the existence of mathematical entities by treating them as fictions.
read more »
June 9, 2014
In my previous post, I wrote
When I read John’s statement (either version), as quoted above, I see John mentioning the nature of knowledge as an important topic. I’ve read a lot of epistmology (the subfield of philosophy that deals with knowledge). In all honesty, I have not learned anything at all about the nature of knowledge from that reading.
Here, I want to talk informally about what I take to be the nature of knowledge.
To me, knowledge is closely connected with learning. I see knowledge is the result of learning. I guess that makes me an empiricist, at least in the broad sense of the term.
At around 10 years of age, while walking home from elementary school, I wondered about knowledge. In particular, I wondered if knowledge could be just those natural language statements such as we learn in school. But, as I pondered that, it seemed impossible. It seemed to me that there was nothing in those sentences that said how our language sentences connect with the world.
read more »
March 23, 2014
Recently, in a post at the Uncommon Descent blog, vjtorley made a post critical of Jason Rosenhouse:
Here, I shall comment on part of vjtorley’s post.
I’m actually a bit puzzled by the whole post. I read Jason’s blog often enough to doubt that he is claiming that science is the only way of knowing. I guess I’m also a bit troubled by the expression “ways of knowing” which seems a bit too vague.
Torley begins with:
People who hold the view that “there is a non-scientific source of knowledge about the natural world, such as divine revelation or the historical teachings of a church, that trumps all other claims to knowledge,” are a menace to science. That’s the claim made by mathematician Jason Rosenhouse, in his latest post over at his Evolution Blog.
As I see it, the significant part is “that trumps all other claims to knowledge.” I don’t see Jason as saying that science is the only way of knowing about the the natural world. I only see him as denying that what comes from religion can trump science.
read more »
January 3, 2014
The problem with philosophy, is its excessive obsession with logic. I was reminded of this when reading a blog post by Massimo Pigliucci:
Massimo is actually discussing the urge to study meta-ethics, as providing a logical foundation for ethics. And he explains why he is resisting that urge.
That’s good. I never had such an urge myself, perhaps because I don’t see logic the same way that philosophers do. The idea of a logical foundation for ethics seems to me to be a hopeless non-starter.
read more »
November 24, 2013
I obviously do not believe what is suggested by the title. That title is my simplified way of describing what vjtorley has recently posted at the Uncommon Descent blog. The tl;dr form of the title, as used by vjtorley, is:
The UD post uses a method of argument that we mathematicians refer to as Proof By Exhaustion.
There are actually two different versions of “proof by exhaustion”. The main version is where one proves a result by exhausting all possibilities. It is much like a case statement in a computer program. That’s the version that is defined by the linked Wikipedia page.
The other version of “proof by exhaustion” is the one used by vjtorley. That is where the argument is so tediously long, that you are exhausted by the time that you have finished reading it. In fact, you are so exhausted, that you were too tired to notice all of the glaring holes in the argument.
read more »
November 2, 2013
I am starting a series of posts on the idea of conventions, as in social conventions. It has long been clear to me that conventions are important. This, however, seems to be controversial. As best I can tell, philosophers are deeply suspicious of convention.
As a self-declared heretic about philosophy, I am not troubled by opposing what seems to be the conventional view of convention among conventional philosophers.
Here’s some background reading:
read more »
June 2, 2013
In an earlier post in this series, I wrote:
In short, it is the problem of knowledge that needs to be explained, rather than the problem of experience.
So today I will begin discussing the question of knowledge.
My starting point is a kind of empiricism. That is to say, I take the view that we acquire knowledge through experience. Or, said differently, knowledge is not inherited. The empiricism of John Locke seems in about the right direction, though of course Locke left much unexplained. Locke talked about ideas, and I take that to be about the same as what we mean when we talk of concepts. The question of knowledge, for Locke appears to be one of how we acquire our ideas or concepts.
By the time we get to Hume, the discussion has changed. Empiricism, to Hume, seems to be a question of how we decide which statements are true. Now that’s a huge change. You cannot even have a statement until you have the necessary concepts. So an account of how we decide which statements are true will fall far short of explaining how we acquire concepts. My version of empiricism is closer to that of Locke than to that of Hume.
read more »
March 11, 2013
Epistemology is a core area within philosophy. It is concerned with questions of knowledge, information, description and truth. And it is part of what I would like to see turned upside down. That is to say, the way that I see questions of knowledge, information, description and truth is very different from what we find in the traditional literature.
Epistemology from a design stance
As mentioned in my earlier “upside down” post, I see traditional philosophy as based on a design stance, while I would prefer a more evolutionary stance. So let’s start by looking at how the design stance seems to work.
read more »