The Wrong One

[Left Coast]

No, but how is that a worldview?

Regards
Mikkel

It is a presumption that we can and do communicate ideas to other minds using mutually agreed upon symbols which we have the ability to invent. That's quite a lot. I suppose we could quibble about whether that comprises the entirety of a "worldview." Perhaps you're more comfortable with calling it an "idea" or "concept?" If so, is your view then that individual ideas or concepts can be coherent, but no set of ideas or concepts exist that can cohere with each other? That would be hard to defend, since the idea we're discussing, which we agree is coherent, invokes smaller component ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a presumption that we can and do communicate ideas to other minds using mutually agreed upon symbols which we have the ability to invent. That's quite a lot. I suppose we could quibble about whether that comprises the entirety of a "worldview." Perhaps you're more comfortable with calling it an "idea" or "concept?" If so, is your view then that individual ideas or concepts can be coherent, but no set of ideas or concepts exist that can cohere with each other? That would be hard to defend, since the idea we're discussing, which we agree is coherent, invokes smaller component ideas.

Okay, we agree so far about language as such.
So here it is.
1. It is possible to have a coherent worldview.
2. It is not possible and all worldviews are illogical as incoherent.
3: Coherence doesn't apply to worldviews and they are as such not incoherent. It is not just possible to use the idea of coherence on worldviews.

So it is logical, illogical and alogical as without logical and illogical. Remember always to include the possibility of an exclude middle. I.e. it is not relevant to include logic in worldviews. That is my position.
Should we have a go at it?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, we agree so far about language as such.
So here it is.
1. It is possible to have a coherent worldview.
2. It is not possible and all worldviews are illogical as incoherent.
3: Coherence doesn't apply to worldviews and they are as such not incoherent. It is not just possible to use the idea of coherence on worldviews.

So it is logical, illogical and alogical as without logical and illogical. Remember always to include the possibility of an exclude middle. I.e. it is not relevant to include logic in worldviews. That is my position.
Should we have a go at it?

Regards
Mikkel

Well, no, you didnt really answer the question I asked. Do the multiple assumptions of the use of language not count as a worldview? If so, what is a worldview?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, no, you didnt really answer the question I asked. Do the multiple assumptions of the use of language not count as a worldview? If so, what is a worldview?

It includes what the world is, how we ought to behave and what good, useful, pretty and so on are. In sort in the modern sense science and the economics, politics, ethics, art, entertainment and to some what the purpose of life is.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

It includes what the world is, how we ought to behave and what good, useful, pretty and so on are. In sort in the modern sense science and the economics, politics, ethics, art, entertainment and to some what the purpose of life is.

Regards
Mikkel

I see, so basically the totality of what a person believes about everything. Elements of this will be subjective, so does that mean logic does not apply in your mind?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see, so basically the totality of what a person believes about everything. Elements of this will be subjective, so does subjectivity mean incoherence to you?

No, not that.
A is A and B is B. But it doesn't logically follow if A is B or A is not B. And if A is B to me and A is not B to you, it doesn't have to be a contradiction if A is B or A is not B are both cases of subjectivity. It is not that it is logical or not logical. It is that logic doesn't apply.
Now what if I am to decide if A is B or A is not B. They can't be both, but I can choose one or the other. So how do I decide with logic? I can't because, because logic only tell me that A can't be both B and not B.
That is the limit of logic, it is neither logical or illogical to decide between 2 different possible positions.

That is how coherence doesn't apply as: (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent or in another sense as not containing any logical contradictions.
There are no coherent worldview, because logic doesn't apply to 2 different, yet both possible decisions.
It goes further to the is-ought problem and connect to that epistemological rationalism doesn't work except for tautologies and empiricism doesn't work for subjective decisions.

Philosophers have been at it for 2000+ years and there are no coherent or rational worldview. It is not possible, because reason and logic are limited human behaviors.
It is easy to test for once you notice what goes on. We all have a set of core axiomatic beliefs, which can't be justified because of the 5 modes of Agrippa the Skeptic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

No, not that.
A is A and B is B. But it doesn't logically follow if A is B or A is not B.

That depends entirely on what A and B represent. It would logically follow that A is not B, if we agree that A and B represent two different things.

And if A is B to me and A is not B to you, it doesn't have to be a contradiction if A is B or A is not B are both cases of subjectivity. It is not that it is logical or not logical. It is that logic doesn't apply.

No no. It's not that logic doesn't apply. It's that we simply have two different definitions of B. Logic still applies to your use of B and my use of B.

Now what if I am to decide if A is B or A is not B. They can't be both, but I can choose one or the other. So how do I decide with logic? I can't because, because logic only tell me that A can't be both B and not B.

A and B are simply symbols we use to designate other things (remember our language discussion?). If you use A to represent the same thing you use B to represent, then logically A=B. If you use them to represent two different things, then logically A =/= B. Logic applies in either case, once you've defined your terms.

That is the limit of logic, it is neither logical or illogical to decide between 2 different possible positions.

It's not logical or illogical to decide how you define A or B. Once you define them, logic kicks in.

That is how coherence doesn't apply as: (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent or in another sense as not containing any logical contradictions.
There are no coherent worldview, because logic doesn't apply to 2 different, yet both possible decisions.

But worldviews are different from letters. Worldviews are a whole set of complex inter-relationships of ideas. It is possible for those ideas to cohere or not to cohere (as we saw with language, which we might say is somewhere between a letter and a worldview in terms of complexity). That is quite different from defining a single term in an equation.

It goes further to the is-ought problem and connect to that epistemological rationalism doesn't work except for tautologies and empiricism doesn't work for subjective decisions.

One step at a time.

It is easy to test for once you notice what goes on. We all have a set of core axiomatic beliefs, which can't be justified because of the 5 modes of Agrippa the Skeptic.

We do all have core axiomatic beliefs, but those beliefs combine to form a worldview. They either do so in a way that coheres or doesn't cohere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That depends entirely on what A and B represent. It would logically follow that A is not B, if we agree that A and B represent two different things.

No no. It's not that logic doesn't apply. It's that we simply have two different definitions of B. Logic still applies to your use of B and my use of B.

A and B are simply symbols we use to designate other things (remember our language discussion?). If you use A to represent the same thing you use B to represent, then logically A=B. If you use them to represent two different things, then logically A =/= B. Logic applies in either case, once you've defined your terms.

It's not logical or illogical to decide how you define A or B. Once you define them, logic kicks in.

But worldviews are different from letters. Worldviews are a whole set of complex inter-relationships of ideas. It is possible for those ideas to cohere or not to cohere (as we saw with language, which we might say is somewhere between a letter and a worldview in terms of complexity). That is quite different from defining a single term in an equation.

One step at a time.

We do all have core axiomatic beliefs, but those beliefs combine to form a worldview. They either do so in a way that coheres or doesn't cohere.

Good post.

Someone: Capitalism is wrong.
Someone else:Capitalism is not wrong.

Will that example work?
Now again you have to describe how you use logic to arrive to the content of these statement. No how language works as such, but what the actual meaning has to do with logic. Both statements make sense in the English language and they are not meaningless nor illogical for how words work in general. I.e. syntax and semantics seems okay.

So back to what I claimed: Between capitalism is wrong and capitalism is not wrong there is no way to use logic on those 2 as to decide between them. How? Because the actual meaning is not about logic, it is a subjective evaluation of 2 possible value systems.
That has nothing to do in particular with capitalism.

So here it is for the world. Let us start with gravity and note that it is necessary to include gravity to describe the world, but not sufficient. I.e. gravity is not the world, it is a part of the world but not all of the world. So let us include logic as necessary. Now is logic as a process sufficient? Is all you have to do as a human to use logic?
See, that is how I ask the question. Not if logic is necessary, but if logic is sufficient?
And the answer is no! You can't describe the world and act in the world in pure logical terms and thus there can't be a logically coherent view of the world, because you can't do the world in only logical terms.

Regards
Mikkel

PS - If you can describe the world in purely logical terms, we wouldn't be doing this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept that the search for knowledge is, ultimately, a search for better and better approximations. In going from one approximation to the next, I expect the new one to be 'better' in the sense of including more phenomena into an overarching system.

That requires that knowledge is a singular methodology for the same kind of approximations. Or it assumes that there is a singular overarching system of only one kind of knowledge.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Good post.

Someone: Capitalism is wrong.
Someone else:Capitalism is not wrong.

Will that example work?
Now again you have to describe how you use logic to arrive to the content of these statement. No how language works as such, but what the actual meaning has to do with logic. Both statements make sense in the English language and they are not meaningless nor illogical for how words work in general. I.e. syntax and semantics seems okay.

That requires us to define capitalism, define wrong, and then use logic to determine whether A (capitalism) does or does not equal B (wrong). How each person does that will depend on their particular political beliefs and so on. So I would have to evaluate each person's argument(s) to see if they are coherent or not.

So back to what I claimed: Between capitalism is wrong and capitalism is not wrong there is no way to use logic on those 2 as to decide between them. How? Because the actual meaning is not about logic, it is a subjective evaluation of 2 possible value systems.

It's not subjective once terms are defined. Capitalism has an objective, empirical definition. We can look out in the world and observe economies and determine if one is capitalistic or not. And it's not up to your individual opinion or mine. Either the economy meets the terms of the definition or it doesn't.

Same with wrongness. Once we get specific and develop real criteria for what determines the wrongness of something, we can look out in the world and objectively, empirically determine if a thing meets the criteria or not. And again, either my argument for labeling something "wrong" according to the definition I set is logically coherent, or it isn't.

So here it is for the world. Let us start with gravity and note that it is necessary to include gravity to describe the world, but not sufficient. I.e. gravity is not the world, it is a part of the world but not all of the world. So let us include logic as necessary. Now is logic as a process sufficient? Is all you have to do as a human to use logic?
See, that is how I ask the question. Not if logic is necessary, but if logic is sufficient?
And the answer is no! You can't describe the world and act in the world in pure logical terms and thus there can't be a logically coherent view of the world, because you can't do the world in only logical terms.

The fact that we need the empirical data of our senses, in addition to logic, to accurately understand the world, does not demonstrate that worldviews can't be logically coherent. That just doesn't follow. Once we have empirical data, we decide how to interpret it. Logic is the tool we use (or, should use) to do so. If we interpret that data in a way that logically coheres, then we've achieved a coherent worldview, by definition. I have yet to see how that is impossible, which was what you claimed initially.

Surprisingly, you're now saying that logic is a necessary (albeit insufficient) process for describing the world. How can you assert that, but not admit that views of the world can logically cohere? The debate seems over.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Same with wrongness. Once we get specific and develop real criteria for what determines the wrongness of something, we can look out in the world and objectively, empirically determine if a thing meets the criteria or not. And again, either my argument for labeling something "wrong" according to the definition I set is logically coherent, or it isn't.
...

Now start with "real". Start with that word. Then go on with "determines".

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Now start with "real". Start with that word. Then go on with "determines".

Regards
Mikkel

By "real" there I meant specific, observable, actionable. Ie a definition that isn't fluffy.

By "determine" I'm happy with a standard dictionary definition: "ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation." https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...source=android-browser&q=determine+definition

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By "real" there I meant specific, observable, actionable. Ie a definition that isn't fluffy.

By "determine" I'm happy with a standard dictionary definition: "ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation." https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...source=android-browser&q=determine+definition

Okay, how do you observe wrong when it comes to evaluations of worth? How do you make worth observable? In a broad sense how do you observe good, useful and so on?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, how do you observe wrong when it comes to evaluations of worth?

I'm not sure what you mean by, "when it comes to evaluations of worth." One common way to define wrong is by harm done, which can be empirically observed and measured.

How do you make worth observable?

Economies do this all the time, with currency. Is that what you mean?

In a broad sense how do you observe good, useful and so on?

As a counterpoint to wrong, good is often defined as that which contributes to health or well-being. Usefulness is fairly obvious: if a thing helps you achieve a certain goal, we call it useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what you mean by, "when it comes to evaluations of worth." One common way to define wrong is by harm done, which can be empirically observed and measured.
...

Please state the international scientific measurement standard for harm.
You are confusing inter-subjective as shared subjectivity with objective.
Now again, not inter-subjective, objective as per science.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Please state the international scientific measurement standard for harm.

I didnt claim there was one. I said we individually define the term for ourselves. Once we define the term, then we can objectively observe and measure whether a thing meets that criteria.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didnt claim there was one. I said we individually define the term for ourselves. Once we define the term, then we can objectively observe and measure whether a thing meets that criteria.

Okay, so how do you with only logic determine what harm is?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, so how do you with only logic determine what harm is?

Regards
Mikkel

Again, that's a strawman. Evaluating harm requires us to obtain empirical data from the world. Logic is a tool we use to assess the empirical data.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, that's a strawman. Evaluating harm requires us to obtain empirical data from the world. Logic is a tool we use to assess the empirical data.

And here it ends. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. You can't do everything with logic and objectivity.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

And here it ends. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. You can't do everything with logic and objectivity.

Regards
Mikkel

Lol, nice try. Logic is one part of objectivity. Empirical data is the other part. Which is exactly what I said is needed.

So yes, here it does end, it appears. Still no demonstration that worldviews can't be coherent.