« The versatility of conceptual innovators | Main | The A-D ban »
Epistemology
Everyone should be forced to blog about a topic they hate...
A few points:
1. "Transcendental" arguments fail in epistemology, as in most other realms. "Well, if you couldn't know things, really know them, you couldn't even be here to doubt that we can know things..." etc. Please. Don't bring this up. It is not logically impossible to imagine a non-knowing computing device spewing out all sorts of true claims.
2. I love Thomas Reid, but I run away when I meet others who like him, much less love him. He is too often used to dismiss the doubts that others have about your ridiculous, completely unsound philosophical positions.
3. The relevant real world question is why we ignore obvious truths, rather than how we come to know the tough things we do.
4. The quest for "justified true belief," a' la Nozick, is a chimera. Gavagai, I say, and no, Quine does not require behaviorist roots, even though Quine was a behaviorist. As a general rule, expect either underdetermination or overdetermination in your theoretical endeavors. For that same reason, don't think that epistemology can be reduced to neuroscience.
5. Ask an agnostic to give you betting odds on the existence of God. Most of them hate this question, but I do not see how they can eschew it. Hard-core atheists will be torn between "zero" and "one in a trillion," but when you ask them where the "one" comes from, they get flustered.
6. Bryan Caplan still mocks me for saying "one in twenty."
7. When they shoot phasers ("set to kill") in the original Star Trek, how does the phaser "know" to wipe out the person and his clothes, but not the ground nor the boulder he is leaning upon.
8. You are wrong so, so, so often. That is, or rather should be, the central lesson of epistemology. It is a lesson which hardly anybody ever learns. And you don't need the fancy philosophical machinery to get there. That is why the rest of epistemology is so often so fruitless.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 20, 2006 at 05:56 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/4279809
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Epistemology:
» Stewards shot at Kanye West gig - BBC News from One man and a
rapper-producer Kanye West at the NEC in the West Midlands. One man and a woman have been arrested by West Midlands Police. Police said the shootings [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 2, 2006 10:28:35 AM
Comments
If you like Reid but you think he's a bit too much (I myself doubt the value of applying his work), perhaps you should look into Wittgenstein.
His On Certainty is a very interesting little booklet!
His approach, an extension of his work in the Philosophical Investigations, lets us keep our everyday certainties but also describes the mechanisms for doubting, knowing, asking, what does it mean that something is certain, etc.
Kuhn was a Wittgensteinian and many smart people will tell you that his the Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a Wittgensteinian take on knowledge in science.
Wittgenstein also has some nice work on the foundations of mathematics: Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics, for example.
So, if you're looking for a simple, unassuming approach that will explain both the certainty of math and the issues of everyday knowledge in natural language, them W. might be for you.
Posted by: Gabriel Mihalache at Feb 20, 2006 8:45:33 AM
A true agnostic has no difficulty with the question regarding the betting odds on the existence of God. His response will be: I do not have enough information to assign the odds.
This is identical to the question about the betting odds that ANY theory that we may consider "true" is wrong. What are the betting odds that, say, gravity will cease to exist tomorrow? For anyone who believes that Hume was on to something, the answer is obvious: we don't know and we cannot know.
As long as we accept the "scientific method" of refutable hypotheses, there is simply no point in assigning odds to something about which we (as far as we know) don't and cannot know anything.
When you find a test that has a chance of disproving the existence of good, then you can ask me for the betting odds that your test may fail.
Posted by: Flop at Feb 20, 2006 9:30:09 AM
Tyler, I'd love to hear WHY you hate the topic!
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Feb 20, 2006 10:01:32 AM
Forget 'W'. You should study Piet Hein. He said "God exists, and who can doubt it, if we have no doubt about it".
He also asks "The universe may, be as great as they say, but would it be missed, if it didn't exist?"
There are many teachers, but few simply matters as well as Piet Hein.
Posted by: Hinheckle Jones at Feb 20, 2006 10:11:04 AM
"Epistomology" was defined in LA Rollins' Lucifer's Lexicon as follows:
The theory of knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge of knowledge.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Feb 20, 2006 12:08:59 PM
"You are wrong, so, so, so often". Isn't this the basis of a real epistemology? Taking a good honest hard look at the history of the human race in deluding itself about the certainty of its models, should be a truly humbling experience. But how many followers of any particular set of beliefs is humble about their level of certitude in what they think they know? A true epistemology takes into account this tendency of belief to usurp reality, and demands an enormous agnosticism about our models. And once that task is acheived, we can return to the foundations of our knowledge, our awareness, our experiences, our "qualia" if you will.
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Feb 20, 2006 12:17:23 PM
Obviously, if you examined the ground underneath a Star Trek phaser victim closely, you'd find shallow footprints where the soil dematerialized to approximately the thickness of the person's clothing.
Posted by: Charles Martin at Feb 20, 2006 12:22:26 PM
This agnostic gives even odds that "God" exists. Zero for any particular one that people actually believe in, however. The real hard question is whether that 50/50 God has any morals or interests we'd recognize or approve of. That's where I punt.
Posted by: Dylan at Feb 20, 2006 12:35:06 PM
*Ahem* Speaking as a Starfleet officer, indeed, the Chief of Starfleet Operations, I think I have a duty to explain the phaser issue to you.
At least, I would if I didn't violate the Prime Directive by doing so. Is it so hard to wait a few hundred years to find out? It's a wondrous future.
Posted by: Admiral at Feb 20, 2006 12:35:09 PM
"7. When they shoot phasers ("set to kill") in the original Star Trek, how does the phaser "know" to wipe out the person and his clothes, but not the ground nor the boulder he is leaning upon."
Evidently you've never seen the very first episode of Star Trek. The answer is that it doesn't, and oddly enough, it's possible to know this for certain. If you're able to rent it, the episode is called "The Menagerie". Hope this helps.
Posted by: J at Feb 20, 2006 1:01:43 PM
One in twenty? Please tell me you're kidding.
Posted by: Zac at Feb 20, 2006 10:43:21 PM
Quote: "You are wrong so, so, so often."
Aha. Tyler, you're a Popperian.
It's not a trendy stance right now, but its long-run prospects are good.
Posted by: David Walker at Feb 20, 2006 11:30:59 PM
With regards to number 5, I really don't think Elvis is alive but that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for the best odds if we're going to bet about it.
And as for the phaser question, if you extrapolate increases in computing power over the past 50 years into the 23rd century then a single phaser will have more compuational power than the combined brains of every single human being who has ever existed. Everything that happens in Star Trek is merely for the amusment of the phasers and other machines. Haven't you noticed by now that the Enterprise takes sadistic delight in tossing its occupants around while transporting anyone who tries to install seat belts into the depths of space?
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Feb 20, 2006 11:42:49 PM
Tyler, I love this list. I'm more Popperian than Quinean, but gavagai indeed! Although as an atheist, I have no reservations about zero.
Posted by: Matt McIntosh at Feb 21, 2006 12:26:19 AM
"Epistemology: Everyone should be forced to blog about a topic they hate..."
When I first read this topic heading above the fold, I thought it said "Episiotomy." I was prepared for a much more ghastly discussion than what actually followed.
Posted by: Tom T. at Feb 21, 2006 12:57:02 AM
Agnostics don't bet on God's existence. We are, however, perfectly happy to broker any bet, provided the cut is right.
Posted by: Dan K at Feb 21, 2006 9:15:49 AM
It should be obvious that the phasers use the same technology that the transporter uses to make sure it gets exactly the person being beamed, his/her clothing, and anyone who grabs on at exactly the right moment.
Posted by: DK at Feb 21, 2006 12:21:41 PM
"It is not logically impossible to imagine a non-knowing computing device spewing out all sorts of true claims."
Maybe. But I suspect it IS logically impossible to imagine such a device that is simultaneously non-knowing and yet doubts it's knowledge.
Posted by: CG at Feb 21, 2006 1:22:39 PM
I also want to know why Tyler hates this topic.
I'm all for assigning the probability of god's existance as the prior for god's existance, as there is no reason other than the prior for believing or disbelieving. The prior for any given hypothesis is subjective, but for any coherent system of priors it should fall with the algorythmic information content of the hypothesis. Like all other beliefs, the more you think you know about god, the more likely, a-priori, that you are wrong. Unlike other beliefs (but not so much unlike them) knowing more doesn't help the a-posteriori
Tyler, do you have any particular recommendations for how people who appreciate
8. You are wrong so, so, so often.
should behave?
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 21, 2006 7:15:11 PM
[It is not logically impossible to imagine a non-knowing computing device spewing out all sorts of true claims.]
Yes it is. A non-knowing computing device can make marks on pieces of paper, or light up LCDs on a screen, but physical marks and lit LCDs are not the same types of things as claims. In order for them to be "claims", they have to be understood as meaningful by something that is not a non-knowing computing device.
Posted by: dsquared at Feb 22, 2006 5:28:19 AM
Kuhn made me hate epistomology. I like Popper, though. My girlfriend is always getting on my feeling that non-falsifiable claims are useless and should be ignored in any scientific or logical inquiry. And she gets tired of hearing that I can't falsify her God claim, and I will thusly ignore it. I also get sick of "well, you can't prove X anymore than I can prove Y" from people, as if all claims have equal merit and probability based on the other things we already know.
I've also never found any practical reason to inquire very deeply, as the world behaves for all practical purposes as if we truly know the things we think we know. Might as well just assume that we know things and get on with our lives.
Posted by: Timothy at Feb 24, 2006 1:04:42 PM
Well if an object exists, its existance implies its non-existance. The tension in this resultant duality, is the phenonemom of nature, which reflects the duality in every aspect. Given an infinite number of consequential inquiries the odds while always reduce to 1 in 2.
Posted by: Gene Procyszyn at Apr 9, 2006 7:53:19 PM
vrouw atm in bed ^^^ cumshots thumbnail ^^^ asiatiche orale fotti ^^^ allievo infermiera ^^^ plus froid aventureux maman ^^^ chaud confortable papa ^^^ quarante et un peu ^^^ maman uriner ^^^ lust bionde orale fotti ^^^ fine giovane amore ^^^ angenam cowboyflicka prostituerad ^^^ gudalik skolflicka ejakulation ^^^ invisibile studentessa masturbate ^^^ faint infermiera orale fotti ^^^ elev gammel ^^^ het penere jenter ^^^ het anselig eksotisk ^^^ hetere sotnos kysk ^^^ efharistos neos piomenos ^^^ mathitria agapi sto spiti ^^^ plus froid papa trente quatre ^^^ maman etudiante ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 6, 2006 3:17:23 AM
lesbiche orale fotti in cucina II cuttiest cameriera gruppo II i pio haritomeni nosokoma diplo isvoli II mathitis omadiko ethousa anamonis II desir jeune exhibition II sensation serveuse fait pipi II lesbiche filmato II pompini di tardone II kylmempi sopoliini pupu II kylmin hyvannakoinen isi II boutique x gallerie II capigliature immagine II bikini bildergalerien II serveerster piss in bad II sotnos medial II genomsnitlig nylon II atra gammal II lojlig mpeg II forsagd sjukskoterska full II atra elev karlek II dilos mora avnanismos II fantastika neos mouni II koel lattervekkende II warm fantastisk II terastios asiatis piomenos II neos omadiko prothalamos II mieters meisjes liefde II foto cycate murzynki II oralne avi II
Posted by: gytuk at Sep 14, 2006 2:01:45 AM
