09 A personal view...

You may or may not yet have noticed that there is something special developing here. What you are witnessing is in fact the confrontation of my personal philosophical views with the theories of ethics.

One thing that emerges clearly is my personal rejection of subjectivism in ethics (as well as in other areas like epistemology).

An other thing that becomes clear is, that since Hume we make a strict distinction between "feelings" and "sensory experiences", which is closely related to "subjective" and "objective".

When you look at the order of subjects on the board behind me you also see a road from subjectivism to objectivism. That order is not my personal creation.

It is from "Ethics: Contemporary Readings" a Routledge publication form 2004. After a global survey of the book I thought its setup would be a nice roadmap and to me it is a revealing adventure.

Sofar it has shown us that the quintessential question in modern ethics is: Is (rational) justification of moral values possible or not. Or stated more popular, can we transcend the"Well, that is your opinion ..... but this is my opinion!" deadlock?

You may have noticed that it is my conviction that we can. Yes, we can ...who said that before? This means that we once and for all have to get rid of that simplistic dichotomy "subjective - objective"

In everyday conversation they are mutually exclusive. "Subjective" means private "mental" stuff: sensations, beliefs, feelings, emotions, opinions, etc.

"Objective" means public "physical" stuff: publicly-observable things, events, knowledge, facts.

But this is just a way we, as thinking beings, have interpreted our world, our experiences. We love simplicity, however the philosopher John Searle showed that we have to be less simplistic in this case.

Metaphysics consists of arguments and counterarguments about what we should call "real" or what we should say "is" or "has being". "Is free will real?" is a metaphysical question.

In metaphysics, something exists objectively if its existence does not depend on its being experienced. A claim is epistemologically objective if there are generally recognized methods for deciding whether the claim is true or false.

Now we make the following distinction. We should distinguish two kinds of objectivity:
1. metaphysical objectivity, and
2. epistemological objectivity.

We also should distinguish two kinds of subjectivity:
1. metaphysical subjectivity, and
2. epistemological subjectivity.

Your toothache is metaphysically subjective. It is your pain. Noone else can feel it. Impossible to know if my toothache would feel the same for you. So, when you say "It hurts!" is this just your personal opinion, about which I can't say a thing?

On the contrary. Your toothache is also metaphysically objective. First there is your public statement "It hurts!". Then there is the dentist who describes the bad condition of your tooth, the infection, etc.

Your toothache is a private experience. Only you know what you feel. What knowledge does the dentist have about it about this metaphysically subjective matter.

In epistemology, a statement (claim, assertion, proposition) is epistemologically objective if its truth value can be determined intersubjectively by generally-agreed methods or procedures.

To say a statement is epistemologically objective is not to say the statement is true; it's just to say we could figure out a public method for determining whether or not the statement is true.

As you may understand, the dentist has access to the metaphysically objective properties of the toothache. He can examine your tooth and together with you observe its specific condition.

In other words, what seems to be a subjective matter, your pain, can be objectively assessed as well. Your pain is not just a matter of opinion.

Okay — are ethical statements mere matters of opinion or expressions of personal attitudes or emotions?

A moral subjectivist says in effect that moral judgments are either subjective or objective in the ordinary (over-simplified) sense.

The subjectivist then assumes that if you feel a certain way about X, you can’t then be objective about X, since feelings are subjective and "subjective" and "objective" are supposed to be opposites. And if you can’t be objective, you can’t use math or logic, i.e., you can’t reason.

When you take into account the more nuanced view of John Searle, you can see the shortcomings of the subjectivist's reasoning .

An example: "Abortion is wrong." If this is only a pure metaphysically subjective feeling, how should we then discuss this matter? It is indeed your opinion, just that.


However, whether you are for or against abortion, I guess everybody would agree that it is wrong to take innocent human life.

And then the debate on ethics will start and we can only reason our way to consensus, based on metaphysically objective facts.

In other words, the way people generally think in terms of subjective/objective is a simplification and a cause of many unnecessary disagreements.

Finally let me show you something on the board behind me. The scheme is a development from R. M. Hare’s A Taxonomy of Ethical Theories (1997) and then the test.

Read it carefully and then answer the question: where do you think, I stand in this taxonomy?


Take your time.. ㋡
Well ....any suggestions?

The Discussion

[13:27] oola Neruda: is it necessary to go through a step...or can you skip to the next one
[13:27] Dudda Susa ist offline
[13:28] herman Bergson: oh sorry....this is the wrong board
[13:28] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: i was wondering about that
[13:28] Cailleach Shan: He he
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: me to
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: aah
[13:28] George Taurog ist offline
[13:28] herman Bergson: that was a real test ㋡
[13:28] itsme Frederix: mm I just wanted to answer 0 step
[13:28] herman Bergson: slow rezzing here
[13:29] herman Bergson: ah..there is comes
[13:30] herman Bergson: can anyone read it?
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:30] itsme Frederix: np
[13:30] herman Bergson: still a little blurred for me
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:30] Cailleach Shan: Yep.
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: might be good on a notecard
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: mmm yes
[13:30] itsme Frederix: So we have to understand the board and you for an answer, tuff
[13:30] BrainCrave OHare: i had to get up to read it
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i am using my cam
[13:31] herman Bergson: It should have been up much earlier so it had time to rezz..
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: I use my camara controls
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: but would be BETTER ON A NOTECARD
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: here here
[13:31] Cailleach Shan: I took a snapshot.
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: if we are going to refer to it again after today
[13:31] herman Bergson: Next time on a notecard Gemma ㋡
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: good tip ty
[13:32] Cailleach Shan: mmmmm.. I seem to have a foot in all 10 camps!
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: don't we all
[13:32] herman Bergson: Oh my Cailleach...
[13:33] herman Bergson: The question was...where do you think I stand in this taxonomy?
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Herman if you were putting a pistol agains my head, I would say ... 6 You probably would shoot ;)
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: 8
[13:34] Cailleach Shan: I would say 9 Herman
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes, 8
[13:34] Kayle Matzerath ist online
[13:34] herman Bergson: I see I have still a lot of explaining to do
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:34] oola Neruda: i go with 6
[13:34] Duda Poulot ist online
[13:34] Cailleach Shan: Hahahahahaha
[13:34] Apmel Ibbetson: I say 10
[13:34] BrainCrave OHare: based on the little i've seen, i'd say 3
[13:34] herman Bergson: No other bids?
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:35] Cailleach Shan: Aren't we inevitably projecting our own views here Herman?
[13:35] oola Neruda: 10 is a good one Apmel
[13:35] itsme Frederix: Well how objective is your answer, or may it be subjectieve (epistomological & methaphysical)
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well when I take the answers in account I would say Yes Cailleach ㋡
[13:36] herman Bergson: Like the subjects of this project this taxonomy runs from
[13:36] herman Bergson: objective to subjective
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Calliebach right you are, is it possible to judge Herman on his own ... by us?
[13:36] herman Bergson: this means that my views belong to the area from 3 up to 1
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:37] herman Bergson: As I said today...it is possible to ratioanlly discuss moral judgements
[13:37] Apmel Ibbetson: well i don´t agree I think the three first ones are extremly subjective:)
[13:37] Daruma Boa: you standing in my camera brain^^
[13:37] Daruma Boa: ^^
[13:37] BrainCrave OHare: i'm very sorry
[13:37] BrainCrave OHare: i think i need glasses
[13:37] Daruma Boa: no problem^^
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:38] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:38] herman Bergson: Is the board upside down for you Apmel:) ?
[13:38] Apmel Ibbetson: the tenth one seems to be openminded ..:9
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: do you know how to use your camera??
[13:38] Apmel Ibbetson: no herman I just don´t agree with you :)
[13:38] Apmel Ibbetson: on what is subjective
[13:38] herman Bergson: ok....
[13:38] BrainCrave OHare: yes, but it didn't seem to come in close enough
[13:38] Jester Fizzle ist offline
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:39] Apmel Ibbetson: the tenth one seem more objective to me than any of the other
[13:39] herman Bergson: subjective is when something is only private to the mind, not accessible for any outside verification or so and ceases to exist when the state of mind disappears
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Is this Hegelian logic (more or less adverse) you are using Apmel?
[13:40] Apmel Ibbetson: no herman..I don´t agree
[13:40] oola Neruda: your example of free will for example
[13:40] Apmel Ibbetson: there is NOTHING private to the " mind"'

[13:41] herman Bergson: Well Apmel, your dont agree is an example of a subjective state
[13:41] Apmel Ibbetson: hahaha..sure
[13:41] herman Bergson: so it cant be discussed
[13:41] itsme Frederix: and your judgement also Herman
[13:41] herman Bergson: no...
[13:42] itsme Frederix: no why?
[13:42] BrainCrave OHare: to me, #2 seems out of order - or, at minimum, a contradiction
[13:42] herman Bergson: First of all I have given arguments and explanations of metaphysical and epistemological subjectivity and objectivity
[13:42] herman Bergson: I have shown how something can be metphysically subjective and objective at the same time
[13:43] herman Bergson: reread the lecture ㋡
[13:43] oola Neruda: but that does not mean it covers ALL instances
[13:43] Apmel Ibbetson: I was Imming at the time..sorry:9
[13:43] Apmel Ibbetson: i will read it afterwards
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] oola Neruda: like in science.. you experiment to find the exception
[13:44] herman Bergson: that is not the point
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: i didn't see the taxonomical arrangement at first, but it is ordered across the elements of the list...
[13:44] herman Bergson: what this is about is about the semantics of moral judgements

13:45] herman Bergson: it is about the question: can moral judgements be true or false, or dont thet have a truth value
[13:45] Lovey Dayafter: whose moral judgements?
[13:45] herman Bergson: anybody's
[13:46] herman Bergson: and is a suggested in my lecture of today...moral judgements can have factual content
[13:46] Apmel Ibbetson: is there a moral above surviving?
[13:46] BrainCrave OHare: thinking apmel
[13:46] herman Bergson: the dichotomy feelings/ sensory experiences is artificial
[13:46] Apmel Ibbetson: come on!!
[13:46] itsme Frederix: are moral judgement not like a "law", doesn't matter if true (a law is most certain neither true or false)
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme that is one approach ..duty ethics
[13:47] herman Bergson: or the Golden Rule
[13:47] itsme Frederix: give me another approach please
[13:48] herman Bergson: prescriptivism assumes that moral judgements are a kind of prescriptions (laws to act upon) too
[13:48] itsme Frederix: thats about the same
13:49] herman Bergson: But who justifies and how to justify your laws Itsme?
[13:49] itsme Frederix: the one obeying is justifying
[13:49] herman Bergson: but give him a reason to obey
[13:50] Cailleach Shan: Fear
[13:50] BrainCrave OHare: life
[13:50] itsme Frederix: turns out well, pragmatism
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: wealth
[13:50] Ninoo Vita ist online
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: love, kindness
[13:50] herman Bergson: ok...there you come in the realm of factual statements related to moral judgements
[13:50] Apmel Ibbetson: the last time was here herman .said someting on the line of being an evolutionist.. moral has to do with what´s good for the species..NOW he say she is somewhere from 1 to t´3 on the board..those three are about syntax..come on!!'
[13:51] itsme Frederix: at last there is always faction (presumed)
[13:51] herman Bergson: here we go in the direction of utilitarianism

[13:52] herman Bergson: No Apmel..they are about descriptive statements that can be true or false
[13:52] itsme Frederix: well util... is a way to survive (for what purpose I do not know)
[13:52] Apmel Ibbetson: only syntax can be true or false
[13:52] itsme Frederix: sorry 2 discussions
[13:52] Apmel Ibbetson: that is math
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: hmm
[13:52] Apmel Ibbetson: truth doesn´t exist outside that
[13:52] herman Bergson: No Apmel..
[13:52] Apmel Ibbetson: yes herman
[13:53] Apmel Ibbetson: there is no truth outside of math
[13:53] herman Bergson: what is meant that the staement "John is a man" and "John is honest" have the same syntax
[13:53] herman Bergson: but a different semantics
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: Godel, Apmel
[13:53] Marley Blogfan ist offline
[13:53] Apmel Ibbetson: it is the only syntax where you know what you talk about when you say s´omething is true
[13:54] Apmel Ibbetson: notwithstanding godel
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: no, and on its own terms
[13:54] herman Bergson: And what I am after is analyzing the semantics of moral judgements away from the simplistic subjective/objective dichotomy
[13:54] itsme Frederix: Apmel that is 1900 talk, read Russell and others, they gave up
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: how can you withstand him?
[13:54] Apmel Ibbetson: a lot of math can not tell what is true or not either
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:54] Apmel Ibbetson: but some parts can
[13:55] Apmel Ibbetson: änd that is all there is to truth
[13:55] Apmel Ibbetson: no itsme no
[13:55] itsme Frederix: seems an ethical statement about holy mat(h)ers
[13:55] Ninoo Vita ist offline
[13:55] herman Bergson: I think it is a reduction of reality...
[13:55] Apmel Ibbetson: no..i just don´t think that hermans scheme can be defended
[13:56] herman Bergson: a lot of statements arent mathematical but factual
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: truth is partial and partially known -- perhaps
[13:56] Apmel Ibbetson: facts are a whole other game herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: the truth of such statements is based on agreed methods of confirmation or refutation
13:57] herman Bergson: And such statements are not just opinions
[13:57] Apmel Ibbetson: that is science..and science never claim to be true
[13:57] itsme Frederix: practical truth and holy truth
[13:57] Ninoo Vita ist online
[13:57] Apmel Ibbetson: just workable
[13:57] herman Bergson: Sience never claims to be false, you mean
[13:57] itsme Frederix: pragmatism and idealism
[13:57] herman Bergson: Science claims to be (highly) probable at least
[13:57] Apmel Ibbetson: well it works
[13:58] itsme Frederix: I quit, interesting but bedtime for me
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Greetings
[13:58] Daruma Boa: bye
[13:58] herman Bergson: Night Itsme
[13:58] Lovey Dayafter: nite
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: there is what science claims to do and what scientists do...
[13:58] Apmel Ibbetson: NN
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Its
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ye slol
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: and i have to go now too
[13:58] Cailleach Shan: Herman... it seems to me if you leave out the "subjective/objective dichotomy... there is nothing left.... to me all moral judgments are based on enculturated data.
[13:58] Daruma Boa: bye gemma
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: alas, me, too
[13:59] Sexyleggs Beliveau ist online
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: thanks for the amazing lecture
[13:59] Daruma Boa: bye abraxas
[13:59] herman Bergson: You should have a closer look at the metaphysical subjectivity and objectivity distinction of Searle, Cailleach
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: c u all nexttime :D
[14:00] Apmel Ibbetson: searle is hopelessly confused
[14:00] Cailleach Shan: OK.... I'll give it a whilr.
[14:00] Cailleach Shan: whirl.
[14:00] oola Neruda: if napoleon was killed in a plane crash then napoleon is dead ... napoleon was not killed in a plan crash...therefore napoleon is not dead
[14:00] Apmel Ibbetson: in what world oola?
[14:00] Daruma Boa: ;_)
[14:00] Apmel Ibbetson: we live in a multiverse
[14:01] herman Bergson: I am sorry oola , but that is logically incorrect
[14:01] oola Neruda: my point being that it is still symantics
[14:01] Apmel Ibbetson: and logic has nothing to do with it
[14:01] herman Bergson: when the antecedence is false the consequence cant be true
[14:01] oola Neruda: and in some of the things being said today... i don't feel that the whole picture is being seen
[14:02] Apmel Ibbetson: read up on quantum mechanics herman.:)
[14:02] Cailleach Shan: Are you going to tell us where you are on the list Herman?
[14:02] oola Neruda: which can lead to error
[14:02] herman Bergson: About 3 and 2 and 1 Cailleach
[14:03] herman Bergson: in that order ㋡
[14:03] Cailleach Shan: mmmmm Cal thinks she will take the list and contemplate overnight!
[14:04] Daruma Boa: mh, must leave. bye and see you thursday
[14:04] herman Bergson: Ok, class dismissed ㋡

13f What is Evolutionary Epistemology?

It was 1978, that I finally left the university. I had spend 8 years there. Six to get my grade in philosophy and 2 as an assistant professor for philosophy. I was a teacher of philosophy till 1986.

From 1986 till 2008 I spent my time on teaching computer classes at an Academy if Fine Art and spent little time on keeping track of new developments in philosophy.

That is not such a problem, because the developments in philosophy go slow, incomparable with the super fast developments of the digital world I was working in then.

I kept an eye on the development of Artificial Intelligence and its a bit disappointing results after 1986, but what I have missed completely was a new development in epistemology itself: evolutionary epistemology.

Evolutionary epistemology is the most controversial, the most fascinating and the most difficult discipline within philosophy today. It is controversial because it declares other philosophical disciplines bankrupt,

and explains itself as part of the sciences. At the same time, it is a fascinating and difficult discipline because of its inter- and transdisciplinary character.

Philosophy can be divided into two domains: an ontological domain that examines what exists; and an epistemological domain that examines how we can gain knowledge of that what exists. Evolutionary epistemology obviously is part of the latter domain.

It was Popper who in 1972(?) said : More than forty years ago I proposed the conjecture that this is also the method by which we acquire our knowledge of the extemal world: we produce conjectures, or hypotheses. try them out and reject those that do not fit. This is a method of critical selection, if we look at it closely."

Popper refers here to is work Logik der Forschung, 1934 (as The Logic of Scientific Discovery in English translation 1959). Remarkable , that it took 25 years before this book was translated, by the way, speaking of how fast developments in philosophy evolve.

He felt closely related with a Darwinian view on the development of knowledge, as he says: "Natural selection has destroyed the proof or the miraculous specific intervention of the Creator.

But it has left us with the marvel of the creativeness of the universe, of life, and of the human mind. Although science has nothing to say about a peronal Creator, the fact of the emergence of novelty, and of creativity, can hardly be denied."

This is even more clearly illustrated by the next quote: " I conjecture that life, and later also mind, have emerged in a universe that was, up to a certain time, lifeless and mindless.

Life, or living matter, somehow emerged from nonliving matter; and it doesn ot seem completely impossible that we shall one day know how this happened."

It is clear that Popper was one of the first who propagated an evolutionary interpretation of the growth of knowledge, namely by conjecture and refutation.

This reminds me of a discussion I had yesterday with someone who claimed that the thesis that we have no absolute truth is selfcontradictory, as this thesis is regarded as absolutely true.

But that is a fundamental mistake. This thesis is not absolutely true at all. It is an epistemological conjecture and everyone is free to come forward with the final refutation of this conjecture. That is how human knowledge evolves.

Quine(1969) held the view that instead of trying to ground science, outside of science, in a first philosophy, a fundamental epistemology, we should ground science, in science itself. And the evolution theory or neurobilologie, for instance, are good candidates for this task.

Quine believed that the natural sciences would somehow show the exact relation between the world, humans and the language uttered by human beings. Central in this view is still the knowing human being.

Evolutionary epistemology however, understands the knowledge relation not as a relation between a knower and a knowable world, nor as a relation between different knowers, but rather as a relation between an organism and its environment

The authors in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
say: "Evolutionary Epistemology is a naturalistic approach to epistemology, which emphasizes the importance of natural selection in two important roles.

In the first role, selection is the generator and the maintainer of the
reliability of our senses and cognitive mechanisms, as well as the ‘fit’ between those mechanisms and the world.

In the second role, trial and error learning and the evolution of scientific theories are construed as selection
processes. (2001)

And here we write 2001. Due to the fact that I answered the question "What is knowledge?" in a totally different way than Stephen Law did in his book, I have found the Missing Link in my personal philosophical knowledge.

And exciting discovery although it is a logical consequence of the influence of Popper and later Quine on the development of epistemology. Evolutionary Epistemology fits in seamlessly into my personal philosophical program for the future.

As for us here, let's move on to the nex question coming Thursday.


The Discussion

[13:28] herman Bergson: So much for today...if you have any questions or remarks...:-)
[13:29] oola Neruda: this sounds sort of like the normal scientific method... in what way do you see it as different
[13:29] herman Bergson: No it is the normal scientific method....
[13:29] oola Neruda: seeing if it works
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: If Quine grounds science in science, how does that square with the Theorem of Incompleteness (or does that apply here?)
[13:30] herman Bergson: But more important is that there are fundamental basic philosophical assumptions made here
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...that is the important issue here
[13:31] herman Bergson: The thing is..it doesnt matter....
[13:31] herman Bergson: we dont need to proof the completeness of knowledge...
[13:31] herman Bergson: we just need to make our conjectures...
[13:32] herman Bergson: it is open to anyone to refute them
[13:32] Frederick Hansome: can evolutionary epistemology be considered as falsifiable?
[13:32] herman Bergson: that is how knowledge grows
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes of course..
[13:32] herman Bergson: can you falsify evolution theory?
[13:32] Frederick Hansome: hardly
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is a tricky debate....
[13:33] Frederick Hansome: but there is concrete evidence for evolution
[13:33] herman Bergson: well that is the point...there is evidence for evolution and the evolution is the evidence
[13:34] herman Bergson: there are some who claim that the thesis of evolution is a tautology...
[13:34] herman Bergson: I didnt dig into the details..just heard about it...
[13:34] Frederick Hansome: what evidence do we have for evol. epist?
[13:34] herman Bergson: and you cant falsify a tautology
[13:35] herman Bergson: the emergence of mind...the growth of knowledge I would say Frederick
[13:35] Frederick Hansome: good
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: we have us, and evolutionary theory that speaks of us as a species that evolved in the mesocosmos and therefore had "epistemological" needs
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: we don't have to see the world "as it is", we just must be able to act in it
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: and apparently we are
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam and Evolutionary epistemology goes further...
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: there is a good article in the stanford
[13:37] herman Bergson: it does not just look at the human being as a knowing individual..
[13:37] herman Bergson: every organism interacting with its environment is a knowledge system....
[13:37] herman Bergson: for instance...how does a bee see its environment..or a cat...
[13:38] Myriam Brianna: as it needs
[13:38] herman Bergson: we are just a special case in this kind of questioning
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: it would be difficult to locate the "individual," in any case
[13:38] herman Bergson: what do you mean Repose?
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: the more i try to find myself, the more difficult it becomes to do so
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i am a system
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i guess
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: a strange loop :)
[13:40] herman Bergson: I see...yes....that is an interesting subject....epistemologically....it is about personal identy....
[13:40] herman Bergson: We could discuss that certainly some other time
[13:41] herman Bergson: Just search on personal identity in philosophical literature...you get lost in no time..:-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: so much is published about that subject
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: ok :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...I think we certainly have touched a few fundamental issues regarding the question What is knowledge
[13:42] herman Bergson: and we, or at least I have taken a stand
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i would say so
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is...I already did when I was a student
[13:43] herman Bergson: But it is nice to discover that epistemology went on
[13:43] Object: Sartre Placebo, thank you for your vote !
[13:43] herman Bergson: To resume a few issues...
[13:44] herman Bergson: First of all..ontologically I claim there is an external world..
[13:44] herman Bergson: Second I say that I can know that world by conjecture and falsification of my conjextures...
[13:44] herman Bergson: This impolies that I assume that I get closer to a truth that is not just dependent on my personal opinion
[13:45] herman Bergson: So I assume that by our cognitive processes we get closer to a truth we never know completely
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: i think never
[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: cannot ever
[13:46] herman Bergson: But the mos timportant conclusion for me is that we dont accept relativism or extreme skepticism..
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:47] herman Bergson: You could say....I know there is something out there..!
[13:47] herman Bergson: In fact already what Kant said when he refered to Das Ding an Sich....the Thing as Such
[13:48] herman Bergson: We never can know it because our mind adds its own ways of knowing things to our experiences
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: we always come back to that yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes...Gemma
[13:48] herman Bergson: we do...
[13:49] herman Bergson: But we are not prisoners in our own mind...
[13:49] herman Bergson: we are knowledge systems that interact with an environment that is not identical with the content of our sensory experiences
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: we can build up our experience.. and be open minded
[13:50] herman Bergson: Which means....the fundamental ontological question is....how do we know there is a real world independent of our mind.
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: Too many of us ARE prisoners in our own mind, all those who do not think and examine
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: so we come nearer to the truth .... step by step.. little by little
[13:50] Myriam Brianna: that at least is a hypothesis that has shown itself to work
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: open mind is essential... i think
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice...is some way we do...
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: evolutionary ontology?
[13:51] herman Bergson: not sure if it already exists Repose :-)
[13:51] Sartre Placebo: i had to think about evolutionary psychology when i read today´s title :P
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: well, all things were one at the moment of ...ummm...manifestation?
[13:52] herman Bergson: evolutionary psychology is already a chapter of science
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: in cosmology?
[13:52] Sartre Placebo: cosmology is empirical based while ontological is rational ?
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: thus, things cohere ontologically. knowledge is possible...
[13:53] herman Bergson: welll if it is about coherence then it is about the coherence between our theories and the world
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: all one has to do is look back at the meager measure of time we have had in the now 'mindful' world and know you are the witness to that sam evolutionary intertretation of knowledge
[13:54] herman Bergson: that is the interaction between the knowing individual and the environment in a Darwinian sense
[13:55] Sartre Placebo: i found an interesting podcast series what might be related to todays topic, sadly this one is in german, it´s called beweistheorien
[13:55] Sartre Placebo: http://www3.ub.uni-freiburg.de/fileadmin/ub/xml/itu-09_beweistheorien.xml
[13:55] herman Bergson: What is that Sartre?
[13:56] Sartre Placebo: the lecturer goes back into the history of reasoning from parmenides to today
[13:56] herman Bergson: interesting....
[13:56] herman Bergson: I should have a lok at that
[13:56] herman Bergson: look
[13:57] herman Bergson: What I want to thank you all for is that I have learned really a lot from these lectures on epistemology..
[13:57] herman Bergson: Couldnt have happened without your presence
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: w0oh0o!
[13:57] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[13:58] Frederick Hansome: thank you, herman. Well done.
[13:58] herman Bergson: When you reread the lectures in the blog, I think you find dozens of leads to dig into the subject deeper..
[13:58] Myriam Brianna: a thx and a yvw ^^
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: Thanks very much!
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ahh that was an interesting hour!!! herman and class!!, thanks for your knowledge, over the knowledge, now I know more from knowledge :-)) I love this sentence!! byebye all see you on thursday :o)
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must go :-(
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: thursday
[13:59] herman Bergson: I thank you all for your enthousiasm and (Lindenlike) PATIENCE :-)
[13:59] Myriam Brianna: cya Bergfrau :)
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: c ya berg
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman
[13:59] Myriam Brianna snickers
[13:59] herman Bergson: Thank you
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: bye bergfrau!
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: lol
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: time to go anyway
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: it is 2
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye :-)
[14:00] herman Bergson: Ok..thank you all and CLass Dismissed ..see you next Thursday!
[14:00] Myriam Brianna waves
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor

13e What is knowledge? An answer.....

It is about time that we come up with an answer on the question "What is knowledge?" And today I'll give one. The first step is a discussion of a philosophical assumption,

namely the idea or belief that there exists one ultimate truth, and that it is the task of philosophy to reveal this fixed point, We call it truth or absolute certainty, somthing that is epistemologically beyond any doubt.

This belief has been supported for a long time. Especially philosophers of the Wiener Kreis, the Logical Positivists. are a modern example of it. But where does this belief come from, or is there someone who even dares to say that we KNOW that there is absolute truth?

I am on the side of science and of rationality, but I am against those exaggerated claims for science that have sometimes been, rightly, denounced as scientism .

I am on the side of the search of truth and of intellectual daring in the search for truth; but I am against intellectual arrogance, and especially against the misconceived claim that we have the truth in our pockets, or that we can approach certainty.

It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about ultimate questions - about the riddles of existence, or about man's task in the world.

The fact that science cannot make any pronouncements about ethical principles has been misininterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics.

When I began with "I am on the side of...." you were reading my words, but it was Karl Popper (1994+), on of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, who wrote them down in his article "Natural selection and the Emergence of Mind" (1972?)

Thence we may conclude that it is an irrational belief that we are able to KNOW the absolute or ultimate truth, or have undubitable certainty, but this does NOT automatically imply that skepticism or relativism are right, or that is everything just a matter of conventions.

The means which we have to estabish knowledge, even allthough it is in a provisory sense, is our rationality and our logic. So what we call knowledge is the totallity of our beliefs, which have stand the test so far. And this is not just some arbitray matter.

Take for instance the 5 Minutes thesis: the thesis that the earth and everything in and on it came into existence just five minutes ago. Even with the most acurate logic this is irrefutable.....that is...logically.

If we take that belief as rational and would add it to all our other scientific beliefs/knowledge, then we have to drop a huge amount of beliefs in regard to time and space and time and history as irrational.

This cant be our intention, so we decide that it is more rational to ignore the 5 Minutes thesis, then to drop our beliefs about time and space and history.

The position we have arrived at is something like this: scientific theories, and any other claims to knowledge, can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them.

Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastively, normatively evaluated. They are either falsifiable and thus empirical (in a very broad sense), or not falsifiable and thus non-empirical. Those claims to knowledge that are potentially falsifiable can then be admitted to the body of empirical science.

And so we have arrived at an epistemological position, which is closely related to critical rationalism. Let me end with a nice quote from Wiki:

Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief.

It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years.

And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: So much for today :-)
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks....^_^
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: well i always that was true through all the discussions
[13:24] herman Bergson: You seem disappointed?!
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: wow total silence
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: no
[13:24] Myriam Brianna: nah, full ack
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: WOOOOOOOO
[13:25] herman Bergson: Finally a philosophicla agreement :-)
[13:25] Alarice Beaumont: well
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:25] Frederick Hansome: Well, could it all be simply summarized?
[13:25] herman Bergson: Amazing..we even dont need to vote :-)
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well..the most interesting point is, that there is a claim for the objectivity of knowledge
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:26] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm
[13:27] herman Bergson: that is what is meant that skepticism nor relativism have won
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but I never accepted that
[13:27] herman Bergson: And another closely related philosophical view is that of realism...
[13:28] herman Bergson: the idea that there really exists a reality independent of our mind
[13:28] herman Bergson: that is is not our mind that creates reality
[13:28] herman Bergson: but that it is an interaction with something 'outthere'
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm I dontadhere to that
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: its easy to prove
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: difficult.. there is a reality which every person experiences differently
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is easily said Alarice but the facts are against it...
[13:29] herman Bergson: if that really were the case science wouldnt be possible
[13:29] Frederick Hansome: Why don't you adhere to that. Abraxas?
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: I think reality is not independent
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: from the mind
[13:30] herman Bergson: well, Abraxas...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Will the world still exist when mankind is extinct?
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: nope
[13:30] herman Bergson: what do you think?
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:30] Frederick Hansome: Did the world exist before mankind?
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes...we have proof of that Frederick
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: noone can experience it,,, so its not there
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: I wonder if that is what the dinosaurs thought
[13:31] herman Bergson: that are two different ontological categories Abraxas...
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: ah, but that is something else.
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:32] herman Bergson: the existens of experiences and the existence of that IT
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: ah i see what u mean
[13:32] herman Bergson: We have paleontological proof that the world existed before the mind emerged
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: ah but that proof comes from the mind
[13:33] Myriam Brianna: but there was of course a time when no mind experienced it
[13:33] Alarice Beaumont: and it surely will exist afterwards... logical thinking?!
[13:33] herman Bergson: or what do we experience when we look into that prehistoric past where man did not exist?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes..but experiencing an environment doesnt give it reality
[13:33] Myriam Brianna: but it is nonsense to chain experience and existence to each other
[13:34] herman Bergson: it gives reality to sense experiences
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: that was a fashion, when misunderstood quantum physics hit the shelves, but it does not follow
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Myriam....but it has along history in philosophy
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: but then... why dont people all experience the world in the same way
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: they dont
[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that that is a rather rude generalisation Abraxas....
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: because your semantic environment, your nervous system form your emic realitiy as opposed to an hypothetical etic one
[13:35] Frederick Hansome: because we experience the world based on our own unique experiences, thus differently
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: maybe I'm a rude guy
[13:35] herman Bergson: the stone that falls on my and your head is experiences as painfull..definitely...
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:36] herman Bergson: No crude is the word I guess
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: maybe I over simplify
[13:36] herman Bergson: but the pain experience is subjective....the stone and the response of our nervous system is a factual thing
[13:36] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:37] herman Bergson: we both end up in the hospital :-)
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:37] Alarice Beaumont: lool
[13:37] herman Bergson: so the proposition that everyone experiences the world differently I would describe as not rational
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmm
[13:38] Frederick Hansome: I don't agree herman
[13:38] Lovey Dayafter: some people enjoy pain
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:38] herman Bergson: or actually even empirically falsified....we both are in the hospital Abraxas :-)
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: it is true, but that doesn't point to a world that is created/dependant by/to cognitive states
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Lovey..but even tho Abraxas loved his fractured skull he had to be treated like me in the hospital :-)
[13:40] herman Bergson: No Myriam...our cognitive states dont create reality..
[13:40] oola Neruda: if one has to qualify a response... then can it be taken as an abosolute
[13:40] herman Bergson: indeed
[13:40] herman Bergson: what do youmean oola?
[13:40] oola Neruda: well ... to eliminate other possibilities... and say... in this situation this happens
[13:41] oola Neruda: that leaves a lot of other situations unadressed
[13:41] Frederick Hansome: our cognitive states do not create reality, but they certainly creted our PERCEPTION of reality
[13:41] oola Neruda: that overlap
[13:41] herman Bergson: I would say it in an other way oola...
[13:41] Frederick Hansome: thus creating our reality for all practical purposes
[13:41] Myriam Brianna: and btw, there's an ethical reason not to subsribe to non-falsifiable beliefs. There's no way to disproof them, but they catapult your right out of rational discourse
[13:41] herman Bergson: in fact that is what every scientific theory does....give the 'absolute' answer.....
[13:42] herman Bergson: or actually open the doors wide for falsicication
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Frederick..to some extend we create a subjective reality
[13:43] herman Bergson: but it is always put to the test...
[13:43] herman Bergson: and then we discover that we have to re-evaluate our ideas about our reality
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: hallo hello hi holla
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: rodney
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam..the pursuit of knowledge actualy presuposes ethics
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:44] herman Bergson: Qwark!
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: ssory
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: If one decides to believe in something because of its emotional appeal without any (apparent) evidence that would justify this particular belief, s/he gives up any basis for a rational discussion. Take e.g. someone who, against all inter-subjective evidence and probability, chooses to subsribe to strong dualism.
[13:44] Alarice Beaumont: Hey QWAKR!!
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: Hey Qwark m8
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: Now confront this someone with a racist, claiming that "the Aryan" is a superior race and chosen by nature to rule. How would our dualist argument this claim?
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol this hallogesture
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: huhu quark :-)
[13:44] Qwark Allen:Helloooooo!
[13:44] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[13:45] Qwark Allen: sry delay
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont paid you L$100.
[13:45] herman Bergson: You are running too fast here Myriam...:-)
[13:45] Myriam Brianna: He can not, without appearing hypocritical, point to the fact that it doesn't correlate in any way to the world - as we percieve it - since he himself gave up this as a possible justification to believe in something when he took up dualism. In short: The integration of unrealistic assumptions into one's world-model has ethical implications, and those are not comfortable.
[13:45] Myriam Brianna: sorry ^^
[13:45] herman Bergson: and read the rules of the class :-)
[13:45] Qwark Allen: it seems i'm taking the place of rodney, by getting here late
[13:46] herman Bergson: They will rezz soon behind me..you couldnt know, Myriam :-)
[13:46] Myriam Brianna: yeah, the 3 lines *g* - I hope a single transgression is forgiven ;)
[13:46] herman Bergson smiles
[13:47] herman Bergson: I understand what you say but it is a bit too much all together
[13:47] herman Bergson: I mean...you already have discarded dualism...
[13:48] herman Bergson: for those who dont know what is meant by that..
[13:48] herman Bergson: In fact Descartes invented it....there is a mind and a body...two different entities
[13:49] herman Bergson: some say no....mind and body are manifestations of one substance...say molecules of the body
[13:49] herman Bergson: we just use two different languages...a psych language and a physical language , but they refer to the very same relaity....matter
[13:49] Lovey Dayafter: can they be two and one at the same time?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well Lovey....elementary logic forbids that....one can not be one and two at the same time
[13:50] Lovey Dayafter: where does the soul fit in?
[13:50] Qwark Allen: how are you
[13:50] herman Bergson: it isnt a settled debate at all...
[13:51] herman Bergson: we have a mind and a body.....or do we only have a body?
[13:51] herman Bergson: Where I even leave out people who assume that we also have a soul
[13:52] Lovey Dayafter: some people could have a body without a mind I guess
[13:52] Frederick Hansome: the mind is the function of the body (brain portion) like digestion if the function of the intestines
[13:52] herman Bergson: but what means function Frederick?
[13:52] Frederick Hansome: thin king, feeling behaving
[13:53] herman Bergson: is the mind the result of the working of the body?
[13:53] Frederick Hansome: those are functuions
[13:53] herman Bergson: means function purpose?
[13:53] Frederick Hansome: many agree that there can be no mind without a living brain
[13:54] Myriam Brianna: and the debate about strong dualism I see as settled. I mean, I could subsribe to Epicurean physics for aesthetic reasons (and my claims are, in the end, not falsifiable), but again I would be way off ^.-
[13:54] Frederick Hansome: function and purpose are different
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes..I agree to that
[13:54] herman Bergson: I agree Myriam..:-)
[13:55] herman Bergson: Maybe the relation mind body could be seen as the relation between a candle and it s flame
[13:55] herman Bergson: the flame can not exist without the candle
[13:55] Violette McMinnar: hmmm
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: at this point it is possible to see the changes in the brain when one is thinking ... they show where the mind is working in the brain
[13:56] Lovey Dayafter: which one is the flame?
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma, they know where the rationality and the irrationality are located in the brain
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: but we do not see the "mind", because there is nothing to see. It is an emergent phenomen that disappears when you dig for it (in my opinion, that is)
[13:56] Violette McMinnar: what if the brain reacts to minds thoughts?
[13:56] herman Bergson: The mind would be the female Lovey
[13:57] Lovey Dayafter: why not the other way?
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: it does
[13:57] Violette McMinnar: so they are not the same
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: scientists wire people and then give them stimuli and located the reaction in the brain
[13:57] herman Bergson: because the candle can exist without the flame like the body can exist without the mind
[13:58] Violette McMinnar: can the mind exist without the body?
[13:58] herman Bergson: But I think we are a bit drifting away from our main theme of today...
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: ah but the flame gives it purpose
[13:58] Frederick Hansome: no
[13:58] Lovey Dayafter: how can the body exist without the mind?
[13:58] Violette McMinnar thinks YES
[13:59] Frederick Hansome: how can the mind exist without the body (brain)?
[13:59] herman Bergson: So it think that we leave the mind body controversy for another long series of lectures ^_^
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: hihi.. surely can... at least with some peoople i sometimes have the impression
[13:59] Violette McMinnar: mind is not the brain ;p
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: then what IS it?
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm
[13:59] herman Bergson: The main point of today is that all our knowledge is in fact belief
[14:00] Lovey Dayafter: the brain is part of the body, mind is not
[14:00] herman Bergson: could we drop that subject?
[14:00] Alarice Beaumont: well.. that has to be discussed lol
[14:00] herman Bergson: plz
[14:00] Frederick Hansome: except that which can be empericaly established
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: so the mind exists outside the body?
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: i think not
[14:00] herman Bergson: You really are a subborn class ^_^
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: lolololol
[14:01] Lovey Dayafter: hahaha
[14:01] Lovey Dayafter: we listen so well
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: you always knew that
[14:01] herman Bergson: I know the mind body problem is a big issue..
[14:01] Alarice Beaumont: do you put it on the shedule??
[14:01] herman Bergson: And I love to do a series of lectures on that subject too..
[14:01] herman Bergson: definitely
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: great... cause that will be interesting...
[14:02] herman Bergson: We can ad it to the options of future projects
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: lol like everything we discuss here
[14:02] herman Bergson: It is becoming hard to choose
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: has the choice been made for the future lectures?????
[14:03] herman Bergson: no...I didnt..
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: ??? we voted
[14:03] herman Bergson: But the Mind-Body theme is a nic eoption :-)
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: well we voted!!!!!!!!!
[14:03] Myriam Brianna: a very nice one
[14:03] herman Bergson: yes but that vote was rather inconclusive
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmm
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: why
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: it wasn't on the board ... was it?
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: no
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: how could it be inconclusive
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: was there a tie?????
[14:04] herman Bergson: well only a few voted so far and soem voted both options :-)
[14:04] herman Bergson: kind of yes..
[14:04] Frederick Hansome: The mind body connection will be the topic at Platos's Academy on October 19
[14:04] Lovey Dayafter: I vote for Brain-Body, not Mind-Body
[14:05] Frederick Hansome: A LM is my picks
[14:05] herman Bergson: ok Frederick...willnit be just one lecture?
[14:05] herman Bergson: or a series?
[14:05] Frederick Hansome: not a lecture, just an open discussion
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[14:06] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....
[14:06] Gemma Cleanslate: open discussions are a riot
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: lol voice or wirtten?
[14:06] Frederick Hansome: but yes, only one session
[14:06] Abraxas Nagy: so they are fun
[14:06] herman Bergson: Well this shows again the difference...this is a class not an open discussion...
[14:06] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly
[14:06] Frederick Hansome: the moderator is in voice, participants in voice or typing
[14:06] Abraxas Nagy: true
[14:06] herman Bergson: No voice here...
[14:07] herman Bergson: typing gives you time to think
[14:07] herman Bergson: for instance..you type a reply...reread it and think..no...wrong response and cancel it
[14:07] Gemma Cleanslate: many times lolololl
[14:07] herman Bergson: in voice it was already public...
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont grinning..: sounds like me lol
[14:08] Abraxas Nagy: and me
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: ,-)
[14:08] herman Bergson: Yes we all now and then refrain from pressing the ENTER
[14:08] herman Bergson: I think this is a special quality of this kind of communication
[14:09] herman Bergson: and it is good for you health..all that physical activity...even when it are only your fingers..:-)
[14:09] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[14:09] Gemma Cleanslate: all see you tuesday I hope
[14:09] Alarice Beaumont: oh yes.. bye Gemma :-)
[14:09] Myriam Brianna: bye Gemma :)
[14:09] herman Bergson: Yes..I think it is time to end our discussion :-)
[14:09] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[14:09] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye :-) Gemma
[14:10] Alarice Beaumont: I need to go too.. nite nite everybody!
[14:10] Lovey Dayafter: bye everybody
[14:10] Abraxas Nagy: nite Alarice
[14:10] Qwark Allen: night
[14:10] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:10] Abraxas Nagy: bye Lovey
[14:10] herman Bergson: so Class dismissed :-)
[14:10] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation

13d New hope for a theory of knowledge

Last Thursday we walked though the Valley of Skepticism and seemed to loose hope on certain knowledge, on adequately justified beliefs.

At the end what was left to us was rationality and logic and still the question how to arrive at adequately justified beliefs, at certain knowledge.

Finding an adequate justification for beliefs is probably not the best strategy. We even can question our drive to search for it, like Hans Albert (1921) did.

According to him, all attempts to get a certain justification must fail. He gave three arguments:

[1] All justification in pursuit of certain knowledge has also to justify the means of justification and therefore there can be no end.

[2] One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or anything else, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.

[3] Eventually one will run into the application of a circular argument.

Once having given up the classical idea of certain knowing one can stop the process of justification where one wants to stop. This, however, presupposes that one is ready to start critical thinking at this point anew if necessary.

Thus, Hans Albert suggests the next strategy:
* Don't look backwards to the solid basis of your thinking, but look always forward to the consequences.
* In this way no problem arises to justify this non-justificationalism.

With this suggestions he is in line with the philosophical and psychological ideas of William James (1842 - 1910). You hear already echos of utilitarianism and pragmatism and most important: critical rationalism.

The same argument, that justification of knowledge is not possible we find in the ideas of Gödel.

It is plain that our cognitive system contains arithmetic. It is also reasonable to suppose that it is consistent, i.e., free of contradictions (because within an inconsistent system one can prove anything, and that does not seem to be the case with us).

Now, let's assume that our cognitive system may be regarded as a formal system (i.e., that it is isomorphic to some formal system).

Under those assumptions, our cognitive system can be treated as a Gödel system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply.

What do they say? They say that we cannot prove all truths, in particular, that we cannot prove that we are consistent. The language system crashes when I try to prove the truth of the statement "I am lying."

I will get back to all these issues and relations in other lectures. Due to the question posed by Stephen Law I have come into a field of epistemology, which shows new insights and developments to me.

So I still dont regard the question as answered. I hope you'll like to follow me in my pursuit of the answer on the question "What is knowledge?"

Let's look at the epistemological questions form another angle.

The empirist say the foundation of our knowledge is in sensory experience. The rationalists say the foundation of our knowledge is found in the ratio. It is always interesting to see how the human brain likes to split up the reality in a binary way.

This is a debate that has go on for ages now and a plethora of variations has been proposed. However, now I see how these two views seem to bite in their own tails when taken standalone.

It looks as if empiricism is hopelessly caught in a circular argument, a begging the question. If you aks the empirist about the fundaments of knowledge and say: "How do you KNOW, that you have sensory experiences? His answer only could be...Well, because I see and hear for instance.

But then he uses apparently a reference to sensory experience to justify that he KNOWS, that he has sensory experiences. But is this necessarily a circularity, a begging the question?

Not at all, in my opinion....it is a misinterpretation of what really is the case. The verbalisation of a sensory experience is not a sensory experience at all. It is much more than a sensory experience.

In fact you could say that the verbal representation of a sensory experience is a kind of metalanguage, which describes another language.

However, that underlying language is not in words, but in stimuli of the central nervous system in interaction with its environment.

You could say that as soon as we verbalize our sensory experiences an other faculty of the central nervous system kicks in: the ratio. Our ability to organize, structurize and meaningfully process the stimuli, which we experience.

Looked at it from this point of view the ratio is no longer like a Kantian abstraction filled with a a permanent and unchanging collection of A PRIORI categories, but part of aliving and evolving organism.

To be continued...


The Discussion

[13:26] Frederick Hansome: The rationalists say the foundation of our knowledge is found in the ratio.
[13:27] Frederick Hansome: I still do not un derstand what this means
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:27] herman Bergson: For instance by saying that causality is what we apply to sensory experiences
[13:27] herman Bergson: well...Hume said...causality doesnt really exist...
[13:28] herman Bergson: what you see is only that event B follows after event A
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: it starts with a choice
[13:28] herman Bergson: Often, maybe as far as you ever have seen always..
[13:29] herman Bergson: but that is all you can say...So far I have seen B after A....but there is no necessary relation between the two
[13:29] herman Bergson: While the rationalist regard causality as a concept of the mind which structures sensory experiences in necessary relations
[13:29] Frederick Hansome: I understand that coorelation does not imply causation, but it does not follow that there is no cause
[[13:30] ChatNoir Talon: But I like that thing you said about thinking of the consequences of your beliefs
[13:30] ChatNoir Talon: Very pragmatistic
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes it is....
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: it 'seems' to exist when we look at events in posterioty and we would like it to exist since we are narrators. Thriving on stories, and those only work with a because.
[13:31] ChatNoir Talon: Jung claims that apart from causation there's synchroncity
[13:31] herman Bergson: you will see that epistemology tends to a pragmatic, utilitarian consequentialism or conventionalism...at least that is what some say
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes, ChatNoir, but that is a bit questionable concept..
[13:33] herman Bergson: You could say that you scientifically can prove at least the strong probability of a relation between events
[13:33] herman Bergson: Never done with synchronicity
[13:33] herman Bergson: Besides that it isnt regarded as a causal relation either
[13:33] ChatNoir Talon: Yeah, it's kind of bogus. BUT it is a fun concept to think about
[13:34] Myriam Brianna regularly falls down into the pit called Because, where she perishes with the dogs of Reason
[13:34] herman Bergson: Oh yes, I love it :-)
[13:34] Myriam Brianna snickers
[13:34] herman Bergson: What do you mean Myriam....the Post hoc Propter hoc falacy?
[13:35] Quizzle Mode chuckles
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: that plays into it, yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: That means that when we see two event happening one after the other we are easily inclined to see a causal relaation between the two, while there only is a temporal relation (one after the other)
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: sometimes a "because" is not called for, but we like to find one. Journalism is pretty much skewed for this reason
[13:36] herman Bergson: With a decent word we call that interpretation ^_^
[13:37] herman Bergson: At least we have gotten that far that we accept the second argument of Albert and drop the need of absolute justification of certainty of knowledge
[13:38] herman Bergson: at least..that is what I do :-)
[13:38] herman Bergson: with arguments of course
[13:38] ChatNoir Talon: I'm wlad qe passed that fork in the road
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:38] Myriam Brianna grins
[13:38] herman Bergson: The next step is that this does not imply that anything goes
[13:39] herman Bergson: there must be a way to tell the difference between a false belief and a true belief
[13:39] herman Bergson: In fact ..science is an example of the fact that this is possible
[13:39] ChatNoir Talon: Never. But I suppose one could approximate a good guess
[13:39] Lovey Dayafter: true is good and false is bad
[13:40] Myriam Brianna searches among her notecards, grumbling
[13:40] herman Bergson: good and bad, Lovey....yes...
[13:40] herman Bergson: this relates to utilitarian ethics
[13:40] ChatNoir Talon: Yay! ^^
[13:41] Quizzle Mode is still looking for the road upon which there is a fork
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well...science isnt about absolute certainty either....
[13:42] herman Bergson: But what is interesting is the question whether we get closer to the truth when a scientific theory is replaced by a better one?
[13:42] ChatNoir Talon: Ah, now that is more like it ;-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: Thank you, ChatNoir
[13:43] herman Bergson: In fact we ask...is there a world outthere about which we gather knowledge?
[13:43] herman Bergson: This means that we have to hold the belief that there is
[13:44] herman Bergson: and this is a belief which lacks justification
[13:44] herman Bergson: and we'll ask the question ..does it need justification, can we find an adequate justification?
[13:45] herman Bergson: If it doesnt scare you too much but that will be the next step
[13:46] herman Bergson: The philosophical issues will be: realism, critical rationalism, pragmatism and utilitarianis, if we also dig into ethics
[13:46] ChatNoir Talon grins
[[[13:48] herman Bergson: At least you got enough keywords to do some research on now :-)
[13:48] ChatNoir Talon: Homework
[13:48] Quizzle Mode laughs and rubs eyes
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: wow I'd say
[13:49] Lovey Dayafter: how many hours will that take? lol
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well Lovey...you look into the relation good = true / bad = false :-)
[13:50] Lovey Dayafter: do you agree?
[13:50] herman Bergson: realism, or naturalistic realism is also important
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is not a simple yes / no issue, Lovey...sorry
[13:51] Quizzle Mode: darn
[13:51] ChatNoir Talon: It never is, is it?
[13:51] herman Bergson: In a given context I might agree indeed
[13:52] herman Bergson: If it is regarding ethics
[13:52] herman Bergson: but a logical statement being true or false sound ok, but good or bad dont apply here
[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess your heads are spinning enough now....
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: wow yes somewhat
[13:53] ChatNoir Talon grabs onto it trying to make it stop spinning
[13:53] Lovey Dayafter: haha
[13:53] herman Bergson: So I thank your for participating again :-)
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:54] Quizzle Mode: thank you herman, much appreciated :)
[13:54] ChatNoir Talon: Thank you, Herman
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you too :-)
[13:54] Lovey Dayafter: thanks herman:-)
[13:54] Myriam Brianna purrs
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: its food for thought