3 ms·

> Just look around you. You have computers, GPS, mRNA vaccines, etc. etc. etc. Those things were not produced by philosophers. You're clearly not getting this.

by abeppu 3y ago

> Just look around you. You have computers, GPS, mRNA vaccines, etc. etc. etc. Those things were not produced by philosophers. You're clearly not getting this. Yes, you can see the products of scientific progress. That's not the same as seeing the absence of knowledge produced by anyone else. And one would expect that truths revealed about the physical world we live in should of course be the ones that give rise to physical artifacts you can point at. > Ethics are instincts produced by evolution. ... and yet, our ethical beliefs are not biologically determined, but change as a function of culture, and at least in part through the work of philosophers. Our beliefs about the importance of freedom, equality, fairness (or what those mean) change dramatically over decades, far too quick for genetics to have any contribution to the change. Re arithmetic, "the integers are closed under addition" is still something one can know without making any observations of the world, even if standard addition were somehow not useful in making predictions about the physical world. Further, by arguing that the importance of mathematical knowledge is only its relationship to making predictions about physical reality, you are once again begging the question.

lisper 3y ago
> That's not the same as seeing the absence of knowledge produced by anyone else. But that's not what you asked, and it's not what I claimed. I didn't say that philosophy is entirely devoid of value, only that a lot of it is. > our ethical beliefs are not biologically determined What difference does that make? A lot of your physical characteristics aren't biologically determined. That doesn't put them beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. > "the integers are closed under addition" is still something one can know without making any observations of the world Really? How do you know what the word "integer" means without making any observations of the world? How can you even become aware of the existence of the word "integer", let alone what it is that that word denotes, without making any observations of the world? > Further, by arguing that the importance of mathematical knowledge is only its relationship to making predictions about physical reality, you are once again begging the question. Am I? What is it that made you decide to write "the integers are closed under addition" if not some prediction on the effect that writing those words rather than some other words (like, say, "pandas are partial to purple parkas") would have on physical reality?
- abeppu 3y ago
  > But that's not what you asked, and it's not what I claimed. I didn't say that philosophy is entirely devoid of value, only that a lot of it is. You claimed you can empirically observe "that the most effective method for expanding human knowledge is science", which I think requires you to observe the efficacy of all methods of expanding human knowledge. Regarding ethics, empirically gathering what people's ethical opinions are is surveying. This is distinct from knowledge about ethical systems. For example, preference utilitarianism sets the stage for social choice theory, in which theorems tell us about the properties and weaknesses of systems for groups of agents to collectively make choices (Arrow's theorem, Harsanyi's theorem etc). > Really? How do you know what the word "integer" means without making any observations of the world? I know the English word "integer" through interaction with the world; this does not mean that true properties of addition are "empirical" truths proceeding from science.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > requires you to observe the efficacy of all methods of expanding human knowledge I should have hedged with "all known methods". It's possible that someone might invent a more effective method (but I believe there is actually good reason to believe that this is not possible, but that's a tangent). > preference utilitarianism sets the stage for social choice theory, in which theorems tell us about the properties and weaknesses of systems for groups of agents to collectively make choices (Arrow's theorem, Harsanyi's theorem etc). Sure. So? Arrow's theorem is a great example. It's a theorem. It's math. It's not what is generally done under the rubric of "philosophy". > this does not mean that true properties of addition are "empirical" truths proceeding from science Yes it does. What is the "true" value of (say) 11 + 27? It could be 38, but it could also be 1 (mod 12) or 13 (mod 24) any of which might be the "true" value depending on the application.

by abeppu 3y ago

lisper 3y ago

> That's not the same as seeing the absence of knowledge produced by anyone else. But that's not what you asked, and it's not what I claimed. I didn't say that philosophy is entirely devoid of value, only that a lot of it is. > our ethical beliefs are not biologically determined What difference does that make? A lot of your physical characteristics aren't biologically determined. That doesn't put them beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. > "the integers are closed under addition" is still something one can know without making any observations of the world Really? How do you know what the word "integer" means without making any observations of the world? How can you even become aware of the existence of the word "integer", let alone what it is that that word denotes, without making any observations of the world? > Further, by arguing that the importance of mathematical knowledge is only its relationship to making predictions about physical reality, you are once again begging the question. Am I? What is it that made you decide to write "the integers are closed under addition" if not some prediction on the effect that writing those words rather than some other words (like, say, "pandas are partial to purple parkas") would have on physical reality?

abeppu 3y ago
> But that's not what you asked, and it's not what I claimed. I didn't say that philosophy is entirely devoid of value, only that a lot of it is. You claimed you can empirically observe "that the most effective method for expanding human knowledge is science", which I think requires you to observe the efficacy of all methods of expanding human knowledge. Regarding ethics, empirically gathering what people's ethical opinions are is surveying. This is distinct from knowledge about ethical systems. For example, preference utilitarianism sets the stage for social choice theory, in which theorems tell us about the properties and weaknesses of systems for groups of agents to collectively make choices (Arrow's theorem, Harsanyi's theorem etc). > Really? How do you know what the word "integer" means without making any observations of the world? I know the English word "integer" through interaction with the world; this does not mean that true properties of addition are "empirical" truths proceeding from science.
- lisper 3y ago
  > requires you to observe the efficacy of all methods of expanding human knowledge I should have hedged with "all known methods". It's possible that someone might invent a more effective method (but I believe there is actually good reason to believe that this is not possible, but that's a tangent). > preference utilitarianism sets the stage for social choice theory, in which theorems tell us about the properties and weaknesses of systems for groups of agents to collectively make choices (Arrow's theorem, Harsanyi's theorem etc). Sure. So? Arrow's theorem is a great example. It's a theorem. It's math. It's not what is generally done under the rubric of "philosophy". > this does not mean that true properties of addition are "empirical" truths proceeding from science Yes it does. What is the "true" value of (say) 11 + 27? It could be 38, but it could also be 1 (mod 12) or 13 (mod 24) any of which might be the "true" value depending on the application.