(March 20, 2018 at 11:21 am)polymath257 Wrote: For example, Kant considered Euclidean geometry to be a priori. We know that is nowhere close to being the case.

Isn't all math a priori though?

nah.  If you ask a hardcore philosopher....... none of it is. If things were different math would be different. Math is posteriori.

Like what things?

EDIT: nm I googled it

Philosophy asks and answers different questions than science -- questions science can't answer, such as Popper's rationalism and the consequences which follow for scientific thought.

For my part, I see our understanding of reality as a three legged stool, consisting of equal parts science, mathematics, and philosophy. Science can no more replace philosophy than science can replace math.

(March 20, 2018 at 9:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 20, 2018 at 11:21 am)polymath257 Wrote: For example, Kant considered Euclidean geometry to be a priori. We know that is nowhere close to being the case.

Isn't all math a priori though?

Sorry, I meant he claimed it to be *synthetic* a priori. It is, instead, analytic a priori. The 'truths' of Euclidean Geometry are derived from the definitions and axioms. They do not go 'beyond' such. And the axioms may well be false in the real world.

Math is the language of science , if you can't expres a wave function it is pointless to know how the waves behave and what they mean.
For example, the Doppler effect wich is used to measure speed and drift in navigation , if you know its principle but can't express it matemathicaly the effect is just a good to know thing.

(March 20, 2018 at 9:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 20, 2018 at 11:21 am)polymath257 Wrote: For example, Kant considered Euclidean geometry to be a priori. We know that is nowhere close to being the case.

Isn't all math a priori though?

All logic including math

---

(March 20, 2018 at 9:22 pm)Khemikal Wrote: nah.  If you ask a hardcore philosopher....... none of it is.  If things were different math would be different. Math is posteriori.

Nope. Either something equates to something else or it doesn't, math, as a form of logic, doesn't deal with phenomena... unlike empiricism.

It's empirical science that is a posteriori. Truths of fact are a posteriori, truths of logic are a priori.

There are certain truths that are modal. We've been through your silliness about 2+2 possibly=5 in another universe. Nope. It doesn't matter how different things are, they still are whatever they are and 2 and 2 of whatever they are will always have the same meaning as 4 of whatever they are. Because the definition of 2+2 literally is identical to the definition of 4. It's the exact same thing. And saying that in another universe it's defined differently is exactly the same thing as talking about something else so you haven't even addressed and fathomed the modal truth I speak of. It's for exactly the same reason that it doesn't matter how different things are in another universe or another dimension... one thing is for sure there are no square circles. Talking about something other than the logically impossible and calling that a square circle doesn't solve the problem any more than pointing at a starfish and saying that from now on you're going to call it an "unmarried bachelor" which you define to be "starfish".

It's much like your failing to understand that it's not possible for consciousness to seem to seem to be real but not actually seem to be real. If it seems to seem then it seems. It's thinking in circles on your part and completely missing the point. Equivocating around and around without knowing it like some kind of Oblivious Equivocal Dervish. Perhaps I should call you OED... maybe at least you can smile at the fact it's the same acronym as Oxford English Dictionary regardless of your own repeated epic fails completely unbeknownst to you.

Hammy, I understand that you have particular point of view.  There's no reason or need for an argument about it, as I was merely communicating the existence of a disparate position, in a thread titled "what's the point of philosphy anymore"...in response to a person asking whether there was just the one position on the issue.

To be fair, you weren't exactly clear, Khem. But I had no idea there were those arguing the other side... found an interesting article on google, so thanks.

(March 21, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Hammy, I understand that you have particular point of view.  There's no reason or need for an argument about it, as I was merely communicating the existence of a disparate position, in a thread titled "what's the point of philosphy anymore"...in response to a person asking whether there was just the one position on the issue.

And I'm merely explaining my disagreement with you, and why my position is the correct one. And I'm bringing up examples of where you made similar errors in the past.

So were you just speaking of what others believe, you don't actually think math is a posteriori or that 2+2 could =5 if "things were different"?