3 ms·

That was a strawman Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell constructed. Henri Bergson based a large portion of his work drawing the distinction between functioning on rep

That was a strawman Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell constructed. Henri Bergson based a large portion of his work drawing the distinction between functioning on representation versus functioning on cognition. representation = passive; science isn't assertive. Science is purely passive which is why scientists can never assert something is true but only that it hasn't been disproven. A scientist can say "this is what general relativity says, this is how general relativity maps onto the bending of light, apply it to your work or not. Take it or leave it." scientism = passive-aggressive; it is assertive by asserting "no metaphysical woo" passively using representations provided by science. They're like the coworker who passively expresses how he feels about his boss by little gestures. cognition (what Bergson called intuition) = assertive; it reaches knowledge of truth which is why it can definitely assert something is true. But it isn't forceful so it can't convince other people which is why it only reaches up to your being.

gjm11 7y ago
"Peeping Tom"? I assume you're gesturing towards some sort of accusation here; how about making it explicit (and maybe indicating why, if true, it would tell us anything about the validity of Russell's philosophical opinions)?
- olooney 7y ago
  It's an allusion to a (not very serious) essay Russell wrote called "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish."[1] Like the much more famous "Why I am not a Christian," this is Russell at peak anti-theism. (Russell's most important work came early, on the foundations of mathematics and the theory of descriptions, but like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, he because an increasingly vocal critic of religion over time. This is apparently an occupational hazard for public intellectuals.) The actual bit is quite funny and widely quoted: "Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious." - Bertrand Russell Although it can't be said to really present a cogent argument. I doubt such nuns exist outside of an urban legend. I can't really follow ErotemeObelus's arguments, but he does seem to be familiar with Russell's work. [1]: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/outIntellectRubbish.htm http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...
  - gjm11 7y ago
    So you reckon EO's calling him "Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell" because in one of his essays he calls a particular view of God a "Peeping Tom"? That would be ... strange, but I suppose you might well be right. (I'm familiar with that essay, but didn't make the connection because, well, the fact that someone uses a particular phrase once isn't any reason to apply it at random to them in turn.) Incidentally, I'm not sure it's exactly right to say that Russell started out doing good technical work in philosophy and then turned later on to anti-theism. E.g., A Free Man's Worship (not exactly anti-theism, but in the same ballpark) is two years before On Denoting (the paper introducing his account of definite descriptions).
gjm11 7y ago
Anyone or anything can definitely assert something is true. Here, I'll do it with a scientific proposition: "Humans definitely evolved from non-human apes." One thing that distinguishes science from many other modes of thinking is that scientists have learned that things that seem definitely true sometimes turn out not to be, which is why carefully expressed scientific judgements don't go quite so far as I just did. "Our current best explanations for the way the world is have humans evolving from non-human apes, and it currently seems incredibly unlikely that any theory that doesn't have that feature will work out better than those do." If you come to some intuitive judgement, you may "definitely assert" that it's true. If so, that isn't because intuition has some power to "reach knowledge of truth" that's denied to science. It's because, in the grip of that intuitive conviction, you aren't thinking as careful as scientists-at-their-most-careful do.
- ErotemeObelus 7y ago
  > Anyone or anything can definitely assert something is true. No they can't because sophonts aren't voluntarists. Sophonts are intellectualists. Although judging by your advocacy of the otaku theory of biology you probably have a voluntarist personality. By the good regulator theorem, human cognition (intuition is bergson's word not mine) must be just as good as scientists-at-their-most-careful or I and you would be dead.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. 1. It doesn't matter whether "sophonts" (whatever exactly you mean by that) are voluntarists. It might matter whether voluntarism is right, which is an entirely different question, but I don't think it's credible that even that is relevant here. Why should anything so broad as voluntarism be necessary for anyone to be able to "definitely assert" that something is true? (Note that I didn't claim, e.g., that anyone at all can sincerely assert that anything at all is true.) 2. "The otaku theory of biology"? Are you just trolling? 3. "Voluntarist personality" doesn't make any sense. Voluntarism is a philosophical position, not a personality trait. If you mean that I'm the kind of person who believes whatever they feel like, well, please go ahead and believe that if you feel like doing so. 4. There is no theorem that would make us dead if human cognition weren't as good as scientists-at-their-most-careful, and if you think Conant and Ashby proved anything of the sort then I think you are badly deluded. What might be true (though actually I don't believe any theorem comes close to proving this either) is that if human cognition weren't perfect then we would be mortal. Guess what? It isn't, and we are.

gjm11 7y ago

"Peeping Tom"? I assume you're gesturing towards some sort of accusation here; how about making it explicit (and maybe indicating why, if true, it would tell us anything about the validity of Russell's philosophical opinions)?

olooney 7y ago
It's an allusion to a (not very serious) essay Russell wrote called "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish."[1] Like the much more famous "Why I am not a Christian," this is Russell at peak anti-theism. (Russell's most important work came early, on the foundations of mathematics and the theory of descriptions, but like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, he because an increasingly vocal critic of religion over time. This is apparently an occupational hazard for public intellectuals.) The actual bit is quite funny and widely quoted: "Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious." - Bertrand Russell Although it can't be said to really present a cogent argument. I doubt such nuns exist outside of an urban legend. I can't really follow ErotemeObelus's arguments, but he does seem to be familiar with Russell's work. [1]: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/outIntellectRubbish.htm http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...
- gjm11 7y ago
  So you reckon EO's calling him "Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell" because in one of his essays he calls a particular view of God a "Peeping Tom"? That would be ... strange, but I suppose you might well be right. (I'm familiar with that essay, but didn't make the connection because, well, the fact that someone uses a particular phrase once isn't any reason to apply it at random to them in turn.) Incidentally, I'm not sure it's exactly right to say that Russell started out doing good technical work in philosophy and then turned later on to anti-theism. E.g., A Free Man's Worship (not exactly anti-theism, but in the same ballpark) is two years before On Denoting (the paper introducing his account of definite descriptions).

gjm11 7y ago

Anyone or anything can definitely assert something is true. Here, I'll do it with a scientific proposition: "Humans definitely evolved from non-human apes." One thing that distinguishes science from many other modes of thinking is that scientists have learned that things that seem definitely true sometimes turn out not to be, which is why carefully expressed scientific judgements don't go quite so far as I just did. "Our current best explanations for the way the world is have humans evolving from non-human apes, and it currently seems incredibly unlikely that any theory that doesn't have that feature will work out better than those do." If you come to some intuitive judgement, you may "definitely assert" that it's true. If so, that isn't because intuition has some power to "reach knowledge of truth" that's denied to science. It's because, in the grip of that intuitive conviction, you aren't thinking as careful as scientists-at-their-most-careful do.

ErotemeObelus 7y ago
> Anyone or anything can definitely assert something is true. No they can't because sophonts aren't voluntarists. Sophonts are intellectualists. Although judging by your advocacy of the otaku theory of biology you probably have a voluntarist personality. By the good regulator theorem, human cognition (intuition is bergson's word not mine) must be just as good as scientists-at-their-most-careful or I and you would be dead.
- gjm11 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. 1. It doesn't matter whether "sophonts" (whatever exactly you mean by that) are voluntarists. It might matter whether voluntarism is right, which is an entirely different question, but I don't think it's credible that even that is relevant here. Why should anything so broad as voluntarism be necessary for anyone to be able to "definitely assert" that something is true? (Note that I didn't claim, e.g., that anyone at all can sincerely assert that anything at all is true.) 2. "The otaku theory of biology"? Are you just trolling? 3. "Voluntarist personality" doesn't make any sense. Voluntarism is a philosophical position, not a personality trait. If you mean that I'm the kind of person who believes whatever they feel like, well, please go ahead and believe that if you feel like doing so. 4. There is no theorem that would make us dead if human cognition weren't as good as scientists-at-their-most-careful, and if you think Conant and Ashby proved anything of the sort then I think you are badly deluded. What might be true (though actually I don't believe any theorem comes close to proving this either) is that if human cognition weren't perfect then we would be mortal. Guess what? It isn't, and we are.