EPTOn September 09 2013 11:11 FireSA wrote:
Wow, how very off topic.
Wow, how very off topic.
It's amazing what people can do, honestly.
What is a PhD? - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
It's amazing what people can do, honestly. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 09 2013 11:06 sam!zdat wrote: it's somewhat difficult because most people have a vaguer notion of what 'logic' is than logicians do. They usually just mean thinking rationally, or not thinking in whatever way they find to be objectionable. Logic itself is pretty limited in scope, it tells you about relations of implication between various statements about subjects and predicates. But it doesn't tell you anything about the real world extension of these predicates, how we use words to talk about things, and if you want to treat such topics as time, causation, belief, possibility, and other things we take for granted in natural language, those are problems in logic, not something you can use logic to help you understand. I haven't really studied much of these modal logics and stuff because to be honest I think it is mostly a rather pointless scholasticism and I'm not sure they've really helped anyone understand much of anything. Though it's certainly possible I'm wrong about this. you can mostly use logic to test the consistency of a collection of statements, or determine what implications follow from a set of knowns. But most of the 'verbs' that we use to do very basic types of reasoning have no rigorous logical definition. The world is just too complicated, and the kinds of things philosophers want to talk about too diverse, to do everything with logic. Logic is just one tool in your toolbox and, frankly, most problems that can be solved just with logic are by virtue of that fact trivially easy. imo, the high status accorded to logic in anglo philosophy has mostly just served to impoverish anglo philosophy and reduce the scope of things that are considered 'philosophy' to those things that are easier to treat with logic. Here it is like the man who lost his keys in a parking lot, and searches for them only under the streetlight, because that's where he can see. As tmbg would say, 'im having a wonderful time but i'd rather be whistling in the dark.' edit: which is not to say I disapprove of analytic philosophy, because I don't, for a while that's what I thought I wanted to do. And I don't believe there is any such thing as a pointless intellectual endeavor. But I do resent anglo philosophers who think that they have a monopoly on truth and that theirs is the only philosophy because it says 'philosophy' on their transcript and 'english' on mine. I don't study philosophy, but I would presume that that is exactly the reason for the high status of logic. The fact that you can describe something in a way that is both trivial and unambiguous means that it is an efficient way to convey knowledge. I would argue that to be able to explain something logically you just need to have enough knowledge to eliminate ambiguity and hence I agree that it is limited with regards to discovering knowledge, but I feel that the only thing limiting the use of logic to describe subjects that you mentioned is our current limited understanding of those topics. On September 09 2013 11:11 FireSA wrote: Wow, how very off topic. Are you referring to our discussion of logic? If so, I really don't see how it is, considering the OP was more of a conceptual view of what a PHD is, described as pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. So how is discussing logic as a tool for discovering/conveying knowledge "very off topic"? | ||
|
Cuh
United States403 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
things about which one can speak trivially and unambiguously are just that. do you understand the concept of computational irreducibility? Even if david lewis were to complete his master plan for formalizing all knowledge, you wouldn't be able to talk about things using this perfect formal system in all the time that exists in the universe, it would take too long. We are not robots we are humans and we must try to understand things as humans if you started trying to do philosophy you would quickly realize that logic by itself really doesn't get anywhere. edit: philosophy is about trying to acquire some wisdom. Logic and wisdom are very different things. Have you ever heard of locke's madman? | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 09 2013 12:34 sam!zdat wrote: all the truly interesting problems are fundamentally ambiguous and deal with things which, when we talk about them, we don't really know what we are talking about. But still we must talk about them. things about which one can speak trivially and unambiguously are just that. do you understand the concept of computational irreducibility? Even if david lewis were to complete his master plan for formalizing all knowledge, you wouldn't be able to talk about things using this perfect formal system in all the time that exists in the universe, it would take too long. We are not robots we are humans and we must try to understand things as humans if you started trying to do philosophy you would quickly realize that logic by itself really doesn't get anywhere. I don't think you are really disagreeing with me there, except for stating that they are fundamentally ambiguous. I am saying that they are interesting and described ambiguously because we don't know what we are talking about, but once we do, they are no longer interesting or ambiguous (at which point we should be able to describe them logically) and we move on to the next topic that we don't know enough about. edit: philosophy is about trying to acquire some wisdom. Logic and wisdom are very different things. Have you ever heard of locke's madman? I'm not trying to say that either, just that logic is a good method for conveying knowledge, since I would say wisdom generally requires some degree of experience and which is not something that can really be transferred. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
 would be nice if it did | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
| ||
|
eluv
United States1251 Posts
On September 09 2013 11:06 sam!zdat wrote: But I do resent anglo philosophers who think that they have a monopoly on truth and that theirs is the only philosophy because it says 'philosophy' on their transcript and 'english' on mine. On September 09 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote: The task of philosophy is to learn how to deal with irreconcilable contradiction. That is 'the dialectic'. The structure of reality is not logical, it is fundamentally and irreconcilably contradictory. You have to learn to hold these contradictions in your mind and let them play one against the other . God is not a machine I mean, I'm just saying. Bold words from a guy who resents having him told what his subject is about. I'll jump out on a limb that I'm quite sure can support my weight, and guess that there are some philosophers who would have issues with that characterization of their subject. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
all I'm saying is, I think hegel can think them, but they can't think hegel. So I win :D | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
I couldn't find a good source on Locke's Madman, I think I get the gist of the concept (a being capable of reasoning yet comes to the wrong conclusions) but if you could link me something specific that would be appreciated. On September 09 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote: the task of philosophy is to learn how to deal with irreconcilable contradiction. That is 'the dialectic'. The structure of reality is not logical, it is fundamentally and irreconcilably contradictory. You have to learn to hold these contradictions in your mind and let them play one against the other . God is not a machine How do you know it isn't logical? My argument is that anything could be described logically if only you had enough information, and I feel pretty safe in stating that you don't know enough (that nobody knows enough) about the structure of reality to make that assertion. I could agree that humanity may never know enough to be able to know enough about the structure of reality to describe it logically, but given enough time, effort and evolution I really don't see how you could state that we couldn't with certainty. From my perspective, God is at least partially a concept used to fill gaps in our knowledge at the time. Ancient Greeks and Romans used Gods to describe concepts that I'm sure seemed unattainable in their time (like the sun) so I don't see any reason to believe that within a few hundred or thousand years (assuming we are still around) that some of the questions that seem beyond our comprehension now could be answered and we could have a whole new set of seemingly unanswerable questions. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
the point of the computational irreducibility is sure, maybe you could compute it, but only if you had a a computer that was bigger than the universe with more time than there is in the universe to run it! So that doesn't help you. yes god is a name for what you do not know. That's why god is the Real (in the lacanian sense). And that's why I think positive theology is blashpemous and only negative theology is allowed. (edit: but maybe here I contradict myself because I think the christians are on to something when they say 'god is love'. God really is love, no matter what dr hoenikker says) maybe you are right that anything could be described logically if you had enough information (i am not convinced), but I think it is not only an epistemological limitation, but an ontological (!) limitation that you will never have enough information. And so therefore I am just yr typical god fearing communist  lockes madman is someone who acts perfectly rational, but in the service of some insane irrational project. He is so rational that he is completely insane. Like david lewis, or Mr. Spock I think there will always exist unanswerable questions which we nonetheless MUST answer (which is why one of my doctrines is 'god does not exist, He insists!' ) | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 09 2013 15:25 ZenithM wrote: Doesn't seem like your PhD is taking too much out of your TL time at least. I wouldn't allow myself monoliths of posting on logic ;D Ah you got me, I'm not studying a PhD. In fact I don't even have a Master's. I am only a research assistant, though there are two PhD students with the same supervisor, so I do have some understanding of the process. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Avs
Korea (North)857 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 09 2013 07:36 sam!zdat wrote: thanks bob that's the idea. Just wait, someday they will write books about me and I will make sure they put you in a footnote somewhere Can't wait to be depicted as a decadent petit bourgeois lmao. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 09 2013 15:45 sam!zdat wrote: ^he means me, I think Ah maybe haha, I assumed it was directed at me because it was right after my post. Anyway, you could be right that not everything can be described logically, but I am content to agree to disagree since I can't think of any way to definitively prove either way as long as some questions remain unanswered. I did enjoy discussing the subject though, hearing counterpoints to my beliefs helps me figure out what my beliefs actually are. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 09 2013 16:02 Boblion wrote: Can't wait to be depicted as a decadent petit bourgeois lmao. nah you're just some guy who thinks he is my grandfather <3 | ||
|
Kambing
United States1176 Posts
On September 09 2013 16:09 Myrddraal wrote: Ah maybe haha, I assumed it was directed at me because it was right after my post. Anyway, you could be right that not everything can be described logically, but I am content to agree to disagree since I can't think of any way to definitively prove either way as long as some questions remain unanswered. I did enjoy discussing the subject though, hearing counterpoints to my beliefs helps me figure out what my beliefs actually are. Sort of a side note, but the fact that not everything can be described logically --- namely that proofs of certain propositions cannot be expressed in sufficiently interesting logics --- is a cornerstone result of mathematical logic. (Turns out that logic is where mathematics, philosophy, and computer science meet, something I wish I had realized earlier in my career.) | ||
| ||
