From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Why did you use the math department as an example of empirical
> research?
I tried to deduce why you think that I used the math department as an
example of empirical research, but I failed. I did not use the math
department as an example of empirical research. Then I remembered that it
doesn't really matter why.
How is the math department used in the Edelman story? It is used as an
example of a discipline which functions between the careful observation,
empirical experimentation, and hands on experience of science in contrast
to the methods of philosophy, methods which have failed for thousands of
years to disprove the bugaboos of religionism. As I envision the big
picture here, science relates to philosophy as a medicinal drug relates to
a panacea. Math is trangulated somewhere outside them both.
> Do you condemn logic, scientific method, theories, proofs,
> peer-review, extrapolation and imagination when you condemn
> philosophy? Or do you exclude these from that realm when you condemn
> all philosophy? If so, you may be condemning the parts of philosophy
> that I disdain while retaining the parts that I value. That is, we
> may agree on our choices, and merely classify them with different
> labels.
I'd exclude the scientific method from philosophy because the scientific
method requires hardware: empirical experimentation, direct observation,
physical measurement (which includes math), and philosophy does not
require these ties to reality to do its stuff.
> Is it still Thesius' ship? There is no right answer. The label of
> "Thesius' ship" denotes an ownership relationship that is not
> empirically provable. The concept of ownership is philosophical. It
> exists, not in reality or by science. It exists by cultural
> agreement, by legal agreement, by linguistic terminology, or by other
> reference systems that we use for interaction between humans.
An ownership relationship is empirically provable in the State of
California, I don't know about other States or other nations. In
California ownership is established with a tangible instrument called a
deed or a bill of sale. Even philosophers can own property in California,
but they must have a deed or a bill of sale to prove it, just like
everyone else.
Regardless of how you define ownership, unless you fundamentally change
the elements of that definition by exchanging the atoms of the property in
question, the original ownership relationship remains intact. So, I hold
with my conclusion that the reconstructed ship belongs to Thesius. Those
who claim ownership to Thesius' ship will do well to avoid resorting to
philosophy to prove their claim.
> In law, for instance, we would have to determine what the contractual
> agreement was for the workers to do all this work, and what they
> agreed to return to Thesius. In all probability, the rebuilt ship
> was returned to Thesius as his property and the rotting ship was left
> with the workers as spare parts. Can this be empirically measured?
Can the probability be measured? No, because it is only a philosophical
probability about a hypothetical ship. If the ship were real, then yes, it
could be measured empirically.
> No. Is there a chemical test we can perform, such as DNA matching,
> to see which is Thesius' ship?
This seems rather far afield. We don't need to test the ship to see if it
is Thesius' ship if we were paying attention to the narrative. According
to the story, Thesius' ship got all its rotten material replaced with
fresh material. So, Thesius has a fresh ship. DNA testing is irrelevant.
No quandary there.
>No. The question of nomenclature is
> merely a linguistic reference system that we use for communications.
> The question of ownership cannot be measured by science.
I think it can be measured by science. If the ships in question were real,
science could quite easily ascertain the correct ownership. Whether those
involved accept a scientific determination is another matter.
> It must be
> logically deduced by linguists, lawyers, judges, and psychologists.
> Whatever we end up deciding becomes the right answer. There is no
> objective measurable ownership particles that will lead us to the
> right answer.
I think linguists, lawyers, judges, and psychologists will continue to
justify their jobs in concrete terms, rather than rely on philosophy. As I
wouldn't trust shysters who advance their careers on the basis of their
religious connections, so I wouldn't trust those who prosper as a result
of their philosophical connections.
But this isn't really about Thesius and his imaginary ship. It's about
uploading and copying humans. To accomplish that will require science, not
philosophy.
From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> (Actually, pancritical rationalism in some sense makes scientific
> foundations at somewhat empirical, but you still have to do some
> philosophical thinking there)
Well, you may have to do some rational thinking, but that doesn't mean you
have to get philosophical to do it.
From: "zeb haradon" <zebharadon@hotmail.com>
> Yes, you're exactly right about the answer. The reason it is the wrong
> question though, is because the person giving this talk, when members of
the
> audience made the point that you just made, would respond with something
> like "yes, but which one is *really* Thesius's ship?", this is the wrong
> question but he thought it made sense. He was implicitly subscribing to
a
> belief known as "essentialism", that there is something about this ship
that
> give it its "Thesius's ship"-ness as an object, something which is
separate
> from any cultural considerations.
I think it can be shown that the reconstructed ship is Thesius' ship
(separate from any cultural considerations), with no recourse to
philosophy. Simply keep an accurate record (one of several scientific
techniques) of the stated intentions of those who cause the reconstruction
of Thesius' ship. If their intention is for the reconstructed ship to
remain Thesius' ship, then we have empirical evidence in this record of
their intent.
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> Philosophies vary a lot too. One shouldn't assume that all of them are
> equal or as useful or as valid. In this vein, it's my belief that
> philosophy's purpose, against which it can't be measured, is to help
> individuals to live life. So in a sense, it should be for the good,
though
> there is a lot of difference between different people and different
> philosophical systems over what is good.
I'll drink to that, and add that whatever values we use to make the kind
of philosophy you describe good, can be used to make science better.
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
>
> My "Rand the Libertarian," published in the current issue of _The
Thought_,
> is now up viewable on the web at:
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/RandLib.html
"It's time people stopped taking Rand at her word and start looking at her
ideas, examining them dispassionately to see where they lead - rather than
just accepting what she and some of her followers tell us about them.
This, of course, is the method one should use when examining any person's
beliefs or any set of ideas. Anything less is an abdication of judgment."
I think if she had the patience, Rand could have done some real science.
But then, it's more profitable to work the system (as the power companies
demonstrate) than to create something truly useful. Who knows, perhaps
Rand used the scientific method to determine that she'd do better as a
fiction writer than as a scientist.
From: "Steve Nichols" <steve@multisell.com>
> Yes, I think Philosophy can be covered in kindergarten! I do accept
> "History of Philosophy" as a valid academic category. But "critical
> thinking skills" should be hived off to debating societies and rhetoric
> study on the one hand, and something like speed-Shogi to improve
> problem solving, strategic ability and mental alertness on the other.
All right! Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Those religions and
philosophies are best, IMNSFHO, which get out of the way of science the
quickest.
From: <GBurch1@aol.com>
> Beyond this, studying philosophy as part of an analysis of history
yields a
> vital understanding of the importance of ideas and the role that they
play in
> society, as well as the influence that events "in the world" have on
ideas.
> The former bestows on the student a sense of the importance of "big
ideas",
> while the latter helps to cultivate a strong sense of skepticism and the
deep
> interconnectedness of life and the world.
Yes indeed, the benefits of studying philosophy far outweigh the benefits
of doing philosophy.
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
3M TA3
=====================
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:39 MDT