4 ms·

How do you collect data about what constitutes a good life? - Study people who are leading a good life? Circular: how do you identify them? - Ask people if th

by rfrey 12y ago

How do you collect data about what constitutes a good life? - Study people who are leading a good life? Circular: how do you identify them? - Ask people if they are leading a good life? Begs the question, since to decide they must have already answered it. Do you believe the answer is unimportant? Self-evident? Relative to time and place? Naturally dictated and discoverable by reason? Primarily decided by social structure? Primarily determined by the individual? All of those positions have been held by and forcefully defended, and all of them have also been forcefully attacked. By people studying philosophy, because that is at root what philosophy is. It's a vital question because we can't measure the effectiveness of public policy or personal decisions without some notion of "good" to apply as a scale.

agildehaus 12y ago
Has contemporary philosophy come up with an answer to "what constitutes a good life?" or made measurable progress on this answer? Under what measure is it progress? Just coming up with arguments without answers is nothing more than "structured pondering". It'd only seem useful to increasingly meta topics where data can't be found.
- memla 12y ago
  Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.
  - scotty79 12y ago
    You can't refute an argument without data. If it was precisely defined you could disprove it without data but that's math not philosophy.
    - memla 12y ago
      You can't refute an argument without data. What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy? What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?
      - scotty79 12y ago
        > > You can't refute an argument without data. > What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy? I tried to educate myself a bit to understand you. I've read: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/128-modal-scope-fallacy http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallaci... and failed. First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement. From this brief brush I'd say "modal scope fallacy" is just about some fuzzily defined semantic nuance of English language. So, no, I'd say you can't refute anything except bad grammar with this. If you can write it down and the thing you want to refute, with symbols and prove their conjunction to be tautologically false with formal logic then I'd say you've refuted the claim. But as I said that's math not philosophy. > What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"? Are you asking because you think I claimed to have refuted or wanted to refute that statement? What refutation can you offer of the statement that data is needed to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"? That's exactly the chain of pointless self, and cross referential statements that arise when you are trying to refute something without data and/or precise definition (which would make it math).
        memla 12y ago
        First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly. Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time. Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.
scotty79 12y ago
Everybody does philosophy because we lack data and we have no means of acquiring it (and/or no need). Calling yourself philosopher is like calling yourself breather. Surely true but pointless. Fortunately technology advanced to the level that allowed us to gather some actual data and instead of just thinking blankly about the world we experience natural philosophers started to construct models of predictive utility. The rest is history ... of science. Other philosophers are still waiting for their technology refusing to think about something else till it arrives. There's nothing wrong in philosophy but it's just recreation for the times you feel like thinking a bit but are too lazy to find something useful to think about. > How do you collect data about what constitutes a good life? You tempt me to think pointlessly for a while. It's really untimely because at the moment I should be thinking about stuff people need from me. How can a philosopher find out meaning of "good" to give a question "what constitutes a good life?" enough meaning to even dream of arriving at an answer? I encourage you to listen to what Sam Harris has to say.

by rfrey 12y ago

agildehaus 12y ago

Has contemporary philosophy come up with an answer to "what constitutes a good life?" or made measurable progress on this answer? Under what measure is it progress? Just coming up with arguments without answers is nothing more than "structured pondering". It'd only seem useful to increasingly meta topics where data can't be found.

memla 12y ago
Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.
- scotty79 12y ago
  You can't refute an argument without data. If it was precisely defined you could disprove it without data but that's math not philosophy.
  - memla 12y ago
    You can't refute an argument without data. What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy? What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?
    - scotty79 12y ago
      > > You can't refute an argument without data. > What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy? I tried to educate myself a bit to understand you. I've read: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/128-modal-scope-fallacy http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallaci... and failed. First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement. From this brief brush I'd say "modal scope fallacy" is just about some fuzzily defined semantic nuance of English language. So, no, I'd say you can't refute anything except bad grammar with this. If you can write it down and the thing you want to refute, with symbols and prove their conjunction to be tautologically false with formal logic then I'd say you've refuted the claim. But as I said that's math not philosophy. > What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"? Are you asking because you think I claimed to have refuted or wanted to refute that statement? What refutation can you offer of the statement that data is needed to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"? That's exactly the chain of pointless self, and cross referential statements that arise when you are trying to refute something without data and/or precise definition (which would make it math).
      - memla 12y ago
        First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly. Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time. Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.

scotty79 12y ago

Everybody does philosophy because we lack data and we have no means of acquiring it (and/or no need). Calling yourself philosopher is like calling yourself breather. Surely true but pointless. Fortunately technology advanced to the level that allowed us to gather some actual data and instead of just thinking blankly about the world we experience natural philosophers started to construct models of predictive utility. The rest is history ... of science. Other philosophers are still waiting for their technology refusing to think about something else till it arrives. There's nothing wrong in philosophy but it's just recreation for the times you feel like thinking a bit but are too lazy to find something useful to think about. > How do you collect data about what constitutes a good life? You tempt me to think pointlessly for a while. It's really untimely because at the moment I should be thinking about stuff people need from me. How can a philosopher find out meaning of "good" to give a question "what constitutes a good life?" enough meaning to even dream of arriving at an answer? I encourage you to listen to what Sam Harris has to say.