Post: #126

When I did philosophy at university (I never went to any lectures by the way) I remember moaning to a friend that there were no ingenious, astonishing and wacky ideas in philosophy. At least not to the extent that I was hoping I might find.

As a novice - I thought there would be some philosophers who were prepared to try and be outrageous and interesting.

Purely for its own sake.

Indeed - in a field defined by conceptual thought - it would seem a valid experiment to try and push the boundaries of thought and concepts to their limits. In the hopes it might teach us something interesting about the very tools we use to try and discover truth with.

Anyway - I am not sure if I made myself clear at the time. But friend did mention Leibniz's weird concept of Monads. So - at least I got an interesting suggestion out of it.

Still - ten years later - I always had a gap in my outlook. I always hoped I would come across a philosopher who would come close to the ideal above. Somebody who pursued interesting ideas, paradoxes and novel ideas - as opposed to just adopting the quasi-scientific pursuit of grand truths at the expense of any other goals...

Well - I found him!

Check out - Roy Sorensen.

Firstly here is an indepth interview with him:

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/on-blinds...periments/

The title of the interview describes him as 'Philosophy's madhatter' and the opening line of the article begins 'Roy Sorensen is the hyper hip coolster of paradoxical mind-melt.'

I am slowly working my way through his books. But a quick overview of his works give you a good insight into the offbeat approach to philosophy that Roy takes.

The book of his that I am currently reading is 'Seeing Dark Things: The Philosophy of Shadows'.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seeing-Dark-Thin...083&sr=1-2

Quote:If a spinning disk casts a round shadow does this shadow also spin?

When you experience the total blackness of a cave, are you seeing in the dark? Or are you merely failing to see anything (just like your blind companion)?

Seeing Dark Things uses visual riddles to explore our ability to see things that do not reflect light. Shadows and holes are anomalies for the causal theory of perception, which states that anything we see must be a cause of what we see. This requirement neatly explains why you see the front of a book's jacket and not its rear when you look at it face-on.

However, the causal theory has trouble explaining how you manage to see the black letters on its surface. The letters are made visible by the light they fail to reflect rather than by the light they reflect.

The book analyses shadows and some of the ingenious and strange problems which they can cause when thought about in a conceptual way.

The book also opens with a magic trick. Which satisfied my personal love of magic. And satisfied my desire to see more quirkiness in philosophy.

I am only slowly starting to study all of his works. But the rest of books seem to be of great interest as well.

One book is a comprehensive analysis of the use of thought experiments in philosophy and science:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thought-Experime...433&sr=1-1

Quote:In this book, Roy Sorensen presents the first general theory of the thought experiment. He analyses a wide variety of thought experiments, ranging from aesthetics to zoology, and explores what thought experiments are, how they work, and what their positive and negative aspects are.

Sorensen also sets his theory within an evolutionary framework and integrates recent advances in experimental psychology and the history of science.

Another of his works is a history and analysis of philosophical riddles and paradoxes:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Pa...pd_sim_b_5

Quote:Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Can time have a beginning? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Riddles, paradoxes, conundrums—for millennia the human mind has found such knotty logical problems both perplexing and irresistible.

Now Roy Sorensen offers the first narrative history of paradoxes, a fascinating and eye-opening account that extends from the ancient Greeks, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, and into the twentieth century.

The following work is a history of analytical philosophy which shows the many successes it has had in showing various philosophy problems to be pseudo-problems which can be 'dissolved' with the correct analysis.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pseudo-Problems-...651&sr=1-9

Along similar lines to the above (since the problem is approached by trying to 'dissolve' it) he has another book which analyses the Sorites paradox.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vagueness-Contra...651&sr=1-4

I suppose you could argue the last two books (above) are not as 'quirky' as some of the other ones mentioned. But - I am confident that Roy Sorenson is my man when it comes to exploring some of the wilder fringes of philosophy.

Indeed he has a book coming out in 2014 called 'A Cabinet of Philosophical Conundrums' which suggests to me that he is still trying to march to the tune of a different beat.

At least, I hope so!

Post: #127

Anybody here made a serious study of Aristotle? I have a couple of books about his work which I am going to use as a jumping off point into his work.

But I keep putting it off. I must be getting lazy...

So - anyone here a fan of his work?

Post: #128

(06-21-2013 12:53 PM)Wutang Wrote:  As for Nietzsche, just as a disclaimer the only whole works I've read by him is The Birth of Tragedy and The Case of Wagner. Besides that I've only read excerpts and skimmed through some of his other books so take my opinion with a grain of salt if you want.

I think the appeal of Nietzsche is that he really knows how to hit a nerve with the angry, young middle-class male set. If you look at people who are really into Nietzsche who are not academics you'll see a big portion of his fans fit that exact description. He's basically the philosophical equivalent of punk rock - loud, passionate, and not dense or complex enough to bore people. A lot of his writings are done in the forms of aphorisms which is perfect for the modern young guy with the 30-second long attention span. These guys are filled with so much testosterone and pent-up frustration that they wouldn't be able to sit down for long periods of time and absorb something like the classical philosophers so Nietzsche is perfect for them. Nietzsche also has a tendency to rant and lash out a lot and of course there's nothing more then an angry young guy enjoys more then a rant.

My current thoughts on Nietzsche is that he's hugely overrated and that many people enjoy his works more for the feelings that it draws out of them rather then it's actual content. I think people enjoy his works more on the artistic level then on an intellectual level. That said, I do think The Birth of Tragedy was a good book with worthwhile ideas though I think a part of my reason for that is that it was written early on and before he really started to go into his ranting and raving phase. What he has written about slave morality is very insightful and still provides insight today - especially when it comes to understanding leftists and SWPL types.

Disagree.

I think Nietzsche is overrated only so far as most people attribute nihilist beliefs to him, which of course is completely wrong.

I believe his analysis of the fundamentals of human hierachy is very well described through his slave-master morality paradigm.

In fact, I see him as being a bit of a prophet regarding the post-modern society that came around in the 20th century. The destruction of master morality and the victory of slave morality, all which lead to the welfare state and feminism among other ills.

I think the reason for why Nietzche is not more popular is because people do not dare to truly understand what it means to have a slave morality.

In many ways slave-master morality is very much alpha-beta. The slave morality operates on irrational binary level, some things are just good and some things are just bad - by default. It's just that christianity has been replaced with a marxist-feminist dogma.

Slave morality = a FALSE morality beased on jealousy and fear.

Master morality = only true morality based on positive outcome of action.

I think Nietzsche as an existensialist is well worth reading once you get a bit older and are over the rebellious phase. It is quite powerful as a motivational tool to press forward and hold your head high.

The main reason I believe, why Nietszche is not mainstream is because the Nazis took the whole master morality and ubermencsh too far.

Post: #129

Ricky Gervais touched on this in one of his routines:

Post: #130

Nietzsche was a classic beta.

He played third leg to Lou Salomé (chick) and Paul Rée. Salomé friend-zoned him.

He never got married, and seemingly never got laid.

Suffered a mental breakdown and had to have his mother and then sister take care of him for years.

Post: #131

The breakdown was caused by syphilus. I think?

Anyway - here is footage of him after his breakdown:





I am no expert. But I have studied philosophy quite a bit and read most of Nietzsche's work. And I am not a fan. He is probably my least favourite philosopher.

Post: #132

(11-13-2013 11:22 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  Nietzsche was a classic beta.

He played third leg to Lou Salomé (chick) and Paul Rée. Salomé friend-zoned him.

He never got married, and seemingly never got laid.

Suffered a mental breakdown and had to have his mother and then sister take care of him for years.

Yes, a classic case of the angry frustrated beta, in other words, the poster boy for post-modernist western society, but that really doesn't reflect on his work. Many if not most of the greatest thinkers have been weirdos and loners. An idea is true in itself or not true in itself.

Some would call him 'red pill' though, others would just call him bitter, quite like some people here also are difficult to distinguish between bitter or lucid.

A few famous quotes on women by Nietszche:

Quote: - And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronic- ally sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men. Women avail themselves of children for the cult of piety . . .

Quote: - Are you a slave? If so, you cannot be a friend. Are you a tyrant? If so, you cannot have friends. In woman, a slave and a tyrant have all too long been concealed. For that reason, woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knows only love. In a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love. And in the enlightened love of a woman, too, there is still the unexpected attack and lightning and night, along with the light. Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or, at best, cows. Woman is not yet capable of friendship. But tell me, you men, which of you is yet capable of friendship?

Post: #133

(10-11-2013 01:26 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I study philosophy for pleasure. But - a few things I am reading make use of formal logic.

As such - I am wondering if it is worth learning propositional logic/symbolic logic/modal logic (delete as applicable since I am not sure of the differences).

So - can anyone advise me? Is it worth studying these fields - or is it mostly boring and unlikely to offer much of philosophical interest?

I can't decide at the moment.

I would say yes.

If you want you can start with informal logic and then move onto propositional logic, then predicate logic, and then onto non-classical logics.

It will definitely help you fine tune arguments, at least in my experience.

If you decide to skip informal logic, I would recommend An Introduction to Formal Logic by Peter Smith and Symbolic Logic by Irving Copi. Peter Smith has a website with all the answer to the exercises and corrections to errors in his book.

Then after that if you are still interested you can pick up a mathematical logic book.

Post: #134

So what do you guys think about this saying: "Happiness is a decision"?

Post: #135

I think so.

Shakespeare in 'Hamlet' wrote "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Also there is too much talk about depression these days. Ironically - all of this talk is probably making more people feel depressed.

Check out Nocebos to see the power language can have in making people feel ill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

Post: #136

So, does evolution work against happiness? Otherwise we would be more or less happy, right? There have to be some factors which work against the "decision". For example a 9-5 job ist not a good thing for many people and they feel drained afterwards. How can a decision change that feeling? Shure words have power but to some extent. Maybe happiness is only possible when some risk is taken. Look at Darwin, before his travels he was ill and depressed. In his travels he found strength and a mission. Playing the shure thing get´s boring but the exciting things have there bads too, as then hedonistic adaptation is often a problem.

Post: #137

Warren Buffett: "Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get."

Post: #138

So, that´s why the women can be fat now, after all men are managing the art of wanting what they get that is fat chicks. Might be some truth in it. I still didn´t master that part.

There was an old saying: If you want to be happy become a gardener. But very few want to become a gardener. Maybe nowadays it won´t work anyway. But in essence it probably ment to be humble and don´t stress yourself.

Gandhi said: “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed .” So probably it´s about the attention on the needs and not the greeds. Which is quite difficult to maintain in a kapitalistic oversexed society. If countries want to be strong they have to feed the greed, right? "Greed is good." So maybe that´s why the decision becomes so difficult. The dark side is more appealing.

Post: #139

Happiness is not something you can aim for.

It is just something that happens while you are busy focusing on other things.

I remember a woman on the radio being asked if she was happy. She said she was but not in the way that she thought she would be when she was young.

Wrestling with that paradox is what being an adult is all about.

Post: #140

What about Positive Psychology? Looks like it could help to work on happiness.

Quote:Positive psychology is a recent branch of psychology whose purpose was summed up in 1998 by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: "We believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise, which achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving individuals, families, and communities."[1] Positive psychologists seek "to find and nurture genius and talent" and "to make normal life more fulfilling",[2] rather than merely treating mental illness. Positive psychology is primarily concerned with using the psychological theory, research and intervention techniques to understand the positive, adaptive, creative and emotionally fulfilling aspects of human behavior.[3]

As the medical field begins to appreciate the value of positive psychosocial factors in the prevention and management of pathology, positive psychiatry is emerging in its own right.[4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology

Post: #141

I have some thoughts on what you guys have been talking about. I study philosophy at a department that specialises in philosophy of science. I had to study logic as a compulsory module.

I have major issues with my department and the concept of philosophy of science as a whole.

Modern philosophy is imo a load of crap. Moral philosophers argue strictly on principle about issues that are emotional in nature. They get caught up in 'arguments' about the trolley problem; suggesting one might be deontological or consequential in ones approach without realising that they are the same thing.

Taleb draws an important distinction between Platonic philosophy and empirical philosophy. Platonic philosophy in his terms is trying to reason out thought processes and decision making procedures by reason alone - hence Socrates' endless barrage of annoying questions. Empirical philosophers observe and formulate the premises of their arguments by what they observe - reason is secondary.

An appropriate analogy is red pill vs blue pill thinking. Blue pill: 'She said she likes nice guys so I will be a gentleman'; Red pill: 'Alpha fucks'. The former goes by constructs alone, the latter by observation.

The renaissance and enlightenment encouraged Platonic thinking because humans were advancing scientifically, and the power of the mind became apparent. Again, Taleb has a lot to say about the narrative fallacy, iatrogenics, and naive decision making that leads to black swans.

In short, we need to be aware of what we don't and cannot know.

We cannot know which principles we adhere to when we make moral decisions because we neither think simply nor introspect simply. Who here would ever make a decision to kill 5 people or 1 person (the trolley problem) because they knew they were deontologists or consequentialists? Nonsense, you feel an emotional response, get a sense of your values and then act. Demarcating principles that you have to agree or disagree with in a binary fashion (I am a consequentialist or I am not) is total crap. It creates arguments where close to none should exist.

The same for philosophy of science. How can you use Occam's razor if you don't know the possible assumptions that might exist? You only need to reference all the major revolutions in scientific thinking that have happened post enlightenment.

And metaphysics. Metaphysics should not exist. Mysticism is the only useful metaphysics. Any human being that thinks they can understand the fundamental metaphysical nature of the world is delusional. How can they ever confirm that they are correct? Will they ask other humans? If you want to see how fucked metaphysics is you only need look at the mess that is quantum physics. We don't know shit about fundamental realities. We should acknowledge that.

So what is left? Philosophy is left. By that I mean pure philosophy - love of wisdom philosophy. Wisdom is necessarily empirical philosophy. It is adjusting to trial and error over many years. So for this Marcus Aurelius is perfect (he once saved me when I was in a very dark place and all I had on me was a copy of his Meditations); Seneca is perfect; even studying ancient history and seeing how people behaved for thousands of years in a less filtered environment is great.

Like QC I am a big fan of the classics because there was far less room to bullshit about reality - Aristotle has a nice few quips about fat shaming. If you were fat and went to battle you would die. Nice one fattie.

In terms of modern philosophers, I cannot recommend Taleb more highly. This is because his premise is 'I don't know, but...'. The absence of Platonic thinking allows for wise thinking.

Hope that's useful and doesn't sound like a clouded rant.

Post: #142

(04-05-2014 08:05 PM)Al Sahab Wrote:  .... In short, we need to be aware of what we don't and cannot know.
.... This is because his premise is 'I don't know, but...'. ...

I know what you mean... my original interest, given my science background was philosophy of science... then, i found the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind far more fascinating.

Irvine Copi was my introduction to symbolic logic... My introduction to formal logic was Richard Jeffrey "Formal Logic: Its scope and limits" ,..... then i later got my hands on dale jacquette's "philosophy of mathematics" ...

anyways, your quote above reminds me of donald rumfeld statement during the iraq war.... it makes philosophical sense... at the same time, i can understand why people mock him for such a statement with regards to the quagmire that is the iraq war.

anyways, the quote is below:

Post: #143

I always thought the Rumsfeld quote was a Nassim Taleb idea?

Anyway - I was discussing the quote with my Dad once. It is quite an interesting quote to try and unpack.

KNOWN KNOWNS - an example of that would be the mechanics of how a car engine works. No mystery. Simple.

KNOWN UNKNOWNS - an example might be climate change or nuclear fusion. We know there is a problem to be solved - but we don't know how to solve it.

UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS - this is something that will hit us up the head as a big surprise. Pretty much most major geopolitical events or new scientific discoveries fit this description. Something like 9/11 counts - since the day before nobody really took seriously the idea that a plane might be hijacked and flown into the World Trade Centre.

When Nassim Taleb discusses these ideas - he is particularly interested in the UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS. Since he feels that - as a culture - we too quickly move into post-hoc explanations and theories as to why the surprising event - really wasn't so surprising at all. And how it was really kinda' inevitable if only we had been smarter at the time.

But this misuse of hindsight is dangerous. It fools us into feeling more confident about what will happen in the future than we should. Since - psychologically - we play down how genuinely shocking and surprising previous events were when they struck. And it is a mindset which modern society seems uncomfortable with adopting.

Another interesting thing about the Rumsfeld quote is that it leaves out one of the possible combinations.

UNKNOWN KNOWNS

What are we to make of this concept? After a little discussion - my Dad and I came to the conclusion that this is a situation that you think you understand but really don't. The best example we could think of would be of an ordinary person - who seems friendly and nice. Who later turns out to have been a serial killer.

You think you had a handle on who the guy was - but you didn't.

----------------------------------------

I just looked up the wikipedia page to see what it has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

And there is an interesting bit from Mark Twain. It seems he took an interest in UNKNOWN KNOWNS as well:

Quote:A quote most often attributed to Mark Twain defines the "unknown known": "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Post: #144

Yes, I was having a discussion with a friend about a year ago and we seemed to stumble on something that I haven't seen elsewhere in philosophy, but maybe you guys will recognise the problem and point me to some literature.

Someone who is religious: I know that God exists
Someone who is an atheist: I know that God doesn't exist (sometimes they say atheism is just not being religious though).
An agnostic: I don't know whether God does or does not exist.
A hard agnostic: I know that I don't know and cannot know whether God does or does not exist.

If God truly works in mysterious ways, then the evidence for each view can be identical. Including the hard agnostic - or as you guys have said above, the known unknown view. The known view and the known unknown converge here because with metaphysics its impossible to distinguish between the two. The evidence in both cases is just a subjective view of reality.

So if the religious, agnostic and atheistic are making different claims based on identical evidence, where does that leave us?

The answer my friend and I came up with was the unknown unknown.

However it's not as simple as that. To say that something is an unknown unknown, you are saying that you know that it is an unknown unknown. But if it were truly an unknown unknown...you wouldn't know...and you wouldn't even know that you wouldn't know etc. (for infinity).

This idea is very difficult to express, but behind it is the idea that you can't say anything about metaphysical reality, and you can't even say that you can't say it etc. (for infinity).

It is necessary for the statement to be infinitely reflective because as soon as it isn't then it becomes a definite statement.

Any thoughts? Am I a madman?

Post: #145

I know what you mean.

A believer thinks God exists.

An atheist think God doesn't exist.

An agnostic says that the question is so beyond human understanding that there is no way for us to know for sure.

I am inclined to the agnostic position - but I like to stretch it to its limits.

If God is beyond human understanding - then maybe (human) concepts like existance are not even applicable to such a being. As impossible as that may seem. A bit like asking if the square root of negative one is a positive number or a negative number.

But of course - even my understanding of what it is we may be mistaken in thinking we understand (ie that existence definitely does or does not apply to God) is probably flawed as well.

At which point - the only logical way to end this series of reasonings is to write complete jibberish as a way of trying to express what it is I am trying to point out...

Swdfiwedusdhf weifwifknasj serfwfjwdjrfn dmkmdasd. Gjdiosdsnijand wefwerjfnrfnned sjdnsuiqew eded.

Hjknefiew weidhjdiewjdewh fdiwefdwidjwediewd.

Hyjksunwksddwq.

Sasijijdijsa??!!

Post: #146

(04-06-2014 03:13 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Swdfiwedusdhf weifwifknasj serfwfjwdjrfn dmkmdasd. Gjdiosdsnijand wefwerjfnrfnned sjdnsuiqew eded.

Hjknefiew weidhjdiewjdewh fdiwefdwidjwediewd.

Hyjksunwksddwq.

Sasijijdijsa??!!

Holy shit. That is profound!

Post: #147

(04-05-2014 08:05 PM)Al Sahab Wrote:  I have some thoughts on what you guys have been talking about. I study philosophy at a department that specialises in philosophy of science. I had to study logic as a compulsory module.

I have major issues with my department and the concept of philosophy of science as a whole.

Modern philosophy is imo a load of crap. Moral philosophers argue strictly on principle about issues that are emotional in nature. They get caught up in 'arguments' about the trolley problem; suggesting one might be deontological or consequential in ones approach without realising that they are the same thing.

Taleb draws an important distinction between Platonic philosophy and empirical philosophy. Platonic philosophy in his terms is trying to reason out thought processes and decision making procedures by reason alone - hence Socrates' endless barrage of annoying questions. Empirical philosophers observe and formulate the premises of their arguments by what they observe - reason is secondary.

An appropriate analogy is red pill vs blue pill thinking. Blue pill: 'She said she likes nice guys so I will be a gentleman'; Red pill: 'Alpha fucks'. The former goes by constructs alone, the latter by observation.

The renaissance and enlightenment encouraged Platonic thinking because humans were advancing scientifically, and the power of the mind became apparent. Again, Taleb has a lot to say about the narrative fallacy, iatrogenics, and naive decision making that leads to black swans.

In short, we need to be aware of what we don't and cannot know.

We cannot know which principles we adhere to when we make moral decisions because we neither think simply nor introspect simply. Who here would ever make a decision to kill 5 people or 1 person (the trolley problem) because they knew they were deontologists or consequentialists? Nonsense, you feel an emotional response, get a sense of your values and then act. Demarcating principles that you have to agree or disagree with in a binary fashion (I am a consequentialist or I am not) is total crap. It creates arguments where close to none should exist.

The same for philosophy of science. How can you use Occam's razor if you don't know the possible assumptions that might exist? You only need to reference all the major revolutions in scientific thinking that have happened post enlightenment.

And metaphysics. Metaphysics should not exist. Mysticism is the only useful metaphysics. Any human being that thinks they can understand the fundamental metaphysical nature of the world is delusional. How can they ever confirm that they are correct? Will they ask other humans? If you want to see how fucked metaphysics is you only need look at the mess that is quantum physics. We don't know shit about fundamental realities. We should acknowledge that.

So what is left? Philosophy is left. By that I mean pure philosophy - love of wisdom philosophy. Wisdom is necessarily empirical philosophy. It is adjusting to trial and error over many years. So for this Marcus Aurelius is perfect (he once saved me when I was in a very dark place and all I had on me was a copy of his Meditations); Seneca is perfect; even studying ancient history and seeing how people behaved for thousands of years in a less filtered environment is great.

Like QC I am a big fan of the classics because there was far less room to bullshit about reality - Aristotle has a nice few quips about fat shaming. If you were fat and went to battle you would die. Nice one fattie.

In terms of modern philosophers, I cannot recommend Taleb more highly. This is because his premise is 'I don't know, but...'. The absence of Platonic thinking allows for wise thinking.

Hope that's useful and doesn't sound like a clouded rant.

If you study philosophy and only philosophy that's rough. I would never recommend anyone to just study philosophy. I think a science track and philosophy courses here and there are a good combo.

This goes back to what I posted in post number 25. I think people like the classical philosophers due to the fact they feel they are speaking more to the conditions and nature of human beings whereas today it can be viewed as technobabble about some logical issue or conceptual that people will ultimately say who cares.

Post: #148

What do you guys think about Zizek and Ayn Rand?

Many claim that neither of the two are actually philosophers, but putting philosophical puritanism aside, I was just wondering how the RVF community sees the two.

Personally, I'm not sure I fully accept any of their views... yet I always find them interesting, compelling, and just stimulating to watch or read, respectively. I know I can't be alone on that

Post: #149

I have been thinking about Empiricism lately. Any RVF philosophers care to chime in?

When Samuel Johnson(the lexicographer) kicked a stone in an attempt to show that a "stone" is actually a stone and not an idea(in opposition to David Hume's philosophy). He was attempting to justify the existence of stone by resulting to empirical verification. Empirical verification is an essential part of the scientific process: experimentation. Experimentation is empirical verification. We can ask a scientist to verify a stone empirically for us, and s/he will result to setting up experiments to verify it.

Now, what a scientist counts as experimental observation all depends on what issue the experiment is designed to settle, and what empirical assumption the experiments make. That is, if we are making observation about stars, the empirical assumption here is the working theory of the telescope; if we are measuring the velocity of stars, the empirical assumption here is the working theory of time(alarm clocks, radioisotopes, stop watches, etc). We start to question the time factor if say, we suspect something is wrong with the watch used. Thus, depending on the focal point of the experiment, other adjunct entities becomes either the dependent variable or the independent variable. It is all relativistic.

At one point the velocity of the stars being examined is the theory being tested, with shift in focal point, the previously assumed time factor itself will now become the theory being tested. So, every empirical "facts" in science can become a theory being tested depending on what the experiment is. Thus, if a stone is "confirmed" using the scientific process, then a "stone" cannot be said to be an empirical fact, but an empirical assumption for a given confirmational technique. Thus everything is theory.

One more thing is this, a given system of thoughts held by a person can be imagined to be like an interconnecting web. Any given person has numerous web of thoughts. The web consist of nodes and their interconnecting line/links. Imagine the nodes to be declarative statements and the interconnecting lines to be the semantic relevance that correlates one declarative statements to/with another. This makes a system of thoughts consistent, or it will not be a system by its very definition.

All the individual nodes in a system of thoughts are all interrelated. Now, consider the hypothetical claim, 'P'. Consider X and Y as being the two systems of thoughts that both assert and denial 'P', respectively. How can we be *clear* that 'P' does not now mean something different other than 'P' when introduce into the system of thoughts X or the system of thoughts Y? Won't a given system of thoughts distorts and be distorted by 'P' to fit into its interconnecting web? Doesn't that compromise 'P'? How then is it really possible that any given systems of thoughts can even profess to assert or deny claim 'P' to begin with? Or even make any sort of claim at all about 'P'?

So, the way things are described is reflective of how well it fits into the background theory-- into a given system of thoughts. Thus Samuel Johnson kicking a "stone" and "proving" that it is a stone and all scientific experimental confirmation procedure are simply how well they all fits into a background theory. The stone is "empirical facts" because that is how it fits into a background web of theory or system of thoughts, the "proving" itself is still another way of how it fits into the background web of theory.

Anywho, this is my rumination on the issue of empiricism. Any thoughts?

Post: #150

tldr: Is the idea of evidence independent of the ideas we use to define evidence? And does that mean science is subjective or objective?