Search results

  1. GrowingSmaller

    Do you think everything can be described mathematically?

    Godel's incompleteness theorem?
  2. GrowingSmaller

    My position on ethics

    OK one issue I have. First off it sounds cool, but as a Muslim I believe that not all are destined to be guided. The cool bit: people being virtuous, sociable, spiritual etc. The uncool bit: the real world where people aren't always like that. As a Muslim my angle is I have a decent community...
  3. GrowingSmaller

    My position on ethics

    Hey thanks for the criticisms. My apologies tho to the OP, tho, i have little skill in critical appraisal of others opinions, but still like to get involved. Hence my post was not a great hook up to the thread.
  4. GrowingSmaller

    My position on ethics

    Utilitarianism is possibly ok in a specific context. Amongst like minded people who follow similar rules. Maybe. Its intuitively ok because it supports - to each in their own private utilitarian dream - a utopian fantasy where all your constructive neurochemical impulses and needs (or...
  5. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    So yes we can measure some wood. Any yes people can agree on it. They can use a standard measure and agree it conforms to a certain measured length. It gives the same reading for all measurers. I don't see how that deductively entails anything about a mind independent universe. If there is an...
  6. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    Of course, one can use an "objective measure" but its not necessarily true that objective reality exists. Ok its true that its say 1 foot, in imperial measure. And that is the same for everyone, or at least non idealists. And that is called objective. Yes, I get that. But the whole construct of...
  7. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    I thought the scientific spirit was: destroy theory if possible? The efforts being on finding limits alongside finding facts? Of course I could just carry on with everyone else and copy. Is that the idea? I'm not directing at you personally. I think alongside empirical limits of a idea...
  8. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    Two crystals refract light slightly differently, and two brains view the film differently. Ok, someone may get bored with repeats, whereas a crystal gives the same results... but: Isn't that because the brain changes more than quartz over time? What if a brain scientist could formulate...
  9. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    How could a thing be both subjective and objective, at the same time? Well, lets look at idealism. Its possible that the whole world is a picture in my mind, and that's all there is. Now, a language game for an idealist will differ from that of a realist. A realist believes in objectivity...
  10. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    This is a random thought. If idealism is logically possible, then "objective" things may not exist. It may not be sensible, but it is a possibility. Therefore, going from definitions to reality, i.e. saying its defined as objective settles the enquiry, has its weaknesses.
  11. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    I'm not sure I do. If I were to rate a film for excitement, giving it marks out of ten, and people agreed, wouldn't that indicate we experienced and responded to real and true and relevant properties of the film in the same or similar way? I liked the film, they liked the film, we all found it...
  12. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    Isn't length relative to frame of reference though, if we speed up things shrink IIRC.
  13. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    The idea is, we have sensory apparatus and a basic perceprtion of the world, as youngsters, and to that culture accretes or adds on a superstructure of language, with specific rules for terms like "objective" and "subjective"; embedded ina a social reality. If they (the terms) indeed exist at...
  14. GrowingSmaller

    Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

    Some questions then: Ok, is it logically impossible for another community to class what you call "subjective" (a film review, a comparison between films) as having objective merit? For example, if there are standard measures of "a good cinema film" can't a comparison be made? Like, ones...
  15. GrowingSmaller

    Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

    I've reached a conclusion that there are different ontological domains. Like the kinaesthetic, the eurythmic, good taste of food, the bad taste of food, physical science, social science, religion, etc. Its possible each one has a specific and proper set of epistemic virtues. So there is...
  16. GrowingSmaller

    Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?

    I like to think that we can be rationally attracted to Being, sometimes closer, and sometimes in flight from it. So, the truth of being is graspable as a logical idea, but also aesthetically and existentially. Intellection, and intellectual virtues are monopolised as a category by dry logicians...