4 ms·

"Fact 2: Nonetheless, the world is objectively real." I really disliked how the author randomly throws in opinions and beliefs like that in a context that d

"Fact 2: Nonetheless, the world is objectively real." I really disliked how the author randomly throws in opinions and beliefs like that in a context that didn't really warrant it. I thought I was going to read about epistemology; instead I got a summary of his worldview.

greyman 17y ago
You nailed it. I'd like to challenge him to apply the Rule "(1) Your guesses and opinions have to be testable." I am just curious to see how he would test this guess (or opinion), and how did he promoted it as "fact".
- papersmith 17y ago
  I don't see how it's promoted as fact. He presented it as "Popper’s principle". I see it more as a general rule of thumb. Have to in this case is confined to context of the principle itself, it indicates that you have to do such and such in order to follow the principle.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tsally 17y ago
Yup. Another gem in his worldview: A learning strategy for history or literature: Subjective judgment is important; careful reasoning is not. Really, careful reasoning is not required? This is patently false, and probably based on his English and History experiences in high school decades ago. I find that people who say such things rarely have adequate exposure to the subject area. Someone I encounter on a daily basis actually in the CS research community.
- abstractwater 17y ago
  I wouldn't be so harsh. Yes, his choice of words could have been better. But it's obvious that to exert relevant subjective judgment you need careful reasoning. I think what he meant in this context is that you can't use deductive reasoning as the main learning strategy in literature and history.
  - tsally 17y ago
    I think what he meant in this context is that you can't use deductive reasoning as the main learning strategy in literature and history. If you're not using deductive reasoning in the study of history or literature you're doing something horribly wrong. The authors statement is flat out wrong, no matter how you spin it.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Uh, But he isn't presenting some random opinion, he's claiming he's teaching how think clearly and one assumes he's trying to present well by example. Well, strike-three. -- I think contrary to his rules, I don't think there is any set, global rules for presentation beyond the basic language skills he correctly says are rather in-born. What there are is a series of interlocking conventions and strategies on a per-subject and per-topic basis. Learning those well takes a long time and can't be summarized by a how-to...
trebor 17y ago
As far as I understand it, epistemology is worldview.
- algorias 17y ago
  It's the study of worldviews (loosely speaking), not a worldview.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    Well, it's the study of knowledge, strictly speaking, which has little to do with worldviews.
    - trebor 17y ago
      It's kinda hard to abandon your worldview to study knowledge, when your paradigm dictates what that knowledge means to you. I am holding a butter knife to my imaginary 3D-scanner: you have 64px^3 of the resultant image to determine the nature of the object. If you see the tip of my butter knife you'd assume it was a smooth, dull blade with a rounded form. If you saw the middle of the blade you'd know that it was serrated, but would have to speculate about the endpoints and the form of the knife. If you saw the end of the knife, you'd be hard pressed to determine its function; you'd only know that it is rounded, smooth, and roughly 1.5cm thick. Maybe you could guess that it was a knife, but you'd still remain ignorant of its greater nature. Your knowledge consists of this tiny view of the knife, or else you're privileged to know all knowledge (so that you might approach it without a worldview or paradigm) or to know someone who does. You cannot study knowledge without studying worldviews, or studying it with a worldview of your own.
- Grinnmarr 17y ago
  Metaphysics is more akin to "world view" although one's epistemological opinions/beliefs are certainly informative of their prevailing ontological stance.
ZLOB-o-ZLOB 17y ago
It is a fact in a meaning that you either accept it or all other statements about epistemology lose its meaning
yters 17y ago
Ok, go stand in front of a bus.
- vorador 17y ago
  Well, you can not prove that the bus would run over him every time he tries it.
  - Herring 17y ago
    How is that a coherent statement? Even if a "proof" was possible (which it isn't by definition), you could just pick a different set of axioms & arrive at a different conclusion.
  - TravisLS 17y ago
    From the OP: The evidence for one side can still be a lot stronger than the evidence for the other.
- jordan_stewart 17y ago
  1. How does that prove anything? What you are effectively saying is that standing in front of a bus will only kill you in an objective universe. 2. The comment you replied to did not state that the commentator holds that view, it was merely an observation that they didn't expect certain content in the article.
- algorias 17y ago
  The point is not whether or not he's right (which is an incredibly tricky question, actually, when you stop generalizing in a cartoonish way), it's that he's presenting something as fact which is definitely not provable.
  - ionfish 17y ago
    Provability (that is, being able to be proved by deductive means) is not generally taken to be a requirement for asserting a fact. To prove something is to demonstrate that it could not be otherwise (that it is necessary, given the logic employed and that that the premises are true). For example, I might assert that "Tomorrow, the gravitational constant be the same as it is today." This seems like a fact: we have pretty strong theoretical justification for it, given certain empirical evidence, an assumption of regularity in nature, and the continued predictive success of the general theory of relativity. However, if tomorrow the gravitational constant is slightly different to what it is today, then although no (deductive [1]) logical law has been contravened (as would have to be the case if a provable statement turned out to be untrue), my assertion was clearly not a fact. However, proofs (as in mathematical or logical proofs) are obtained through deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, as my statement was. Thus, I would argue, there is nothing wrong with presenting something as a fact which is not provable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to assert very much at all: the restricted epistemology obtained would rule out all of science, for starters, and might even cast doubt on certain classes of observation statements. Of course, you may have meant something other by 'provable' than I do, in which case clarification would be appreciated, since you presumably meant something by your assertion that facts must be provable, and it would be nice to know what it was! [1] It is controversial as to whether a general inductive logic can be formulated.

greyman 17y ago

You nailed it. I'd like to challenge him to apply the Rule "(1) Your guesses and opinions have to be testable." I am just curious to see how he would test this guess (or opinion), and how did he promoted it as "fact".

papersmith 17y ago
I don't see how it's promoted as fact. He presented it as "Popper’s principle". I see it more as a general rule of thumb. Have to in this case is confined to context of the principle itself, it indicates that you have to do such and such in order to follow the principle.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

tsally 17y ago

Yup. Another gem in his worldview: A learning strategy for history or literature: Subjective judgment is important; careful reasoning is not. Really, careful reasoning is not required? This is patently false, and probably based on his English and History experiences in high school decades ago. I find that people who say such things rarely have adequate exposure to the subject area. Someone I encounter on a daily basis actually in the CS research community.

abstractwater 17y ago
I wouldn't be so harsh. Yes, his choice of words could have been better. But it's obvious that to exert relevant subjective judgment you need careful reasoning. I think what he meant in this context is that you can't use deductive reasoning as the main learning strategy in literature and history.
- tsally 17y ago
  I think what he meant in this context is that you can't use deductive reasoning as the main learning strategy in literature and history. If you're not using deductive reasoning in the study of history or literature you're doing something horribly wrong. The authors statement is flat out wrong, no matter how you spin it.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Uh, But he isn't presenting some random opinion, he's claiming he's teaching how think clearly and one assumes he's trying to present well by example. Well, strike-three. -- I think contrary to his rules, I don't think there is any set, global rules for presentation beyond the basic language skills he correctly says are rather in-born. What there are is a series of interlocking conventions and strategies on a per-subject and per-topic basis. Learning those well takes a long time and can't be summarized by a how-to...

trebor 17y ago

As far as I understand it, epistemology is worldview.

algorias 17y ago
It's the study of worldviews (loosely speaking), not a worldview.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  Well, it's the study of knowledge, strictly speaking, which has little to do with worldviews.
  - trebor 17y ago
    It's kinda hard to abandon your worldview to study knowledge, when your paradigm dictates what that knowledge means to you. I am holding a butter knife to my imaginary 3D-scanner: you have 64px^3 of the resultant image to determine the nature of the object. If you see the tip of my butter knife you'd assume it was a smooth, dull blade with a rounded form. If you saw the middle of the blade you'd know that it was serrated, but would have to speculate about the endpoints and the form of the knife. If you saw the end of the knife, you'd be hard pressed to determine its function; you'd only know that it is rounded, smooth, and roughly 1.5cm thick. Maybe you could guess that it was a knife, but you'd still remain ignorant of its greater nature. Your knowledge consists of this tiny view of the knife, or else you're privileged to know all knowledge (so that you might approach it without a worldview or paradigm) or to know someone who does. You cannot study knowledge without studying worldviews, or studying it with a worldview of your own.
Grinnmarr 17y ago
Metaphysics is more akin to "world view" although one's epistemological opinions/beliefs are certainly informative of their prevailing ontological stance.

ZLOB-o-ZLOB 17y ago

It is a fact in a meaning that you either accept it or all other statements about epistemology lose its meaning

yters 17y ago

Ok, go stand in front of a bus.

vorador 17y ago
Well, you can not prove that the bus would run over him every time he tries it.
- Herring 17y ago
  How is that a coherent statement? Even if a "proof" was possible (which it isn't by definition), you could just pick a different set of axioms & arrive at a different conclusion.
- TravisLS 17y ago
  From the OP: The evidence for one side can still be a lot stronger than the evidence for the other.
jordan_stewart 17y ago
1. How does that prove anything? What you are effectively saying is that standing in front of a bus will only kill you in an objective universe. 2. The comment you replied to did not state that the commentator holds that view, it was merely an observation that they didn't expect certain content in the article.
algorias 17y ago
The point is not whether or not he's right (which is an incredibly tricky question, actually, when you stop generalizing in a cartoonish way), it's that he's presenting something as fact which is definitely not provable.
- ionfish 17y ago
  Provability (that is, being able to be proved by deductive means) is not generally taken to be a requirement for asserting a fact. To prove something is to demonstrate that it could not be otherwise (that it is necessary, given the logic employed and that that the premises are true). For example, I might assert that "Tomorrow, the gravitational constant be the same as it is today." This seems like a fact: we have pretty strong theoretical justification for it, given certain empirical evidence, an assumption of regularity in nature, and the continued predictive success of the general theory of relativity. However, if tomorrow the gravitational constant is slightly different to what it is today, then although no (deductive [1]) logical law has been contravened (as would have to be the case if a provable statement turned out to be untrue), my assertion was clearly not a fact. However, proofs (as in mathematical or logical proofs) are obtained through deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, as my statement was. Thus, I would argue, there is nothing wrong with presenting something as a fact which is not provable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to assert very much at all: the restricted epistemology obtained would rule out all of science, for starters, and might even cast doubt on certain classes of observation statements. Of course, you may have meant something other by 'provable' than I do, in which case clarification would be appreciated, since you presumably meant something by your assertion that facts must be provable, and it would be nice to know what it was! [1] It is controversial as to whether a general inductive logic can be formulated.