User Controls
Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
-
2017-09-18 at 7:33 AM UTCWell "propositional calculus" is closer to what gets called formal logic than integral calculus, which is usually what people mean when they use the term calculus unqualified. But in prop calc, as mentioned before, I think affirming the consequent is a great example. If you have some theorem like "X being a man implies X is moral" and you take "socrates is a man" to be true then you can produce a new theorem like "socrates is mortal" but it is expressly forbidden take that same theorem along with a fact like "socrates is mortal" and conclude that socrates is a man. An intuitionist explanation is that socrates might be a dog, so he's mortal but we can not conclude he's a man from that fact.
But there is no necessary reason for that to be the case. We can imagine a system where "X implies Y" is interpreted as "If X then Y AND if Y then X" and still do all the reasoning we did before. Some things might become more unwieldy to express, like if we wanted to express the relationship between mortality and men in our experience we'd have to say "X being a man implies X is mortal OR (X is mortal AND X is NOT a man)" which under our alternative interpretation of logical implication is a proposition with the same truth table as the former statement with the prior interpretation of implication. We can imagine far more bizarre interpretations of systems and meanings which all model reality equally well as the system we call formal logic today, as suggested earlier we accidentally invent systems as powerful as propositional calculus all the time, video games inadvertently had this property, minecraft's redstone system has as much predictive power in our world as formal logic does. "Socrates is a man" is not a theorem of logic, it's something we feed into logical structures to produce hypothetical theorems but we could as well feed it to an elaborate set of initial MTG conditions and arrive at the same conclusions yet no one things MTG is some fundamental property of the natural world. -
2017-09-18 at 7:51 AM UTCI like how Obbe is hobbeing around and getting excited at the big words.
-
2017-09-18 at 10:52 AM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 11:19 AM UTCSo the problem with aesthetics in science is only with logic?
-
2017-09-18 at 12:55 PM UTC>implying it wasn't engineering (tool making) or chemistry (fire)
-
2017-09-18 at 12:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic lol what a bunch of pseudo intellectual sounding bullshit
i fucking hate this site, you're all poseurs and cowards
This type of philosophical discussion is for people who just want to appear smart while still discussing the same shit everybody who has ever lived in modern society thinks about. -
2017-09-18 at 3:08 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 3:09 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 3:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 This type of philosophical discussion is for people who just want to appear smart while still discussing the same shit everybody who has ever lived in modern society thinks about.
It's almost like discussing the things that we all think about helps us gain different perspectives on ideas that don't necessarily have concrete answers and better form conclusions and support our beliefs or something. What a waste of time. -
2017-09-18 at 3:42 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 3:43 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 3:49 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-18 at 6:02 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 8:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS It's almost like discussing the things that we all think about helps us gain different perspectives on ideas that don't necessarily have concrete answers and better form conclusions and support our beliefs or something. What a waste of time.
I guarantee you have literally never done this. -
2017-09-18 at 8:48 PM UTC
-
2017-09-18 at 8:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind But nobody should ever do that anyways because they would only be doing it to appear smart, which is not at all anything like what you are doing. Shut the fuck up you glam faggot.
Not my fault you all want to pretend to be psuedo-intellectuals
Why don't you develop a real interest? God, it's like becoming a gym teacher. -
2017-09-18 at 9:15 PM UTC
-
2017-09-19 at 5:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 Not my fault you all want to pretend to be psuedo-intellectuals
Maybe you should figure out how the term "pseudo-intellectual" is used before trying to deploy it in a sentence.Why don't you develop a real interest? God, it's like becoming a gym teacher.
Lol, why don't you tell us a little about "real" interests, and what sets them apart from the fake(?) interests discussed so far.
Originally posted by RisiR † So the problem with aesthetics in science is only with logic?
Well science has its own slew of philosophical problems but it does at least seem to be immune from this one if only because we generally expect less of science than systems of logic. Like your point about atomic models, most people understand than that the measure of a good scientific model is predictive power. We may create models that don't represent the underlying reality at all but this is OK if the models can be used to generate fairly reliably predictions. We understand scientific findings are justified by their utility, no reasonable person would expect us to conduct a scientific study to find out if science really works or not, whether you think there's some logical basis for science or it's successful merely because it's powerful we all know science is justified externally.
But the same isn't always true of logic, we've already seen at least one person ITT suggest logic is "fundamental to the universe". I'd chance to say most people probably hold to the idea, at least at first flush, that the system we call logic was something "discovered" as a property of the world, that there's some natural reason those rules and not some others model the world, which I think is clearly not the case on closer examination. -
2017-09-19 at 5 PM UTCEverything is relative, and we can never know anything. /thread
