This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Eli

Members
  • Content count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Eli

  • Rank
    TGL Student
  • Birthday 12/31/2005

Eli's Activity

  1. Eli added a post in a topic Incommensurability   

    I made changes in the analisys section of my paper, thanks Hugo's profound comments (see above).

    Here is the new version:

    Critical analysis

    The three chapters lead to the question discussed at the end of 19th chapter - How are we to use the sciences and who decides the matter?
    • 0
  2. Eli added a post in a topic Incommensurability   

    In two days I have to submit a paper on 17-19 chapters in Feyerabend's "Against Method". Unfortunately, I couldn't share you with the development of the paper because of the short time.
    Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Because the paper is to be in English, so grammar and spelling comments are welcome too.


    Introduction

    The main effort in those chapters is to convince that science has no priority in relation to other methods of knowledge. The view that science is, and should act according fixed and universal principles is false.

    Chapter 17
    Science and rationality are two different traditions or practices. The chapter discusses the interaction between those practices, according any interaction between two practices.
    There is a difference between the view of one who observe the interaction from outside
    • 0
  3. Eli added a post in a topic Incommensurability   

    In two days I have to submit a paper on 17-19 chapters in Feyerabend's "Against Method". Unfortunately, I couldn't share you with the development of the paper because of the short time.
    Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Because the paper is to be in English, so grammar and spelling comments are welcome too.


    Introduction

    The main effort in those chapters is to convince that science has no priority in relation to other methods of knowledge. The view that science is, and should act according fixed and universal principles is false.

    Chapter 17Science and rationality are two different traditions or practices. The chapter discusses the interaction between those practices, according any interaction between two practices.
    There is a difference between the view of one who observe the interaction from outside
    • 0
  4. Eli added a post in a topic Numbskulls and Explanatory Levels   

    1+2=3, that is tautology, or circular argument, even so, it has meaning, and we use it for some purposes. So is with infinite regress and "slippery slope" argumentations. Sure we have to be aware of the character of such arguments, but still we have to be careful not to reject them a-priori. There are cases that such arguments have meaning (or at least the best meaning we have).
    There is a common notion that warn us from such arguments as dangerous or even false (like
    • 0
  5. Eli added a post in a topic Studying the supernatural   

    At least it demonstrate that questioning the existence of God and revelation, is not out of research ratio in principle.
    • 0
  6. Eli added a post in a topic On the ID debate (again).   

    The main point, as I understand it, is that the demarcation criteria (and by that, all it's variations and reflections) is a boomerang when it is used against ideas like the ID.

    The "science defenders" are using a weapon from an old war that they won (against the creationism), while ID is in a new field, and "ID defenders" are using the demarcation criteria for their own cause, better than "science defenders" do.
    • 0
  7. Eli added a post in a topic Studying the supernatural   

    One of the questions we are about is, "Can the supernatural be studied by science"?
    Let's brake down that question.


    • 0
  8. Eli added a post in a topic Studying the supernatural   

    Ok that's dirty one.

    But I'm not sure it is symetric. So I mean that your formulation is positive one - P3 is .... while Stenger's is about is not.
    • 0
  9. Eli added a post in a topic Fact/Value Dichotomy   

    The weaknesses of that theory:
    If objective means "out of the authority", So what "Us" define as objective is not objective.
    At the moment we ask who is "Us", we are on the slippery slope to 'the authorized only for its own' Cartesian subject. So "Us" is out of question in that theory.

    Conclusion (of all paper): Any way, "Us" is a factor when discussing facts and values.
    • 0
  10. Eli added a post in a topic Disagreeing with Experts   

    That is interesting issue. Thanks Rusty

    Prima facie, it seems that historically more of us, become an experts in some field or another, and the number of kinds of expertisation is spreading. So it to say, that the expertisation is more and more expert, and our culture is more and more a culture of experts.

    What is emphasized in the phenomena of the expertisation, is the cognition that the expert possess something we don't, and that is the very reason he is an expert. By that cognition, it is clear that the expert has an advantage on us. This cognition is a power that influence our culture.

    By that we can understand the notion that a layman has nothing to do in experts' discourse. He is asked to accept their opinions, and if he has somthing to say (and it would be better if he have no), better he don't introduce it (if he will, so is silliness will be exposed, as Hugo frase it other place), and if he must say, so it better be very careful and apologized. Sure there no taste for the layman to try to understand the expert, there is no chance for him to understand it. To think it's possible, is arrogance.

    Because every of us is an expert in one field, but a layman in another, and even two experts in same field differ each other in experts means, and the one is a layman in the other's, so it to say that those notions are general discourse rules that we are all oblige to. The best is you shut up your mouth. Mind your own buisness. Those who don't shut their mouth, those who want to understand, violate that rules, and we have special words to conceptise them
    • 0
  11. Eli added a post in a topic Studying the supernatural   

    I'm not sure I understand you.

    What is "inference to the best explanation"? How it proofs that something exist?

    Any case. There are a lot of ways to understand exist. Every disciplines has it own. What exist for one, not necessarily exist for the other. Psychological entity, can be referred as exist in psychology, even in physics you can't approve this. If I have the best psychological explanation for influence of prayer on the body of the men who prays, so does it proof that God exists? And if yes, but biology can't explain it, so it's no?

    I think we need to discuss some terms we use.
    What is existence. Is it just physical existence, or there are other kinds of existence we use here.
    What is supernatural. When we say the supernatural exist (or not), which kind of existence we mean.
    What is natural...
    • 0
  12. Eli added a post in a topic Studying the supernatural   

    1. If by science it means natural science, so the answer is defently no, by definition. The same is about methodological naturalism. Other research institutes, like medicine, politics, military studies and so on, can research what in no natural or supernatural. That is the very reason why they are not part of natural sciences.
    2. If natural science has an evidence that God not naturaly exist, that could be because God is supernatural.

    If there is a question here, you have to refine it Hugo.
    • 0
  13. Eli added a post in a topic Fact/Value Dichotomy   

    This is the end section of my paper

    2. An epistemological theory analyzed from the text

    a. The idea about rationality is part of the idea about flourishing.
    b. All values, include cognitive values derived from those ideas.
    c. The science who research the facts is based on the cognitive values. Without them, we have no facts, we have no world.
    If so, so facts come from cognition.

    By that, Bacon's epistemology, about theories that derived from facts, is reversed. By that, the logic positivism pyramid, that facts are the origin of all meaningful knowledge, is up side down. By that, Quine's knowledge field, that suggest that there are concepts that are more guarded from refutations by facts, than other concepts, and even so, all concepts are factual originated, is inside out. By this epistemology, the first origin to all is an idea, the flourishing idea. All our knowledge is derived from that idea, include our knowledge about facts, include the facts themselves, include the world. By that, the tradition of rationalism philosophy is revived.

    For convenience, we'll call that theory, "the 'Beyond' Theory".

    We can better understand the 'Beyond' Theory by comparing it to Descartre theory. Both theories suggest that the first origin is mental and not physical/material. The mental is exist, un doubts, and independently. The material existence depends on the mental, and the link between the mental and the material is rational, so is to say, not experienced. The main difference between the two theories is that the Cartesian's mental-being is the "I', and the mental-being of the Beyond Theory, is the "Us". The Cartesian's beginning being is the "I", and the 'Beyond' Theory's beginning being, is the idea that is present in "Us". And that makes a big deference.

    By choosing to revive the rationalism, it is to confront the weakness of the facts alone to defend their authority. By changing from the Cartesian "I" exist, to "Us" exist, it is to give to the first origin the authority that the Cartesian "I" is short to defend out of its own domain. The "Us" is at the same time and meaning, a subject and object, or non of them at all. "Us" is the authority for the distinction between subject and object, and all other distinctions that follow that distinction, like the fact/value, fact/theory and so on.

    The notion that denies the link between facts and values, denies the only possibility we have for objectivity. Even if facts exist independently from us, their objectiveness come from "Us".
    If relativism denies the existence of "us", by affirming only subdivisions on this "Us" (e.g. cultures), so relativism is on a slippery slope to 'the authorized only for is own' Cartesian subject*.
    Upon the 'Beyond' Theory, the "is-ought" problem raised from a miss cognition that facts derived from values.



    * I'm not sure that relativism is to deny universalism. That is a dogmatic way to understand relativism. Relativism and dogmatism contradict each other. But that is the way Putnam understand relativism.
    • 0
  14. Eli added a post in a topic Fact/Value Dichotomy   

    I'm careful to accept that "Putnam takes it as given that the attempt to show that values can be objective has failed" as Hugo suggest, for the following reasons:

    1. "if someone could show
    • 0
  15. Eli added a post in a topic Fact/Value Dichotomy   

    Sure Davidm, it has to be emphasize that the issue that is onboard, is the "Is-Ought" problem. It is good you remind us the background for that problem. Parody made me realize the linkage of this problem to the fact/theory problem. But if Putnam is ready to suggest that facts derived from values (that is derived from a fundamental idea), so according to that suggestion, there is no "Is-Ought" problem at all. But I'm not sure Putnam is ready to say so. He is not clear enough.

    (by the way, other place, Putnam says that Hume never said that
    all he said is that (Putnam. H. The Collapse of the Fact / Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Note No. 13. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004)
    • 0