As the rise of dissent continues in Myanmar, I would like to express my hope that the military does not again repress these calls for freedom with violence. I value nothing more intently than freedom and I deeply feel for those who don't have it. I really, truly hope this leads to change in the poor little country.
Three killed as Myanmar troops battle protests (Via Reuters)
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Justified! Part Deux.
A few days back, or maybe a few weeks. I lose track these days... weeks. I wrote about justification for a belief. In recap, there are two positions, the coherentist and the foundationalist.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. One of them involves those ever-pesky infinite regresses..
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. One of them involves those ever-pesky infinite regresses..
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Law & Order.
One of the coolest areas of philosophy is the philosophy of law, aka, jurisprudence. It's so damned interesting because it's one of the few areas of philosophy that has real-world applications. Metaphysics is quickly being absorbed into traditional physics (Just look at the increasing attention to parallel universes and Boltzmann Brains), and epistemology is mental masturbation at its best.
Since law is so abstract itself, philosophy applies easily as a form of real analysis. When a lawyer analyzes the law, it's usually on a research basis. They have a situation, they look up a statute, and apply it. But this could be considered high-level law. This is the final, application stage. The creation of the laws goes one step lower, then the concept behind those laws, and finally what a law actually is. Philosophy of law pretty much ignores the first two and pays almost exclusive attention to the lowest two.
The fact that pure thought is so tantalizingly close to application makes law a real wonderland for a philosopher. It takes into account what laws are, what humans are, what a mind is, and almost every other aspect of deep, pot-induced thought that you can think of. It's different from other areas of investigation because they are bound by the laws of physics (pun not intended). I can think about, and apply law and be done with it. But if I think about a building, then I better build it. And that's the tough part. Thought is far removed from application. Law's nature makes it interesting, accessible, and yet totally inaccessible at the same time since trying to determine what it is has proven vexing.
For example, you, try and define what a law is. Is it a rule? What's a rule? Is it a dictate of action accepted by the population? Does that mean that those who don't follow the law aren't bound by it? Criminals don't recognize the authority of law, they recognize the authority of large men with guns and night sticks. Yet, the law applies to them. How are we to call a law a law, or something that is obeyed not because of fear of men with guns. We do it because we know it must be done. That sounds kind of like a law. But there are tons of laws I do only because of fear of cops. I don't drive at 120mph because the police will pull me over and, most likely, give me a very large ticket. So is that a law, or merely a command I am forced to follow?
It sounds a bit mamby pamby, I know. But these concepts must be nailed down. They are the very foundation of our society's makeup and if we ever expect our laws to be clean, transparent, and perfectly written so as to be truly just, the concepts which must be adequately defined.
Since law is so abstract itself, philosophy applies easily as a form of real analysis. When a lawyer analyzes the law, it's usually on a research basis. They have a situation, they look up a statute, and apply it. But this could be considered high-level law. This is the final, application stage. The creation of the laws goes one step lower, then the concept behind those laws, and finally what a law actually is. Philosophy of law pretty much ignores the first two and pays almost exclusive attention to the lowest two.
The fact that pure thought is so tantalizingly close to application makes law a real wonderland for a philosopher. It takes into account what laws are, what humans are, what a mind is, and almost every other aspect of deep, pot-induced thought that you can think of. It's different from other areas of investigation because they are bound by the laws of physics (pun not intended). I can think about, and apply law and be done with it. But if I think about a building, then I better build it. And that's the tough part. Thought is far removed from application. Law's nature makes it interesting, accessible, and yet totally inaccessible at the same time since trying to determine what it is has proven vexing.
For example, you, try and define what a law is. Is it a rule? What's a rule? Is it a dictate of action accepted by the population? Does that mean that those who don't follow the law aren't bound by it? Criminals don't recognize the authority of law, they recognize the authority of large men with guns and night sticks. Yet, the law applies to them. How are we to call a law a law, or something that is obeyed not because of fear of men with guns. We do it because we know it must be done. That sounds kind of like a law. But there are tons of laws I do only because of fear of cops. I don't drive at 120mph because the police will pull me over and, most likely, give me a very large ticket. So is that a law, or merely a command I am forced to follow?
It sounds a bit mamby pamby, I know. But these concepts must be nailed down. They are the very foundation of our society's makeup and if we ever expect our laws to be clean, transparent, and perfectly written so as to be truly just, the concepts which must be adequately defined.
America the Brave.
After writing my earlier post about America denying climate change, I seemingly by fate read a number of articles talking about how America is turning its mind around. I think that America deserves credit for casting aside propaganda and pre-set beliefs in barely a year to see different poll results. Bravo, I say. Bravo.
Growing Number of Americans See Warming as Leading Threat (Via Washington Post)
Growing Number of Americans See Warming as Leading Threat (Via Washington Post)
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Why I Don't Belive in God.
Reason: Probability. Since God is faith, and faith is belief without evidence, that means any and all doctrines are equally probable. It is just as probable that a hamster in a top hat is ruling the universe as is God or Allah. Since any story is likely, that means there is an infinite number of possible stories, all equally likely.
One divided by infinity, well, is not actually a number. So the probability of God existing in any definable way is absolute zero. Obviously, this does not mean that A god does not exist, just one that, even if it does, we can never approach any reasonably close understanding of it. So why bother?
One divided by infinity, well, is not actually a number. So the probability of God existing in any definable way is absolute zero. Obviously, this does not mean that A god does not exist, just one that, even if it does, we can never approach any reasonably close understanding of it. So why bother?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
My Geek Score is Well-Earned.
I just got a 33 on the "Web 2.0 or Star Wars Character" test. I swear to god I actually have a life.
http://www.cerado.com/web20quiz.htm
http://www.cerado.com/web20quiz.htm
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Justified! Part II.
A few days back, or maybe a few weeks. I lose track these days... weeks. I wrote about justification for a belief. In recap, there are two positions, the coherentist and the foundationalist.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. infinite regress.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. infinite regress.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Time is Gone.
I just saw the trailer for the upcoming enviro-documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio, Eleventh Hour. So many of these things, especially Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, tacked on a message of hope amidst all the dire prognostications. I personally think this is silly.
As I think any environmental scientist will tell you, the delay in cause and effect on global scales, save things such as volcanic eruptions, is large. Decades. If we are seeing the effects of our behavior now, that means these are the effects of causes back in the 1980's.
Basically, this means we're hosed. There is nothing we can do to stop things. We need to start preparing for a very different world in a very short time. I still think all the feel-good environmental stuff is good and important, but it's no longer the most important. That time was 1980, and it's long since past.
As I think any environmental scientist will tell you, the delay in cause and effect on global scales, save things such as volcanic eruptions, is large. Decades. If we are seeing the effects of our behavior now, that means these are the effects of causes back in the 1980's.
Basically, this means we're hosed. There is nothing we can do to stop things. We need to start preparing for a very different world in a very short time. I still think all the feel-good environmental stuff is good and important, but it's no longer the most important. That time was 1980, and it's long since past.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
No, Seriously. I Didn't.
And furthermore! The most important aspect of all this is overlooked. We've fallen into this ridiculous position about arguing whether drugs are safe or dangerous or have "legitimate" uses. Using marijuana to get high IS a legitimate use.
The whole planet is somehow missing the point that it's not of if drugs are safe or not. I'm here to tell you right now, they're not. But that's just it. It's my right to ingest anything I damn well please, dangerous or not. That's the way freedom works.
Hell, I'm free to drink paint thinner. Alcoholics do that. There's no laws stopping me. And don't even get me started on the mind-blowing stupidity of arguing that sniffing glue is somehow illegal, and that Wal*Mart won't sell most of its model-making supplies to people under 18. Actually, Wal*Mart is on the forefront of retarded practices meant to satiate idiot parents seem to prefer to have major corporations parent for them. Wally World now requires ID for lithium batteries. Yep. Batteries.
Or something that nearly made me choke on my own spit, when I was asked for ID to prove I was 18 for NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER. If the drinking age is 21, and the beer is non-alcoholic, where the hell did they get 18?!
Now, If Wal*Mart wants to be stupid, that's fine. Free country. Free company. It's an entirely different ball of wax when the government gets involved in the same game with the same idiot people. IT'S MY RIGHT. I can do whatever I please. That is the only argument that needs to be discussed since anything else is beyond that point. The safety, the logic, the drug-war. Everything is rendered moot because regardless of it all, it's my right.
I also want to point out that I have never done any drugs in my entire life. I also think people who do drugs are morons and should be mocked and berated by those intelligent enough to not do drugs. But it is not my right to tell them they can't. It's one of the founding principles of this country, and one that seems sorely forgotten.
P.S.
I was drunk once as anesthetic during a poorly planned self-performed surgery on an in-grown toenail. Yes. It was as disgusting as it sounds.
The whole planet is somehow missing the point that it's not of if drugs are safe or not. I'm here to tell you right now, they're not. But that's just it. It's my right to ingest anything I damn well please, dangerous or not. That's the way freedom works.
Hell, I'm free to drink paint thinner. Alcoholics do that. There's no laws stopping me. And don't even get me started on the mind-blowing stupidity of arguing that sniffing glue is somehow illegal, and that Wal*Mart won't sell most of its model-making supplies to people under 18. Actually, Wal*Mart is on the forefront of retarded practices meant to satiate idiot parents seem to prefer to have major corporations parent for them. Wally World now requires ID for lithium batteries. Yep. Batteries.
Or something that nearly made me choke on my own spit, when I was asked for ID to prove I was 18 for NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER. If the drinking age is 21, and the beer is non-alcoholic, where the hell did they get 18?!
Now, If Wal*Mart wants to be stupid, that's fine. Free country. Free company. It's an entirely different ball of wax when the government gets involved in the same game with the same idiot people. IT'S MY RIGHT. I can do whatever I please. That is the only argument that needs to be discussed since anything else is beyond that point. The safety, the logic, the drug-war. Everything is rendered moot because regardless of it all, it's my right.
I also want to point out that I have never done any drugs in my entire life. I also think people who do drugs are morons and should be mocked and berated by those intelligent enough to not do drugs. But it is not my right to tell them they can't. It's one of the founding principles of this country, and one that seems sorely forgotten.
P.S.
I was drunk once as anesthetic during a poorly planned self-performed surgery on an in-grown toenail. Yes. It was as disgusting as it sounds.
I Didn't Inhale.
In the pantheon of drugs, marijuana gets a lot of coverage because of its popularity. In fact, in some anti-drug circles, a drug's danger is directly related to how popular it is. So for them, mary-jane is the work of Satan.
Pro-drug people like to point out how harmless marijuana is. I always knew that was a load of crap. Any substance that alters your neurochemistry can be dangerous, no matter how little it does so. And anyone who has had a friend who's done a LOT of pot knows the full effects of "burn out."
I've also been loathe to talk about how marijuana is still dangerous because the last thing I want to do is give any kind of credence to the drug-hating, alarmist twits that usually make up the anti-drug movement. But I think it's time people started laying some scientific smack down on the drug-loving, hippy twits who make up the pro-drug movement.
Marijuana's New Reality: More Potent, More Risky (Via LiveScience.com)
Pro-drug people like to point out how harmless marijuana is. I always knew that was a load of crap. Any substance that alters your neurochemistry can be dangerous, no matter how little it does so. And anyone who has had a friend who's done a LOT of pot knows the full effects of "burn out."
I've also been loathe to talk about how marijuana is still dangerous because the last thing I want to do is give any kind of credence to the drug-hating, alarmist twits that usually make up the anti-drug movement. But I think it's time people started laying some scientific smack down on the drug-loving, hippy twits who make up the pro-drug movement.
Marijuana's New Reality: More Potent, More Risky (Via LiveScience.com)
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Devilution... Get It?! It's Like Evolution, but with DEVIL In It!
I don't know if I'm late to this party or not, but if you haven't seen this page, you really need to. I got to it from a Wired.com article about some happy-go-lucky guy who's apparently threatening to kill some professors. Seriously, first having to actually teach college students and now this. Professors aren't paid enough.
Still No Warrant for Evolution Foe and Alleged Purveyor of Death Threats (Via Wired.com)
Evolution is Evil (Via wack-job central)
Still No Warrant for Evolution Foe and Alleged Purveyor of Death Threats (Via Wired.com)
Evolution is Evil (Via wack-job central)
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Evidence Just Piles Up.
Like some criminal case where someone is innocent until proven guilty, Americans seem to continue raving that human activity has nothing to do with global warming. Well, the evidence has swayed the bulk of the planet and it just continues to increase, further highlighting how stupid we, and our mind-boggling stupid President, are.
The Journal Nature recently published a study linking human behavior to rainfall. It's worth a look to anyone interested in the future, survival of the human race, and good, old Mother Earth.
Rainfall changes linked to human activity (Via Nature.com)
The Journal Nature recently published a study linking human behavior to rainfall. It's worth a look to anyone interested in the future, survival of the human race, and good, old Mother Earth.
Rainfall changes linked to human activity (Via Nature.com)
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Justified!
I have noticed that I rarely post things of a philosophical nature. I'm always posting stuff about science. I think it's because science is very much in the public eye, recently, and philosophy is, well, not.
Well that all changes today! For my first trick, I'll discuss these happy little things called theories of justification and truth. The two theories are called foundationalism and coherentism. In a nuthshell, the theories both try to set out a system by which one can determine if the knowledge they have is either true or at least justified.
Both theories have been around for, well, as long as philosophy has been around. Which is, ummm, a really freaking long time. Foundationalism holds that all of our beliefs are based upon basic beliefs which need nothing else to explain why they are true. For example, I know A to be true because of B, and I know it true because of C, and I know it true because of D, and so on, and so forth. Foundationalists theorize that there must, eventually, be basic beliefs which are the "end" of the chain.
These basic beliefs must be self-justifying. They must be true/justified by them self and it must also be apparent. The most famous of these basic beliefs is Rene Descartes "I Think, Therefore I am." If you analyze that statement, it is undeniably true. It says nothing about you. You could be a giant brain in the Matrix. All it does is confirm that you exist, since you couldn't be thinking about this if you didn't exist. A perfect, basic belief. In foundationalism, truth and justification are intertwined. Since you have ultimate justification to believe something if it's true, finding something that is true is also finding justification.
The opposing view is that there are no basic beliefs, and that the chain of justification would actually never end. This isn't a very nice position to argue since it falls into what's called an infinite regress. Basically, that means your line of logic carries on ad infinitum, allowing no conclusion. In the world of philosophy, this is bad. We want conclusions. We yearn for them. We dream about them at night. So two options pop up, you can loop the logic chain around, e.g. A>B>C>D>A. That's circular logic and only works in religion. So our last choice is Coherentism.
Coherentism solves the infinite regress problem by linking beliefs together in a coherent web. A is not explained by B, instead, it is explained by a complex, interconnected system of beliefs B, C, D, E, F, and so on. As long as things "hang together" in the system of beliefs, one is justified in believing things to be true. Well, maybe not TRUE, since modern coherentism isn't too concerned with truth. Whereas Foundationalism has truth and justification linked, Coherentism splits up justification and truth into two, distinct pursuits, and all the better for it.
From this point on I shall be using my own views, as opposed to explanation. It may seem that foundationalism has something going for it, considering how famous Descartes little catch-phrase as become. Unfortunately for the foundationalists, that's the only basic belief they've found, thus far. Going on four hundred years later, you'd think they would have found something else.
Coherentism has taken on a view very similar to that of mathematical positivism. In it, we can never "know" what reality actually is, we can only develop theories that best explain the empirical data we have. This makes a lot of sense to me since it also jives with theories of cognitive psychology stating that we never "know" anything. We only know what our senses allow us to know, and that is not reality. Thus, truth is irrelevant. Since no matter what we think truth is, we could be a brain in the Matrix, and that truth is an illusion. As such, arguments dealing with the coherence theory of truth will be ignored, since I think truth can never be obtained, and trying to obtain it through coherence is, by its very nature, contradictory.
This modern coherentism has answered, I feel, almost all of its detractors sufficiently. Classic arguments are usually truth-centered, and do not involve justification. Such as, Bill can have a system of beliefs, "The sun is made from yogurt, grass is purple, and all dogs have eight legs." In coherentist theory, this is coherent and Bill is justified in believing all of those beliefs. They are obviously false, but that is no argument at all. It is false and incoherent in OUR system of beliefs, not Bill's. This is known as the isolation objection, and I think it's without merit. Bill is fully justified in his beliefs, since he only has three and none of them contradict.
How the system of beliefs "hangs" together has also been a point of some contention. I again see no problem. The system of belief hangs together based on contradiction. We are justified in believing something until another belief enters our system that either directly contradicts or implies a contradiction with other beliefs. If one contradictory belief coheres with more of the system than the other, it is taken as justified and the other belief is discarded or analyzed as unjustified. If both beliefs cohere equally well, we are at a dilemma, which requires more beliefs to enter the system to solve the problem.
Earlier, I mentioned that coherentism cannot be used to determine truth, and that's pretty accurate. The "Matrix" problem, once known as the "brain in a vat" problem before Neo came along, looms like a cloud over coherentism. This is known as skepticism. Don't confuse this with scientific skepticism, which simply calls for evidence to back up statements. Philosophical skepticism is, in a nutshell, the argument that statement "A" may not be true because we are actually in the Matrix. It was in an effort to escape this philosophical dead-end that Descartes formulated "I think, therefore I am." He was a foundationalist, but also a rationalist. He believed that ultimate truths could only be achieved through rational thought, and that no matter how deep a deception (The Matrix) goes, we can think our way out of it to attain truth.
Descartes was also an espouser of innate ideas, also known as a priori knowledge. It was through this that he believed that we could gain knowledge of truth. For example, he believed that God was innate to every human being. We are born with a readiness to know God. This innate knowledge is the basic tool we must use to escape skepticism. He would later use this to formulate one of the most universally derided statements of modern philosophy, otherwise known as the "Light of Nature" argument, since his own skeptical arguments ripped it apart. He was most likely doing this since he was desperate to re-prove the existence of God to himself.
Descartes failed to find truth, and he eventually fell into an argument that was eerily empiricist. He relied on what he saw, not what he deduced, which psychology, physics, and even cheap magic tricks show us, is totally unreliable. I say there is no truth, only coherent beliefs.
But, alas, these are rather old arguments. There is a brave new world of foundationalists vs. coherentists, the world of meta-beliefs. I will continue that discussion next post. I will also discuss my own views on truth, and theories of justification within specific systems.
Well that all changes today! For my first trick, I'll discuss these happy little things called theories of justification and truth. The two theories are called foundationalism and coherentism. In a nuthshell, the theories both try to set out a system by which one can determine if the knowledge they have is either true or at least justified.
Both theories have been around for, well, as long as philosophy has been around. Which is, ummm, a really freaking long time. Foundationalism holds that all of our beliefs are based upon basic beliefs which need nothing else to explain why they are true. For example, I know A to be true because of B, and I know it true because of C, and I know it true because of D, and so on, and so forth. Foundationalists theorize that there must, eventually, be basic beliefs which are the "end" of the chain.
These basic beliefs must be self-justifying. They must be true/justified by them self and it must also be apparent. The most famous of these basic beliefs is Rene Descartes "I Think, Therefore I am." If you analyze that statement, it is undeniably true. It says nothing about you. You could be a giant brain in the Matrix. All it does is confirm that you exist, since you couldn't be thinking about this if you didn't exist. A perfect, basic belief. In foundationalism, truth and justification are intertwined. Since you have ultimate justification to believe something if it's true, finding something that is true is also finding justification.
The opposing view is that there are no basic beliefs, and that the chain of justification would actually never end. This isn't a very nice position to argue since it falls into what's called an infinite regress. Basically, that means your line of logic carries on ad infinitum, allowing no conclusion. In the world of philosophy, this is bad. We want conclusions. We yearn for them. We dream about them at night. So two options pop up, you can loop the logic chain around, e.g. A>B>C>D>A. That's circular logic and only works in religion. So our last choice is Coherentism.
Coherentism solves the infinite regress problem by linking beliefs together in a coherent web. A is not explained by B, instead, it is explained by a complex, interconnected system of beliefs B, C, D, E, F, and so on. As long as things "hang together" in the system of beliefs, one is justified in believing things to be true. Well, maybe not TRUE, since modern coherentism isn't too concerned with truth. Whereas Foundationalism has truth and justification linked, Coherentism splits up justification and truth into two, distinct pursuits, and all the better for it.
From this point on I shall be using my own views, as opposed to explanation. It may seem that foundationalism has something going for it, considering how famous Descartes little catch-phrase as become. Unfortunately for the foundationalists, that's the only basic belief they've found, thus far. Going on four hundred years later, you'd think they would have found something else.
Coherentism has taken on a view very similar to that of mathematical positivism. In it, we can never "know" what reality actually is, we can only develop theories that best explain the empirical data we have. This makes a lot of sense to me since it also jives with theories of cognitive psychology stating that we never "know" anything. We only know what our senses allow us to know, and that is not reality. Thus, truth is irrelevant. Since no matter what we think truth is, we could be a brain in the Matrix, and that truth is an illusion. As such, arguments dealing with the coherence theory of truth will be ignored, since I think truth can never be obtained, and trying to obtain it through coherence is, by its very nature, contradictory.
This modern coherentism has answered, I feel, almost all of its detractors sufficiently. Classic arguments are usually truth-centered, and do not involve justification. Such as, Bill can have a system of beliefs, "The sun is made from yogurt, grass is purple, and all dogs have eight legs." In coherentist theory, this is coherent and Bill is justified in believing all of those beliefs. They are obviously false, but that is no argument at all. It is false and incoherent in OUR system of beliefs, not Bill's. This is known as the isolation objection, and I think it's without merit. Bill is fully justified in his beliefs, since he only has three and none of them contradict.
How the system of beliefs "hangs" together has also been a point of some contention. I again see no problem. The system of belief hangs together based on contradiction. We are justified in believing something until another belief enters our system that either directly contradicts or implies a contradiction with other beliefs. If one contradictory belief coheres with more of the system than the other, it is taken as justified and the other belief is discarded or analyzed as unjustified. If both beliefs cohere equally well, we are at a dilemma, which requires more beliefs to enter the system to solve the problem.
Earlier, I mentioned that coherentism cannot be used to determine truth, and that's pretty accurate. The "Matrix" problem, once known as the "brain in a vat" problem before Neo came along, looms like a cloud over coherentism. This is known as skepticism. Don't confuse this with scientific skepticism, which simply calls for evidence to back up statements. Philosophical skepticism is, in a nutshell, the argument that statement "A" may not be true because we are actually in the Matrix. It was in an effort to escape this philosophical dead-end that Descartes formulated "I think, therefore I am." He was a foundationalist, but also a rationalist. He believed that ultimate truths could only be achieved through rational thought, and that no matter how deep a deception (The Matrix) goes, we can think our way out of it to attain truth.
Descartes was also an espouser of innate ideas, also known as a priori knowledge. It was through this that he believed that we could gain knowledge of truth. For example, he believed that God was innate to every human being. We are born with a readiness to know God. This innate knowledge is the basic tool we must use to escape skepticism. He would later use this to formulate one of the most universally derided statements of modern philosophy, otherwise known as the "Light of Nature" argument, since his own skeptical arguments ripped it apart. He was most likely doing this since he was desperate to re-prove the existence of God to himself.
Descartes failed to find truth, and he eventually fell into an argument that was eerily empiricist. He relied on what he saw, not what he deduced, which psychology, physics, and even cheap magic tricks show us, is totally unreliable. I say there is no truth, only coherent beliefs.
But, alas, these are rather old arguments. There is a brave new world of foundationalists vs. coherentists, the world of meta-beliefs. I will continue that discussion next post. I will also discuss my own views on truth, and theories of justification within specific systems.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Year of Our Fucking Lord.
I can't stand the recent push to change the chronological system that we all know and love, namely B.C. and A.D., to something more P.C. and B.S.
It's a movement by a bunch of politically correct, self-righteous twits who seem to think that it's insulting to non-Christians to recognize dates as based on the A.D./B.C. system which stand for Anno Domini, or Year of the Lord, and Before Christ.
Yes, this is obviously referencing Christian ideology, but at this point, who cares?! The usage of A.D. and B.C. isn't some tacit recognition of the superiority of the Christian faith. It's absurd to think it is. And if you do think it is, I have almost no doubt that you're an idiot since only an idiot would bother to be insulted by such a cataclysmically inconsequential subject. It's like being insulted because the metric system of measurement is based on the Latin language, and that we should make one based on ALL languages because those poor Chinese scientists who must use the system are tacitly recognizing the superiority of the Latin language.
More over, I would be far more likely to be insulted by the idea that simply playing the name game would be nearly enough to assuage any insult I might feel. It's semantics! A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. It doesn't matter what we freaking call the years, they're the same thing. 100 A.D. is the exact same thing as 100 C.E.
Are you going to try and tell me that the C.E. (Common Era) system of naming isn't based at ALL on Christian history? That the silly gits who came up with the system did so completely on their own and just, coincidently, started their system on the exact same year as the Christian system? It's absurd.
The origins of the system are meaningless. No one cares and a lot of people don't even know. It's arbitrary, just as the change to the ridiculous and vaguely insulting idea of B.C.E and C.E. promulgated by retarded P.C. advocates is arbitrary. I've been using B.C. and A.D. my whole life. I'm a violent, vitriolic atheist. And yet, I don't care. If someone as anti-religion as me doesn't care, no one should. I shall continue to use A.D. and B.C. for the rest of my life.
Long live the Lord.
It's a movement by a bunch of politically correct, self-righteous twits who seem to think that it's insulting to non-Christians to recognize dates as based on the A.D./B.C. system which stand for Anno Domini, or Year of the Lord, and Before Christ.
Yes, this is obviously referencing Christian ideology, but at this point, who cares?! The usage of A.D. and B.C. isn't some tacit recognition of the superiority of the Christian faith. It's absurd to think it is. And if you do think it is, I have almost no doubt that you're an idiot since only an idiot would bother to be insulted by such a cataclysmically inconsequential subject. It's like being insulted because the metric system of measurement is based on the Latin language, and that we should make one based on ALL languages because those poor Chinese scientists who must use the system are tacitly recognizing the superiority of the Latin language.
More over, I would be far more likely to be insulted by the idea that simply playing the name game would be nearly enough to assuage any insult I might feel. It's semantics! A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. It doesn't matter what we freaking call the years, they're the same thing. 100 A.D. is the exact same thing as 100 C.E.
Are you going to try and tell me that the C.E. (Common Era) system of naming isn't based at ALL on Christian history? That the silly gits who came up with the system did so completely on their own and just, coincidently, started their system on the exact same year as the Christian system? It's absurd.
The origins of the system are meaningless. No one cares and a lot of people don't even know. It's arbitrary, just as the change to the ridiculous and vaguely insulting idea of B.C.E and C.E. promulgated by retarded P.C. advocates is arbitrary. I've been using B.C. and A.D. my whole life. I'm a violent, vitriolic atheist. And yet, I don't care. If someone as anti-religion as me doesn't care, no one should. I shall continue to use A.D. and B.C. for the rest of my life.
Long live the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)