 |
|
Brent
|
|
What if someone has their own personal writings burnt when they die for privacy reasons? Is that wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
 |
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
I wouldn't bother if I were you. |
The relation between the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences and the humanities, on the other, is at an all time low. I'm sick and tired of it. Instead of childlishly dissing each other, we could learn from one another. When I teach philosophy of science, one of my goal is to fight the clichés about science. In part because of those clichés, a lot of students become hostile to science, and hence don't acquire a scientific culture. A student of mine told me point blank that he doesn't attend class because he hates science and philosophy of science... 
quote:
They have no idea what they are talking about anyway. |
I don't know, Ramo is quite open and articulate. Others are either trolling or, like Kuci, they're seeking the approval of the other scientists on 'poly: he's saying what he thinks they want to hear.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
|
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
If philosophy were rigorous it could create its own symbolic logic. |
In case you haven't heard, philosophers like Aristotle and the stoics invented logic. Of course, mathematicians like Frege and Russell (who was also a philosopher btw) took the matter into their own hands and created mathematical logic in the 20th century. One of most important philosophical movements of the 20th century, namely analytic philosophy, was based in part on that new logic: they saw that new logic as a method to do rigorous philosophy. A number of philosophers have invented logical systems based on that work in mathematical logic, stuff like deontic logic (for ethics), fuzzy logic, inductive logic, many-valued logic...
But these philosophers were overly optimistic: to deal with philosophical problems, logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Your still stuck with natural languages and their limitations. In other word, if mathematics and physics are more rigorous, its not because they're more logical, but because they're more mathematized.
Last edited by nostromo on 08-04-2005 at 06:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
|
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Do you do modern Analytic? I used to do epistemology and philosophy of language, but I gave it up for Ancient.
|
I am a philosopher of science, more or less in the analytic tradition. More or less since some of the people I studied, like Kuhn, Lakatos and Laudan, are not analytic philosophers. Yet I also studied Carnap, Popper and Hempel. Now I'm more interested in rationality or, to be more precise, irrationality. So I have moved on to philosophy of psychology and philosophy of mind. Given my topic, I also read a lot of psychology 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:16
|
|
Although i'm well aware that you OTers enjoy ... tangents, I'm going to make a (gasp) relevant argument to the original topic (/gasp) 
Agathon, I have to argue with your original statement from a moral relativist point of view. Although you would defend, say, suppression of pedophilic pornography, and obviously have the general support of the society, you would also be required by your argument to defend the suppression of, say, marxist literature in many nations in the 1700s, christian literature in rome in AD 100, jewish literature in spain in AD 1500 (and most of the world at various points) ... and in 100 years, who knows what will happen? And what about different parts of the world, where very different things are acceptable morally (not necessarily just "more" or "less", either, but ... different nonconcentric areas of belief)? Who gets to pick whether, say, graphic pornography in general is 'burned' (as many people in, for example, the southern U.S., would argue), or just pedophilic pornography, or masochistic pornography, or, or... ??
Unless there's an actual immediate danger (as previously argued), I have a hard time agreeing with the banning of information, at all, and that means my line is the same as that of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (and Tom Clancy  ) ... "clear and present danger". (Hence my strong distaste for the FCC and other federal censors. First amendment my @$* ... )
I'll also object to the categorization of the original argument as "empirical" rather than specific. Of COURSE he's using empirical arguments; it's a bloody moral argument, not a logical one. It's not something that can really be 'argued' effectively either, as a result, but, tant mieux - so much the better. We can all have a little fun and then continue believing what we deep down believe, and if someone comes to a realization that they deep down believe what i say, or what you say - so much the better 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Ah, so numbers and measurement are meaningless, are they??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
|
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Judging from what wikipedia says, I don't see any difference at all between "natural deduction" and standard mathematical logic; it seems to mainly be a difference of notation. You still cannot deduce anything in it without any assumptions (except tautologies, which hardly count as actually deducing something, and can also be deduced in set theory without using any of the axioms anyways), which is essentially the same as having axioms. |
Except that in axiomatic systems, just any assumption clearly won't do as an axiom. Of course, you have to start somewhere. But in natural deduction, these starting points are considered more like hypothesis than axioms, and they can be eliminated afterwards (with elimination rules), something you can't do in an axiomatic system.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2005 21:39
Gotcha! Well, well, well the fishies are bitting today! 
|