And yet, David, I bet you still refrain from jumping off tall building and eating poison.
-
-
Replying to @Jayarava
Right. The point here is that many things are “true enough” or “more-or-less true” or “true for this particular purpose.” The false dichotomy is between “really truly true” and “meaningless” or “hopelessly vague.”
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think this might be more interesting for me if I knew who "the Rationalists" are/were or if I'd ever seen anyone make the point you are arguing against.
Most of the people I know are irrationalists.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Jayarava
Rationalists: Plato, Kant, Russell, Gödel. Almost all 20th century analytic philosophers. Most working scientists (but inconsistently). On your other point: yes, and I’ll take rationalists over irrationalists any time!
5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Jayarava
For modern rationalists, that's almost a strawman. Rationalists are informed by their science, and modern science understands uncertainty much better, not just in the social domain but also in life sciences. And we can *reason* on uncertainty with statistics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Blaisorblade @Jayarava
“True enough for this purpose” is an ontological matter, not an epistemic one. The issue is not uncertainty, it is indefiniteness. Rationalists frequently make this move, of changing the subject to uncertainty (for which they have a story) when the topic is indefiniteness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
“HIV causes AIDS” is about as certain as anything we know; there is no meaningful doubt. However, what it means for it to be true is highly dubious ontologically. In fact, each of the three words in the statement is extremely ontologically indefinite.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am struggling to understand this. Have you written anywhere about the distinction between epistemic certainty/uncertainty and ontological indefiniteness? Or can you point towards another resource for understanding it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Strangely, nothing is coming immediately to mind. There’s a long section on this in the book I’m writing now, but that won’t be available for a while yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @f0late and
The AIDS example is a good one though. AIDS is defined as “various diseases caused by HIV” and HIV is defined as “various viruses, not particularly closely related, that cause AIDS.” And “causes” is not really defined at all (which is a big problem in the philosophy of science).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The issue here is not word meanings, but things-in-the-world, i.e. the relationship between HIV and AIDS is just inherently messy—but quite certain.
-
-
I thought I understood what you were trying to say but then you said it's not just about word meanings, so I think I probably didn't get your point. Guess I'll wait for the book. Good luck with that!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.