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 -
HIV is defined as “whatever vaguely-related viruses cause AIDS” and AIDS is defined as “whatever diseases are caused by HIV.” And no one has any workable story about what “causes” means, in general.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Jayarava
I agree philosophers have rightfully debated causality. But for AIDS and especially HIV, I'd wager that's not the definition, but at best "how we get to a definition".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Blaisorblade @Jayarava
Well… having looked into the matter in some detail, I think that as a matter of science, you are mistaken. HIV is polyphyletic; the only criterion for inclusion in the taxon is that it infects humans (not other primates).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, and also it has to result in immunodeficiency syndrome. SIV strains that infect humans harmlessly don’t count has HIV.
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.