Facilitated Communications

[_mfbukowski]

Again, I don't see how that's an example of Pragmatism at all. Pragmatism, so far as you have explained it, is happy to discard principles that don't work in favor of those that do. Mormonism has no such provision.

Of course it does.

The door swings both ways. You can go in, or go out.

It just seems that some cannot leave no matter how much they become unhappy with themselves.

[_mfbukowski]

I know you've thought this through, Mark, and I'm happy it works for you. I wish it did for me. It would make my home life a lot more peaceful. But for now, I'll take personal peace. I never had much of that as a Mormon.

Well good- I hope it works for you genuinely. Peace is what it is all about

[_Runtu]

It just seems that some cannot leave no matter how much they become unhappy with themselves.

On that cheap shot, I'll bow out again.

[_MrStakhanovite]

All I am doing is throwing out pointers saying "look at this!"

I understand this, but the difference between Runtu and I, or Honorentheos and I, is that I actually read this stuff and take a good deal of time thinking about it and talking about it with other people. I don't need links, what I need you to do is explain where and how you depart from these people. Just doing what you are doing only serves to confuse me. For example, you affirm synthetic a priori:

I have many times (perhaps even on this thread) affirmed the notion of the Kantian synthetic a priori, and indeed Quine's conception is a more complete development of that notion- at the base of both is that both experience and logic are interactive. I would never deny that and never have.

But Quine's paper rejects such a distinction, and builds from that rejection. When you affirm his conclusions, but seemingly reject the meat of his paper, I'm lost. I don't know how you do it, for example:

Ontological questions, under this view, are on a par with questions of natural science. Consider the question whether to countenance classes as entities. This, as I have argued elsewhere, is the question whether to quantify with respect to variables which take classes as values. Now Carnap ["Empiricism, semantics, and ontology," Revue internationale de philosophie 4 (1950), 20-40.] has maintained that this is a question not of matters of fact but of choosing a convenient language form, a convenient conceptual scheme or framework for science. With this I agree, but only on the proviso that the same be conceded regarding scientific hypotheses generally. Carnap has recognized that he is able to preserve a double standard for ontological questions and scientific hypotheses only by assuming an absolute distinction between the analytic and the synthetic; and I need not say again that this is a distinction which I reject.

And finishes with:

The issue over there being classes seems more a question of convenient conceptual scheme; the issue over there being centaurs, or brick houses on Elm Street, seems more a question of fact. But I have been urging that this difference is only one of degree, and that it turns upon our vaguely pragmatic inclination to adjust one strand of the fabric of science rather than another in accommodating some particular recalcitrant experience. Conservatism figures in such choices, and so does the quest for simplicity.

Carnap, Lewis, and others take a pragmatic stand on the question of choosing between language forms, scientific frameworks; but their pragmatism leaves off at the imagined boundary between the analytic and the synthetic. In repudiating such a boundary I espouse a more thorough pragmatism. Each man is given a scientific heritage plus a continuing barrage of sensory stimulation; and the considerations which guide him in warping his scientific heritage to fit his continuing sensory promptings are, where rational, pragmatic.

His conclusions would have you disregarding your “Objective” and “Subjective” distinction in trying to keep Religious Questions out away from Scientific Questions. You are not adhering to the stark simplicity he enforces, but some how you’ve come to the same conclusions as he does, even though those conclusions are built on a fierce rejection of things you affirm.

I would like to read how you resolve this issue.

[_mfbukowski]

All I am doing is throwing out pointers saying "look at this!"

I understand this, but the difference between Runtu and I, or Honorentheos and I, is that I actually read this stuff and take a good deal of time thinking about it and talking about it with other people. I don't need links, what I need you to do is explain where and how you depart from these people. Just doing what you are doing only serves to confuse me. For example, you affirm synthetic a priori:

I have many times (perhaps even on this thread) affirmed the notion of the Kantian synthetic a priori, and indeed Quine's conception is a more complete development of that notion- at the base of both is that both experience and logic are interactive. I would never deny that and never have.

But Quine's paper rejects such a distinction, and builds from that rejection. When you affirm his conclusions, but seemingly reject the meat of his paper, I'm lost. I don't know how you do it, for example:

Ontological questions, under this view, are on a par with questions of natural science. Consider the question whether to countenance classes as entities. This, as I have argued elsewhere, is the question whether to quantify with respect to variables which take classes as values. Now Carnap ["Empiricism, semantics, and ontology," Revue internationale de philosophie 4 (1950), 20-40.] has maintained that this is a question not of matters of fact but of choosing a convenient language form, a convenient conceptual scheme or framework for science. With this I agree, but only on the proviso that the same be conceded regarding scientific hypotheses generally. Carnap has recognized that he is able to preserve a double standard for ontological questions and scientific hypotheses only by assuming an absolute distinction between the analytic and the synthetic; and I need not say again that this is a distinction which I reject.

And finishes with:

The issue over there being classes seems more a question of convenient conceptual scheme; the issue over there being centaurs, or brick houses on Elm Street, seems more a question of fact. But I have been urging that this difference is only one of degree, and that it turns upon our vaguely pragmatic inclination to adjust one strand of the fabric of science rather than another in accommodating some particular recalcitrant experience. Conservatism figures in such choices, and so does the quest for simplicity.

Carnap, Lewis, and others take a pragmatic stand on the question of choosing between language forms, scientific frameworks; but their pragmatism leaves off at the imagined boundary between the analytic and the synthetic. In repudiating such a boundary I espouse a more thorough pragmatism. Each man is given a scientific heritage plus a continuing barrage of sensory stimulation; and the considerations which guide him in warping his scientific heritage to fit his continuing sensory promptings are, where rational, pragmatic.

His conclusions would have you disregarding your “Objective” and “Subjective” distinction in trying to keep Religious Questions out away from Scientific Questions. You are not adhering to the stark simplicity he enforces, but some how you’ve come to the same conclusions as he does, even though those conclusions are built on a fierce rejection of things you affirm.

I would like to read how you resolve this issue.

Frankly, I am trying to control myself. This is a total waste of time. Totally.

We have already been over this.

IF YOU JUST READ THE THREAD YOU WOULD SEE THAT I ALREADY SAID THAT THE KANTIAN SYNTHETIC A PRIORI WAS JUST THE DOOR THAT OPENED UP LOGIC TO EMPIRICAL CONTENT AND THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH IT.

MY VIEWS COMBINE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE WHICH NAGEL MAKES WITH QUINE'S POINTS HERE IN DOGMAS

QUINE APPLIES TO OBJECTIVE AS WELL AS TO PERSONAL TRUTH

AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, IF ONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES QUINE IS RIGHT, AS I HAVE SAID, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THERE CAN BE NO CONFLICT.

I am mostly tired of your innuendo that I have not read the material, while you are the one who consistently quotes text books and tries to use things like the raven paradox to discredit all of Pragmatism

[_MrStakhanovite]

Frankly, I am trying to control myself. This is a total waste of time. Totally.

I don’t think it is, and I’m sorry you see it that way.

IF YOU JUST READ THE THREAD YOU WOULD SEE THAT I ALREADY SAID THAT THE KANTIAN SYNTHETIC A PRIORI WAS JUST THE DOOR THAT OPENED UP LOGIC TO EMPIRICAL CONTENT AND THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH IT.

Okay. Let’s take another look at your comment:

I have many times (perhaps even on this thread) affirmed the notion of the Kantian synthetic a priori, and indeed Quine's conception is a more complete development of that notion- at the base of both is that both experience and logic are interactive. I would never deny that and never have.

The bolded section reads a lot like reductionism:

The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.

I see a conflict, you probably don’t. So I ask how you resolve it, but that seems to agitate you. I don’t get why asking you for details about your beliefs is so bad. I’m sorry I mistook “I affirm” as also including “I believe.”

QUINE APPLIES TO OBJECTIVE AS WELL AS TO PERSONAL TRUTH

But you are making a distinction that he called illusory.

I am mostly tired of your innuendo that I have not read the material, while you are the one who consistently quotes text books and tries to use things like the raven paradox to discredit all of Pragmatism

Was that needed?

[_mfbukowski]

Frankly, I am trying to control myself. This is a total waste of time. Totally.

I don’t think it is, and I’m sorry you see it that way.

IF YOU JUST READ THE THREAD YOU WOULD SEE THAT I ALREADY SAID THAT THE KANTIAN SYNTHETIC A PRIORI WAS JUST THE DOOR THAT OPENED UP LOGIC TO EMPIRICAL CONTENT AND THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH IT.

Okay. Let’s take another look at your comment:

I have many times (perhaps even on this thread) affirmed the notion of the Kantian synthetic a priori, and indeed Quine's conception is a more complete development of that notion- at the base of both is that both experience and logic are interactive. I would never deny that and never have.

The bolded section reads a lot like reductionism:

The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.

I see a conflict, you probably don’t. So I ask how you resolve it, but that seems to agitate you. I don’t get why asking you for details about your beliefs is so bad. I’m sorry I mistook “I affirm” as also including “I believe.”

QUINE APPLIES TO OBJECTIVE AS WELL AS TO PERSONAL TRUTH

But you are making a distinction that he called illusory.

I am mostly tired of your innuendo that I have not read the material, while you are the one who consistently quotes text books and tries to use things like the raven paradox to discredit all of Pragmatism

Was that needed?

There you go with your isms again

I am not a reductionist according to that definition

You are playing games with your "gotchas" as usual and ignoring previous posts as usual.

I am angry because we have wasted 5 pages and are back to where we started as if nothing has happened= no progress whatsoever.

I made another statement about Kant which you ignored, and if this stupid board made it possible to link to specific posts I would go back and show you that you are wrong, but it's not worth it.

It was needed because it is a statement that you made

This really is a waste.

I haven't even started criticizing your arguments- we never got past my notes as you recall and Honor who has admitted to not being trained in these matters himself saw problems with your positions relative to my notes

I was simply trying to explain my position without taking on yours- for get about it

[_mfbukowski]

How would one falsify "I love you"?

Yet, can such a statement be true or false? Are you lying to your wife?

You guys are too rigid- you are applying linguistic standards for third person statements (objective statements- shared experience statements- whatever you want to call them ) to first person statements (subjective statements, private experience statements, whatever you want to call them). You are confusing two different language games.

We have not moved one inch.

I am talking about the beauty of a tree and you are talking about manufacturing chlorophyll

It's ok. I am really coming back more and more to my original idea that it all comes down to psychology.

And Honor, for the umpteenth time, I was a Pragmatist and read my Quine before I found the church- my philosophical opinions have not changed.

unanswered

[_mfbukowski]

Post subject: Re: Facilitated Communications
New postPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:18 pm

As far as Kant and the synthetic a priori- you are not looking at the big picture.

The bottom line is that the synthetic a prior opened the window to experience being part of logic- not that Kant got it perfectly right.

Which brings us to just another observation about this conversation- I think you are still looking for "gotchas", but you won't find any, not because I am so brilliant- but because Pragmatism itself by its nature always comes down to what is practical and ultimately common sense in a lot of ways.

Don't bother answering. If you are not reading my posts, I'll do you the favor of not reading yours.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You are playing games with your "gotchas" as usual and ignoring previous posts as usual.

If I really wanted to play “gotcha” you’d know it, because I would have jumped all over those notes. I didn’t because you explained they were your initial thoughts and that was it, I was being charitable.

When I’ve pointed out conflicts between what you are saying, and the names you drop, all I do is ask you to explain yourself so as to resolve then tension. Look at the most recent example:

I see a conflict, you probably don’t. So I ask how you resolve it, but that seems to agitate you. I don’t get why asking you for details about your beliefs is so bad. I’m sorry I mistook “I affirm” as also including “I believe.”

A proper response is not:

There you go with your isms again

I am not a reductionist according to that definition

That’s not an explanation, in any sense. Anything that connects “logic” and “experience” at “the base” is a clear example of reductionism. If you don’t think so (and obviously you don’t) then the right way to approach this is to sit down and articulate your ideas in a clearly written format that both explains your ideas and anticipates possible objections.

That’s not a “gotcha”, if I was playing that…

"P2: If two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent, then any data that confirms one confirms the other."

What does that even mean? How do we know that two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent? Does that mean deductively? Logically equivalent?

…I’d have been all over this, and it would have been brutal and would have accomplished nothing. If this was some kind of debate, you’d know it and it would have been over on page 6. It’s not a debate, it’s a discussion.

I made another statement about Kant which you ignored, and if this stupid board made it possible to link to specific posts I would go back and show you that you are wrong, but it's not worth it.

I know what post you are talking about, but that doesn’t solve the problem here. If you affirm Quine, you can’t make any of those distinctions. At all. Ever. Not even a little bit. If you affirm Quine, then Kant got it wrong from start to finish, and only made the problem worse.

I haven't even started criticizing your arguments

I would love it, if you did.

we never got past my notes

Sure we did. This is how I’ve seen the conversation:

Stak: Raven paradox

MfB: Doesn’t effect me, you don’t see the big picture.

Stak: How can it not?….verification…..Quine and Nagel.

MfB: Quine? Oh hey,I believe in Quine!

Stak: I’m not sure…(explains Two Dogmas clearly)

MfB: See, it fits perfectly. (link to Duhem-Quine)

Stak: But that reduces all epistemology to mere psychology and forces you to get rid of things you use….

MfB: YOU DON’T KNOW ME! I HAVE A DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY, HAHAHAH!

Stak: But you are using concepts that he rejects, how do you deal with….

MfB: Pragmatism is like a farmer who spits on the ground and looks you in the eye.

Stak: Wat

MfB: It all goes back to my point about Psychology (actually Stak’s point)

Stak: Okay, but there are conflicts here, how do you fix them?
MfB: You are not seeing the big picture…

We’ve moved passed the Raven paradox, and I’m trying to understand how your beliefs mesh with Quine, because what you’ve said doesn’t match up. For what ever reason, you refuse to do this for reasons far beyond my imagination.

I know you don’t see conflicts, that’s not the issue. I just want you to go beyond stating their not conflicts, and actually do some Philosophy with me. Not link me to a lame Wikipedia page.

unanswered

Usually when I want to draw someone’s attention to a post, so they’ll answer it, I’ve achieved this by quoting them or using their name in said post. So, when the only name that appears is “honor”, I’ve reasoned that wasn’t meant for me.

Honor who has admitted to not being trained in these matters himself saw problems with your positions relative to my notes

He was doing you a favor, by actually asking me questions about what I said. Do you think I lack the ability to answer them? I can, but before I do, I like to sit down and write out a good clear explanation, and that takes time.


By the way, do you consider yourself trained in these matters?