Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:14 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Epistemic contextualists take the position that all knowledge is contextual.  The position can be espoused rationally.  They maintain that a knowledge claim cannot exist independant of context but carefully add the proviso that the standards for knowledge do not change with context.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 19, 2017 at 1:12 am)Khemikal Wrote: Epistemic contextualists take the position that all knowledge is contextual.  The position can be espoused rationally.  They maintain that a knowledge claim cannot exist independant of context but carefully add the proviso that the standards for knowledge do not change with context.

Cool. I'll have to look into that Smile

If you think about it, even propositional logic is contextual; each premise and [sub]conclusion is one building block in the context of an argument... the stronger the relationships and/or the more premises, the stronger the context. And then on top of that, there's the higher level context of how proofs build on top of proofs in the same way.

Actually there's a better way of putting it; premises are both arguments that need premises and premises to other arguments, so it has limitless potential for (I can't think of the word for it... like in OOP... a limitless hierarchy... just like neurons). So propositional logic can just be considered a more refined and standardised way of doing what the brain does. By adhering to its rules and standards it forces it to reach good conclusions so the potential for the discovery of objective truth, manifested in contexts, is pretty much limitless Smile
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Thanks K Smile ...this looks very promising:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conte...stemology/

It's a big article with a lot to take in, but I'm certainly very interested, and want to approach it the same way as I will now be trying to do for my course; namely attempting to distill it down to its key premises and arguments... so thanks for that opportunity as well; for an interesting looking subject to be my first guinea pig for that practice Wink

But from a skim read it definitely looks very promising, but it doesn't represent a universally held view; there are differences of opinion on what context means/what types of contexts are important, and also a distinction made between "attributor" - ie the person uttering a 'knowledge-attributing' sentence - and "subject" - the subject it refers to - contexts, with "attributor contextualism" being the main focus of the article. When I was talking about it before I was mainly thinking of it in subject terms... ie the relationships between different aspects of some 'objective' puzzle to solve through formal logic or otherwise. But though novel to me, this attributor perspective looks equally intriguing and is no different in terms of context dynamics than the other. The attributor is basically the person making the claim to knowledge... the person making the propositional statement. Though I'm getting it more and more as it sinks in I'm going to wait before expanding on that... but it's definitely something I want to seriously look into now, because either way... subject or attributor... it looks like a theory I could get behind and indeed looks, at first sight, like it expresses a lot of what I've been saying but in more logical language. After all, this logical approach (of epistemic contextualism) and my approach thus far do have one thing in common; examples based on phenomenal experience therefore since the phenomenal and the neural are equivalent for me, there should be no problem in following their logic and and relating it to NNs. It would be great for me too to have a school of thought to join, because then I wouldn't have to keep trotting out neural networks to people who don't care Wink  And also it might solve another problem that's been bugging me regarding my course and exams... namely how the fuck do I express my own position on certain of these questions without waffling on about NNs? Wink So to have many of my views pre-packaged as it were, so I can just say 'I'm a epistemic contextualist, therefore such and such' would be great Wink
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
@K. In my course, as I said we have to study direct realism vs indirect realism vs idealism, and two imo very reasonable objections are made to direct realism... the arguments from the variation of perception and from illusion... but both are countered with imo a very weak response in the form of these 'relational' 'secondary' properties... that rather than being they just look that way and look is a relational property. Do you think direct's counter is weak? I think it is... I think it just looks like word play that would allow them to have an answer for every reasonable objection. But I've come up with an objection and I'd like your opinion on whether you think it's sound... so I can use it in my essays/exams Wink Accepting one of the primary properties of an object... size ("extension")... I'd call my argument the argument from sensory limitation; we can't be perceiving it directly because we have two eyes; two eyes are necessary to create a 3D perception out of two 2D detectors... so 3D object out there > two 2D detectors > computation > 3D perception in here. In other words if we were perceiving it directly, why would we need two eyes? Is that a reasonable objection?
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Questions of inference aside, that one fails on it's premise.  You don't need two eyes.  One eye with multiple reference points is more than capable.  We employ this method when constructing 3d images out of a series of 2d images.  It's the number and placement of images, not the number of detectors, at play.  That we have two eyes, in and of itself, does not suggest anything of the sort.  Bilateral symmetry points to your heredity and the limitations of biology, not a conclusion regarding direct or indirect realism.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 20, 2017 at 12:52 am)Khemikal Wrote: Questions of inference aside, that one fails on it's premise.  You don't need two eyes.  One eye with multiple reference points is more than capable.  We employ this method when constructing 3d images out of a series of 2d images.  It's the number and placement of images, not the number of detectors, at play.  That we have two eyes, in and of itself, does not suggest anything of the sort.  Bilateral symmetry points to your heredity and the limitations of biology, not a conclusion regarding direct or indirect realism.

Thank you, (clearly) I never knew that. That's very interesting. But would an objection along similar lines be valid... if a sensory limitation could be found that proves it has to be a constructed perception rather than direct? Do you think there is any such thing? Your ears for instance... again two of them... required for locating an object in 3D space? Or I suppose that might fail on account of location not being a property? Clearly I've got a long way to go, not least in coming up with sound arguments, but it's early days yet.

K, are you absolutely sure about what you said about the eyes? Cos I have a lazy eye, and no depth perception except from visual cues of comparative size... and everything is 2D to me... like a cardboard cutout... and I can't catch a ball for the same reason. I'm sorry to say it but I think you're wrong; my visual field is not properly integrated as I imagine yours is, so my own eyesight if nothing else leads me to the conclusion that two functional eyes are necessary for 3D perception.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 20, 2017 at 1:10 am)emjay Wrote: Thank you, (clearly) I never knew that. That's very interesting. But would an objection along similar lines be valid... if a sensory limitation could be found that proves it has to be a constructed perception rather than direct? Do you think there is any such thing?
I'll sleep on that one.  

Quote:Your ears for instance... again two of them... required for locating an object in 3D space? Or I suppose that might fail on account of location not being a property?
Same issue as before, actually.  You can triangulate a noise by moving your receiver, provided that the noise is static or repeats itself.   Record it in location a.  Move shop to location b.  

Quote:K, are you absolutely sure about what you said about the eyes? Cos I have a lazy eye, and no depth perception except from visual cues of comparative size... and everything is 2D to me... like a cardboard cutout... and I can't catch a ball for the same reason.
You have no concept of a sphere, you can't visualize the sphere?  The problem you're describing is one of placement.  The ball is coming at you, you're not getting multiple angles, or more accurately there isn't great enough disparity between the angles (in the arc, for example) for you to make a robust model.  That's an issue of expediency, convenience, but not of possibility.  That 3d models can be produced with sufficient 2d images isn't theoretical, it's a practical application.  We do it commercially.   You probably do it as well, unless, ofc, you're actually incapable of visualizing a ball as a sphere.  Can you imagine what the back of a baseball looks like while looking at it's front? Can you spin it around in your mind?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Visualisation is not my strong suit. I mean I know what a circle looks like, I know what a sphere looks like, but I've always taken it that I got that from its shading... an indirect cue like comparative size for distance. Everything looks flat, but shading etc gives the appearance of 3D.Are you saying I've misunderstood my own perceptions my whole life... are you saying I can see in 3D???
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I'm saying that you can, likely, create a 3d model of something from the many 2d images your single 2d detector has recorded from being in sufficiently disparate angles.  That's not going to help you catch that ball, though, lol.  I can do it faster, on the spot, without needing to move.

OFC, only you would know (or would you...lol. Wink )
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Is that what 'saccades' are for then? The rapid eye scanning movements... are they for sampling the image to create a 3D perception, like what you say above?

Eta: ninja'd your last post... I meant 'like what you say above' about the post before that.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek philosophers always knew about the causeless universe Interaktive 10 1264 September 25, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? FlatAssembler 52 3738 August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How To Tell What Is True From What Is Untrue. redpill 39 3472 December 28, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Is this Quite by Kenneth Boulding True Rhondazvous 11 1477 August 6, 2019 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Alan V
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 4174 June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11541 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 115129 September 13, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Astonished
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Angrboda 36 11285 May 28, 2017 at 1:53 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 259 24361 March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 50585 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)