Feyerabend and Relativism

[Seperates]

Validity in what exactly? Because in the real world, practicality does equal validity.

Validity as when used aplied in logics.

By what methodology are you assertaining the non-validity of the scientific method?

[Seperates]

See, but the thing is, science, in this reality, works

Im not saying that Science is impractical, or that it doesnt work. or that we should not use it. Im only making the point that the validity of Science cannot be proven; thats all.

Im not saying its invalid, Im not saying its valid even, Im simply claiming that the only way to prove its valididty is through science and therefore, its validite reamins unproven.

But it's not unproven, since it actually works.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Then how do you suppose we will see if that type of knowledge is better?

If it comes with its own method of proving validity, then it will have the same problems as science and be inconmensurable (and therefore equally valid) to the other types of knowlage.

The requierement it should have to be superior should be a way to prove its validity without recurring to itself.

You might ask how that would look like, simply, I have no idea.

Until you actually define what "proving" science even means in this context, this post is just a word salad.

I mean proving the Validity.

Nonetheless, I've already explained how humans could get to the truth exactly. If they hold that space is bounded, and space IS bounded, then they are exactly correct about the boundedness of space.

You are speaking about the idea of being right by mere chance. Not reaching true knowlage.

Its like saying that a stopped clock is a valid method to know the time of the day. (as it will be always right twice a day).

What does this even mean? If something can be detected, then, in principle, a machine can be built which can detect it. Then, the machine can translate that detection into sensory data. The only way for this to not be the case is for the thing to be something which cannot be detected by anything at all.

It means that there is no way to know how things "really are" in a completely objective point of view. We can only see what we represents in our head of that object, which might or might not correlate to what "really is", if there is really something to begin with.

What is the difference between "absolute truth" and plain old garden variety truth?

"Absolute truth" is always true disregarding of the obserber (subject); while "truth" is the realtive subjective kind of truth.

Nonetheless, logic REQUIRES the existence of truth, for logic is a propositional calculus which works upon truth and falsehood.

Logic is not reality, its a representation we make of it. Logic is a tool.
If Logic were my reading glasses, reality would be the book.

You're being very sloppy with your thinking here. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between metaphysics and epistemology, and as a result, you keep making nonsensical assertions due to category errors.

Im not. Kelsen, Popper Feyerabend, Lakatos, all of them reject the idea of reaching absolute truths via the scientific method or any other. That began in Falsasionism.

[The Shroud of Wally]

But it's not unproven, since it actually works.

Never lcaimed that it was unproven. Dont put words in my mouth that I never said.

By what methodology are you assertaining the non-validity of the scientific method?

Im not assertaining the non-validity, Im claiming the imposibility to know the validity, as the only way to know the validity of a method to prove valididty is by aplying itself; which would be a cyrcular (thus unacceptable) argument.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I mean proving the Validity.

Given your previous definition, all this requires is demonstrating logical consistency. Scientific methodology is not internally contradictory, so it's valid, by your own definitions.

You are speaking about the idea of being right by mere chance. Not reaching true knowlage.

Its like saying that a stopped clock is a valid method to know the time of the day. (as it will be always right twice a day).

Correct, I was speaking about happening to be correct by chance. However, the fact that you can happen to be correct by chance demonstrates that humans can reach exact truths. It thus demonstrates that it is possible to reach exact truths about the universe. It is a proof by counterexample.

It means that there is no way to know how things "really are" in a completely objective point of view.

Proof?

We can only see what we represents in our head of that object, which might or might not correlate to what "really is", if there is really something to begin with.

Nonsense. We can use all sorts of mathematical machinery to do work on systems that we cannot understand intuitively or visualize at all. Take infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces of functions or general relativity for examples.

"Absolute truth" is always true disregarding of the obserber (subject); while "truth" is the realtive subjective kind of truth.

Then you mean "objective" not "absolute." All truth is, by definition, objective.

It is an objective truth that, if space exists, it must be either bounded or unbounded. There's an objective truth for you.

Logic is not reality, its a representation we make of it. Logic is a tool.
If Logic were my reading glasses, reality would be the book.

Logic is integral to the very notion of truth. Truth which does not conform to logic is not really truth.

Im not. Kelsen, Popper Feyerabend, Lakatos, all of them reject the idea of reaching absolute truths via the scientific method or any other. That began in Falsasionism.

Yes you are, and you prove it with this statement. The fact that you can't tell the difference between there being truths and actually reaching those truths is quite telling.

[Seperates]

But it's not unproven, since it actually works.

Never lcaimed that it was unproven. Dont put words in my mouth that I never said.

By what methodology are you assertaining the non-validity of the scientific method?

Im not assertaining the non-validity, Im claiming the imposibility to know the validity, as the only way to know the validity of a method to prove valididty is by aplying itself; which would be a cyrcular (thus unacceptable) argument.

How can you not assertain the validity of something if it works in conjunction of reality? See, I use reality as my validity tester, because, in theory, everything works. In theory, totalitarianism is the perfect goverment system, as are pure democracies, republics, monarchies, etc. etc. In theory, God is loving, and ever present. The trick is to apply the theory outside the "safe zone" of your mind and test it against the reality you live in.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Given your previous definition, all this requires is demonstrating logical consistency. Scientific methodology is not internally contradictory, so it's valid, by your own definitions.

You are not getting it; im not talking about internal logcial consistency.

I dont know how to expalin it any other way...

When you have a theory, any of them; to prove its valididty you test them through the scientific method. If it pass the test, the theory is kept, if not rejected. Ok?

The thing is;

Hos do you test scientific method itself? (considering that you cant test it against itself)

There is no answer ot that question, and thats the base of Feyerabend inconmensurability.

If you cant test, you dont know if its valid or invalid.

Logic is integral to the very notion of truth. Truth which does not conform to logic is not really truth.

Logic is just a tool that will indicate you if an argument is valid, and if it is, and if the premises are true, then the conclusion will be too. Thats it. Faulty logic can lead to true conclusions, and good logic when aplied with false premises can lead to false conclusions.

Yes you are, and you prove it with this statement

"In All Life is Problem Solving, Popper sought to explain the apparent progress of scientific knowledge—how it is that our understanding of the universe seems to improve over time. This problem arises from his position that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Poppe ... philosophy

[The Shroud of Wally]

How can you not assertain the validity of something if it works in conjunction of reality? See, I use reality as my validity tester, because, in theory, everything works.

Becosue correlation does not imply causation.
So in theory the "working" of science cant be a valid "valididty test"

I like Science, I use it and love it; but remember, this is all theorical arguments not ment to have any real consecuence in the real world

[Trotskylvania]

Wrong. Maybe in the circle of postmodernist "philosophers" that you read, but wrong everywhere else.

"Post-modern" has degenerated to the point of being a term of abuse and nothing more. I'd hardly consider the lack of a belief in an objective, universal capital-t Truth to be indicative of "post-modernism".

Truth that is subjective is not real truth.

Says you. That's because your definition of truth precludes subjectivity. But that's all that it is, as are all notions of truth: human definitions that have been arrived at by a priori reason.

The universe has no need for any conception of truth in order for it to function, and it's an anthropomorphic fallacy to suggest that truth is in anyway necessary or objective.

:palm: Come on, this is a basic fallacy called a category error. Perception of reality and reality are not the same thing.

So? Truth is a metaphysical concept that has no bearing on the physical.

Nonsense. Axioms are not dogmas. Mathematics doesn't work that way, and hasn't since the 19th century. We no longer look at axioms as self-evident truths. Instead, axioms are just the basic concepts that form the logical basis of a particular structure. There's nothing "self-evident" about the associativity of group operators. It's just part of the definition of a group. You can reject it if you like, but then you're not dealing with group theory anymore. You can reject any axioms and make up any axioms you like in mathematics, so long as the system you wind up with is self-consistent. Nothing requires the acceptance of self-evident notions. We're not doing math in Euclid's time anymore.

That does not change mathematics' constructed nature. The very definition of an axiom is something that is accepted as self-evidently true. Both logic and by extension mathematics are built on axioms and contingent definitions from which truths are derived.

[Trotskylvania]

Im not saying that Science is impractical, or that it doesnt work. or that we should not use it. Im only making the point that the validity of Science cannot be proven; thats all.

Im not saying its invalid, Im not saying its valid even, Im simply claiming that the only way to prove its valididty is through science and therefore, its validite reamins unproven.

But it's not unproven, since it actually works.

And invalid argument can still yield conclusions that are true. Why would any scientific method be different?

[Four-sided Triangles]

You are not getting it; im not talking about internal logcial consistency.

I dont know how to expalin it any other way...

When you have a theory, any of them; to prove its valididty you test them through the scientific method. If it pass the test, the theory is kept, if not rejected. Ok?

The thing is;

Hos do you test scientific method itself? (considering that you cant test it against itself)

There is no answer ot that question, and thats the base of Feyerabend inconmensurability.

If you cant test, you dont know if its valid or invalid.

Except:

1. Earlier you said that all methods are valid if they are internally consistent, and now you're changing definitions.

2. I never proposed to use the scientific method as a test of itself. You've conveniently ignored my claims about how science is actually justified.

Logic is just a tool that will indicate you if an argument is valid, and if it is, and if the premises are true, then the conclusion will be too. Thats it. Faulty logic can lead to true conclusions, and good logic when aplied with false premises can lead to false conclusions.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, bad logic can lead to true conclusions. However, a true conclusion is never self-contradictory, nor is a truth every logically inconsistent with another truth. This is what I mean when I say that truth must conform to logic. If it's not logically consistent, it's not true.

"In All Life is Problem Solving, Popper sought to explain the apparent progress of scientific knowledge—how it is that our understanding of the universe seems to improve over time. This problem arises from his position that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Poppe ... philosophy

Congratulations, you're still ignoring the point. You seem to be incapable of telling the difference between the following two statements:

1. There is no such thing as truth.

2. It is impossible to gain complete certainty in the truth of a given claim using science.

This is my problem. You keep acting as if 1. and 2. are the same, when they clearly are not.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Except:

1. Earlier you said that all methods are valid if they are internally consistent, and now you're changing definitions.

Quote me; i never said that.

2. I never proposed to use the scientific method as a test of itself. You've conveniently ignored my claims about how science is actually justified.

Then how do you propouse to test it? (hint; you wont find anything else to do it)

1. There is no such thing as truth.

2. It is impossible to gain complete certainty in the truth of a given claim using science.

This is my problem. You keep acting as if 1. and 2. are the same, when they clearly are not.

Im teaching you about Feyerabend philosofy; he doesnt accept absolute truths and he doesnt believe in archiving them. We can make arguments about any of the two premises and agree or disagree. But if A is true then B is also true. (if there is no absolute truth, you cant reach them).

The inconmensurability of theories (not of types of Knowlages) is a basic Kelsenian concept.

EDIT; Sorry, meant Kantanian

[Seperates]

How can you not assertain the validity of something if it works in conjunction of reality? See, I use reality as my validity tester, because, in theory, everything works.

Becosue correlation does not imply causation.
So in theory the "working" of science cant be a valid "valididty test"

I like Science, I use it and love it; but remember, this is all theorical arguments not ment to have any real consecuence in the real world

This is science, not psychology. We can assertain and replicate to a fairly accurate degree (for example) that all falling objects fall at a similar rate in a vacuum, and we can confidently assert that this is because there is no air-resistance in a vacuum and that the cause of the objects dropping at the same rate is the lack of air resistance. The only reason that "Correlation does not equal causation" in certain fields is because they have no hard factual data to go off of.

If you want me to become "politically correct" about it, I'll put it this way. Because of the significant advances in our knowledge and understanding of the world since the codification of the Scientific Method, and the many technological and scientific advancements made with the direct usage of it, it is more likely, than not, that the scientific method is valid.

[Seperates]

But it's not unproven, since it actually works.

And invalid argument can still yield conclusions that are true. Why would any scientific method be different?

And invalid argument may yield conclusions that are true ONLY when paired with a subsequent valid argument. Otherwise, what reason would we have to believe the conclusion to be true?

[The Shroud of Wally]

If you want me to become "politically correct" about it, I'll put it this way. Because of the significant advances in our knowledge and understanding of the world since the codification of the Scientific Method, and the many technological and scientific advancements made with the direct usage of it, it is more likely, than not, that the scientific method is valid.

Thats not good enough, something is either valid or invalid, or its valididty cant be determined.

You have to think about this philosofy in more abstract terms than apllied to real life in order to make sense. Forget about science applied to real life and think about science as an abstract concept needed to be validated and not finding an acceptable method to do it.

[Four-sided Triangles]

"Post-modern" has degenerated to the point of being a term of abuse and nothing more. I'd hardly consider the lack of a belief in an objective, universal capital-t Truth to be indicative of "post-modernism".

Coherently define the difference between so called "capital t truth" and regular old truth.

Says you. That's because your definition of truth precludes subjectivity. But that's all that it is, as are all notions of truth: human definitions that have been arrived at by a priori reason.

The universe has no need for any conception of truth in order for it to function, and it's an anthropomorphic fallacy to suggest that truth is in anyway necessary or objective.

1. It's the definition of truth that we all use when speaking unless we're practicing obscurantist bullshit. Sure, you can redefine every term in the English language, but that doesn't change anything other than the labels ascribed to things.

2. By the definition of classical truth, it follows as a tautology that any universe is necessarily such that at least one proposition is classically true about it.

So? Truth is a metaphysical concept that has no bearing on the physical.

But it does have a bearing on propositions about the physical. It also doesn't refute the point I was making about his confusion.

That does not change mathematics' constructed nature.

Mathematics is the study of structure. The study is constructed, but the structures all exist, in both an abstract and, in many cases, instance-concrete sense.

The very definition of an axiom is something that is accepted as self-evidently true.

Perhaps, and that's the way philosophy still uses the term, but that's not how we talk in mathematics anymore. The term was used by Euclid because that's how he and other Ancient Greeks thought about geometry. Today, we no longer use the term to mean "a self-evident assumption,"" but rather it's just a holdover term that now refers to the basic propositions which form the definition of a specific mathematical structure.

Both logic and by extension mathematics are built on axioms and contingent definitions from which truths are derived.

Truth is somewhat defined in terms of logic, at least in the classical sense, which is still the most common sense of truth used. There's also fuzzy logic which is used somewhat in science, but it doesn't so much create a different reality as just redefine terms in a new way. Every fuzzy logic statement can be translated to a binary logic statement.

And no, I don't consider modal logic to be another kind of logic besides classical logic. It's just classical logic with additional terms.

[The Shroud of Wally]

And invalid argument may yield conclusions that are true ONLY when paired with a subsequent valid argument. Otherwise, what reason would we have to believe the conclusion to be true?

This is wrong, just as a stopped clock, invalid arguments can have valid conclusions.

The validity of the conclusion does not determin the validity of the argument that gave birth to it

[Four-sided Triangles]

Quote me; i never said that.

You said that you defined validity in a logical sense. Validity requires nothing but internal consistency. Maybe you hould be using the term "soundness."

Then how do you propouse to test it? (hint; you wont find anything else to do it)

I NEVER PROPOSED TO "TEST" IT TO BEGIN WITH! You're putting words in my mouth.

Im teaching you about Feyerabend philosofy; he doesnt accept absolute truths and he doesnt believe in archiving them. We can make arguments about any of the two premises and agree or disagree. But if A is true then B is also true. (if there is no absolute truth, you cant reach them).

The inconmensurability of theories (not of types of Knowlages) is a basic Kelsenian concept.

EDIT; Sorry, meant Kantanian

Sure, 1. implies 2., but that's because 1. implies everything, because it's contradictory and therefore implies everything by the principle of explosion. If Feyerabend really believed 1., then he wasn't much of a philosopher.

[The Shroud of Wally]

You said that you defined validity in a logical sense. Validity requires nothing but internal consistency. Maybe you hould be using the term "soundness."

Validity in the way its used in logic, yes. not not internal validity, but external valididty, as saying, "is premise A valid?" (Premise A being the scientific method). Sorry, If I wasnt clear enough.

I NEVER PROPOSED TO "TEST" IT TO BEGIN WITH! You're putting words in my mouth.

You need to test it, or are you going to use an "untested" method to try to get to the "truth"?

If you leave the scientific method untested, then its valididty is unknown. Therefore, its no botter that other types of knowlage that its validity is also unknown

1. implies everything, because it's contradictory and therefore implies everything by the principle of explosion. If Feyerabend really believed 1., then he wasn't much of a philosopher.

Oh, I see, then he wasnt much of a philosofer, Im olso not one of them; Plato, Gorgias and a mayority of ancient greek people arent also, so isnt Kant and Lakatos by the way and the mayority of modern philosofers.

Or..

The idea of lack of an objective truth is not contreadictory.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Gorgias (of Leontini)

Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[3]

1. Nothing exists;
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[Four-sided Triangles]

Validity in the way its used in logic, yes. not not internal validity, but external valididty, as saying, "is premise A valid?" (Premise A being the scientific method). Sorry, If I wasnt clear enough.

You really should be asking if premise A is true.

You need to test it, or are you going to use an "untested" method to try to get to the "truth"?

If you leave the scientific method untested, then its valididty is unknown. Therefore, its no botter that other types of knowlage that its validity is also unknown

You presume that testing is the only way to demonstrate the correctness of something. You then try to use the assumption as a refutation of itself. However, I never said that testing was the only way to demonstrate that something is true or that it works. There is also rational deductive argument. That's not testing.

Oh, I see, then he wasnt much of a philosofer, Im olso not one of them; Plato, Gorgias and a mayority of ancient greek people arent also, so isnt Kant and Lakatos by the way and the mayority of modern philosofers.

1. Plato certainly believed in absolutes, far more than I do, in fact.

2. Kant definitely believed in objective reality. He held that we couldn't determine everything about it to a degree of absolute certainty, but he did accept that reality existed. Once again, you can't tell the difference between statements 1. and 2.. Why is this so hard to grasp?

The idea of lack of an objective truth is not contreadictory.

Except that it is. If there's no statement which is objectively true, then the statement "No statement is objectively true." becomes objectively true, thus proving itself wrong. If you instead assert that the statement "No statement is objectively true." is only subjectively true, then there exist frameworks in which objective truth exists and therefore there are objective truths.

[The Shroud of Wally]

You really should be asking if premise A is true.

Feyerabend use the word Valid; and I think its the right term, considering that its easier to say that scientific method is valid/invalid than true/false.

You presume that testing is the only way to demonstrate the correctness of something. You then try to use the assumption as a refutation of itself. However, I never said that testing was the only way to demonstrate that something is true or that it works. There is also rational deductive argument. That's not testing.

Please, reduct rationaly the scientific method to prove its valididty; I´ll wait to read it.

1. Plato certainly believed in absolutes, far more than I do, in fact.

2. Kant definitely believed in objective reality. He held that we couldn't determine everything about it to a degree of absolute certainty, but he did accept that reality existed. Once again, you can't tell the difference between statements 1. and 2.. Why is this so hard to grasp?

My memory might be weak on Plato and Kant; but you can read what i extracted about gorgias; cleary stating that nothing exist, there was a whole school of thought dedicated to the "not to be"; which they belived that literally nothing existed. Feyerabend like many modern philosofers belive that the "truth" (or if you are being picky, waht we call "the truth") is a creation of our subjectivity, and that objective truth either does not exist, or it cant be reached.

[The USOT]

I havent heard of this man or his theories, but it sounds like a usual version of Epistomological Nihilism, but reversing the "Nothing can be considered true" to "anything can be considered true". Tis something I agree with I suppose. Along philosophical lines there is of course potential for anything

[Four-sided Triangles]

Please, reduct rationaly the scientific method to prove its valididty; I´ll wait to read it.

P1. A true explanation for an observation cannot produce any incorrect predictions.
Lemma 1. Therefore, any explanation which produces an incorrect prediction must be false.
P2. We should care about what is true and should reject false explanations.
Thm 1. We should thus test any explanations that we can test.
P3. Any explanation which is neither testable, tautological, or deductible from a testable explanation has an infinitesimal probability.
P4. By P2, more probable explanations should be accepted over less probable explanations, as they give a higher probability of truth.
Thm 2. We shouldn't accept explanations that aren't either testable, tautological, or deductible from a testable explanation.
C. By thm's 1 and 2, we should reject untestable, undeductible explanations and test any testable explanations that we possess, rejecting those explanations which produce false predictions.

This only requires the assumption that we should favor accuracy.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Sure, I could clean it u and flesh it out, but that's the argument in a nutshell.