The Previous discussion to which all of this refers is from the comment section of the last post:
Here is a section from an article on The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy. I think this answers the question we were discussing where Skeptical says "It implies that what you think is a priori knowledge is actually learned, whether from observation of the world, or from being taught (by indoctrination, for example)"
My purpose here is not to disprove or put down Skeptical bit to discuss ideas as friends.
"A Priori and A Posteriori"The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori. The distinction between the two terms is epistemological and immediately relates to the justification for why a given item of knowledge is held. For instance, a person who knows (a priori) that "All bachelors are unmarried" need not have experienced the unmarried status of all—or indeed any—bachelors to justify this proposition. By contrast, if I know that "It is raining outside," knowledge of this proposition must be justified by appealing to someone's experience of the weather.
The a priori /a posteriori distinction, as is shown below, should not be confused with the similar dichotomy of the necessary and the contingent or the dichotomy of the analytic and the synthetic. Nonetheless, the a priori /a posteriori distinction is itself not without controversy. The major sticking-points historically have been how to define the concept of the "experience" on which the distinction is grounded, and whether or in what sense knowledge can indeed exist independently of all experience. The latter issue raises important questions regarding the positive, that is, actual, basis of a priori knowledge -- questions which a wide range of philosophers have attempted to answer. Kant, for instance, advocated a "transcendental" form of justification involving "rational insight" that is connected to, but does not immediately arise from, empirical experience.
I think that clarifies the learning issue better than I did,The other issue is rationalizing facts offered by logic because we don't like the conclusion they mandate. Another exchange I think this passage corrects is here"
Meta: Moreover your acceptance of the notion of the logic of premises contradicts your understanding of no a priori.
Skep:- No. It is based entirely on observation, as I tried to explain to you. Logic is just the way we observe things to work in our world. Without observation, we would have no concept of logical rules.
No you can't observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.. you are observing people obeying an a priori rule. that does not mean you are observing premises mandating conclusions. Logic is based upon self referential rules not upon the workings of the physical wold. Where do you observe the law of excluded middle?
66 comments:
No you can't observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.. you are observing people obeying an a priori rule. that does not mean you are observing premises mandating conclusions. Logic is based upon self referential rules not upon the workings of the physical wold. Where do you observe the law of excluded middle?
- I think that you are confusing reality with our knowledge of reality. This is a point that I tried to explain in the previous post. Reality exists independently of what we know. Things in our world work the way they do, whether we understand it or not. But what is logic? It a formulation of the "rules" of how things work. Logic is an expression of those rules. It is not something we automatically know, but we gain knowledge of it buy observing the world and how it works. It only seems to be innate, because we make these observations from our very first experiences in life. But without life experiences, we'd have no knowledge of how things work - and no understanding of logic. This is an epistemological issue.
m-skeptical said...
No you can't observe a premise mandating it's conclusion.. you are observing people obeying an a priori rule. that does not mean you are observing premises mandating conclusions. Logic is based upon self referential rules not upon the workings of the physical wold. Where do you observe the law of excluded middle?
- I think that you are confusing reality with our knowledge of reality. This is a point that I tried to explain in the previous post. Reality exists independently of what we know. Things in our world work the way they do, whether we understand it or not. But what is logic?
Premises only exist in the mind. there is no special pasture where premise graze you can't go find it in the world anywhere.
in the sentence "a //= ~a" you can't observed a's not being non any where.
It a formulation of the "rules" of how things work. Logic is an expression of those rules.
there are no rules apart fro minds
It is not something we automatically know, but we gain knowledge of it buy observing the world and how it works.
you observe the law of excludes middle working,you cannot observe modus ponens working in the world.
It only seems to be innate, because we make these observations from our very first experiences in life.
for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.you can;t observe that happening, it can only come as the result of a body of ruels some of them arbitrary that are developed abstractly over time. Nor does it have to do with intuition. you can't derive the truth that all husbands are married men by observation, it's an abstract reality,
But without life experiences, we'd have no knowledge of how things work - and no understanding of logic. This is an epistemological issue.
that's bull shit,I have no life experience of being a husband,
all owoogias are wompdaugle
pamsoggin is an owoogia, therefore, pamsoggin is wompdaugle.
this is a true statement, how can i know that I have never seen any of these things in life,i don;t even know what they are.
- I think that you are confusing reality with our knowledge of reality. This is a point that I tried to explain in the previous post. Reality exists independently of what we know. Things in our world work the way they do, whether we understand it or not. But what is logic? It a formulation of the "rules" of how things work. Logic is an expression of those rules. It is not something we automatically know, but we gain knowledge of it buy observing the world and how it works. It only seems to be innate, because we make these observations from our very first experiences in life. But without life experiences, we'd have no knowledge of how things work - and no understanding of logic. This is an epistemological issue.
I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Without experience, we'd have no knowledge of logic, but that fact alone doesn't mean that experience is sufficient for our knowledge of logic.
this is a true statement, how can i know that I have never seen any of these things in life,i don;t even know what they are.
- Forget it. I tried to explain. You don't understand what I said.
I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Without experience, we'd have no knowledge of logic, but that fact alone doesn't mean that experience is sufficient for our knowledge of logic.
- You are correct. But my point to Joe was consistent with the first part of that. What if we lived in a world where reality worked in a different way? The logic of that world would not be the same logic that we know and understand. We know and understand this world's logic by experiencing it.
all owoogias are wompdaugle
pamsoggin is an owoogia, therefore, pamsoggin is wompdaugle.
- I'll give it another shot. Why don't we have to observe all instances to know something is true? Because we first observe reality and generalize to a "rule" (which in this case is modus ponens). We see it again and again, and we decide that the rule always applies. Then, we can take any specific instance which has not yet been observed, and be confident that the rule still applies. But we would not have that confidence if we had not first observed specific instances and then generalized those observations to a rule.
If reality worked a different way, then the premise "all owoogias are wompdaugles" would be compromised for classical logic to be compromised, right? if the premise is right, then the conclusion would have to be valid. Logic has more to do with our concepts about entailment and implication than it does with observation, it seems to me, though I admit I'm no logic guy. Mike Gerow knows a lot about this stuff.
Only through reason can we ever find an adequate basis for knowledge, since observation only gives us concrete particulars. Only through universal concepts which aren't given in sense data can we make sense of what we experience. Think of the difference between rules and physical causes or between reasons and physical causes.
if the premise is right, then the conclusion would have to be valid. Logic has more to do with our concepts about entailment and implication than it does with observation
- I know it's not easy to imagine an alternate reality, and perhaps no such thing is even possible. Our logic is based entirely on our own experience of reality, and in this world, yes - the conclusion is entailed by the premise. But what we're talking about here is an issue of epistemology. How do we know the rules of logic? I raised the idea of an alternate reality merely to illustrate a point. Whatever the reality is, we come to understand it through our experience of that reality.
im-skeptical said...
this is a true statement, how can i know that I have never seen any of these things in life,i don;t even know what they are.
- Forget it. I tried to explain. You don't understand what I said.
yea sure, that;s youcan;tanswer whatIsaid, becasueI don;tunderstbd, here;swhatthe encyclopedia understands
"A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. "
I can know all husbands are married men if I can know what the term husband means,I never have to observe any husbands to know this,
I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Without experience, we'd have no knowledge of logic, but that fact alone doesn't mean that experience is sufficient for our knowledge of logic.
- You are correct. But my point to Joe was consistent with the first part of that. What if we lived in a world where reality worked in a different way? The logic of that world would not be the same logic that we know and understand. We know and understand this world's logic by experiencing it.
No physical law is logical, laws of physics are not logical laws and causality is not logical. No law of logic makes causes work,
7th Stooge said...
If reality worked a different way, then the premise "all owoogias are wompdaugles" would be compromised for classical logic to be compromised, right? if the premise is right, then the conclusion would have to be valid. Logic has more to do with our concepts about entailment and implication than it does with observation, it seems to me, though I admit I'm no logic guy. Mike Gerow knows a lot about this stuff.
brilliant post Jim
- I'll give it another shot. Why don't we have to observe all instances to know something is true? Because we first observe reality and generalize to a "rule" (which in this case is modus ponens). We see it again and again, and we decide that the rule always applies. Then, we can take any specific instance which has not yet been observed, and be confident that the rule still applies. But we would not have that confidence if we had not first observed specific instances and then generalized those observations to a rule.
Popper said you will have to observe instances forever because you can never be sure,you want to make a general rule based upon some amount of limited observation there will be cracks and instances of anomaly will fall through the cracks. That's why there paradigm shifts, Because the current paradigm get's too many anatomies,
Thus Kuhn is right there is no cumulative progress in science, that;s a place where Kun and Popper agree,
Skep answer this, we fan know that all husbands are married men without ever observing a husband ,that is a priori truth.
No physical law is logical, laws of physics are not logical laws and causality is not logical. No law of logic makes causes work
- How do you know this? Where is the dividing line between logical and physical reality? I contend that there is no dividing line.
Popper said you will have to observe instances forever because you can never be sure,you want to make a general rule based upon some amount of limited observation there will be cracks and instances of anomaly will fall through the cracks. That's why there paradigm shifts, Because the current paradigm get's too many anatomies
- You seem to be talking about two different things. If it's absolute proof you're interested in, then Popper is correct. We can never be 100% certain. But if it's a priori truth you want, our only basis for learning truth is to discover what we know by observation of reality.
Skep answer this, we fan know that all husbands are married men without ever observing a husband ,that is a priori truth.
- It's not a priori. It s DEFINITIION.
- Whatever the reality is, we come to understand it through our experience of that reality.
It's not clear what you mean. You have to clarify what you mean. All our knowledge begins with experience but that doesn't mean that it arises out of experience.
m-skeptical said...
No physical law is logical, laws of physics are not logical laws and causality is not logical. No law of logic makes causes work
- How do you know this? Where is the dividing line between logical and physical reality? I contend that there is no dividing line.
We know Newton did not work logic to produce physical laws he observed nature. Logicians do not observe nature to produce rules of logic. Read the documents I've quested several sources.
Popper said you will have to observe instances forever because you can never be sure,you want to make a general rule based upon some amount of limited observation there will be cracks and instances of anomaly will fall through the cracks. That's why there paradigm shifts, Because the current paradigm get's too many anatomies.
- You seem to be talking about two different things. If it's absolute proof you're interested in, then Popper is correct. We can never be 100% certain. But if it's a priori truth you want, our only basis for learning truth is to discover what we know by observation of reality.
ant you follow a simple sentence? Of course we are talking about two different thins we've been talking about two different all the way though, read the title!!!!clue:"A Priori and A Posteriori"
7:04 AM
im-skeptical said...
Skep answer this, we fan know that all husbands are married men without ever observing a husband ,that is a priori truth.
- It's not a priori. It s DEFINITIION.
Skep I am going to make one last attempt to inform you,you made a fool of yourself now listen up.
they don't count leaning the words as observing the world. you are not observing the world when you learn definitions, you are learning a mental function not oserving the working of the natural world.So that does not unseat an a priori function, you can't know the meaning through osmosis you have to learn it but that is not obrving the world,
The classic example of a priori reasoning is the one about husbands are married men, that's one they always use to tech what a priori is.
this all te;;s me you have read 0 philosophy. These are totally basic issues,
I google "examples of a priori reasoning."
The first example: "A Priori and A Posteriori. ... For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, " A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/
Standford encyclopedia says: "In each case, the first member of the pair is supposed to be an example in which, if we are justified in believing the proposition, we are a priori justified in believing it, "
forst one: 1 a. All bachelors are unmarried.
b. All bachelors in the U.S. are taxed at a different rate from married men.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#ExaIllDifBetPriPosEmpJus
I google "examples of a priori reasoning."
- Joe, you're missing the point. The example you are using as "a priori reasoning" is fine and dandy. But it completely ignores the deeper issue. How do you know the truth of this proposition? It is because it is an instance of the law of excluded middle - a logical rule - which you apply to the situation to conclude that any bachelor is unmarried. Now, there comes the part where you need to think: How do you know that this logical rule is true? I'm telling you that like other logical rules, you acquire an intuitive understanding of it by virtue of your experience in the world. I'm telling you that whether you call it "a priori" or "a posteriori" or something else, everything you know is derived from information that you gained through your senses. EVERYTHING.
im-skeptical said...
- Joe, you're missing the point. The example you are using as "a priori reasoning" is fine and dandy. But it completely ignores the deeper issue. How do you know the truth of this proposition? It is because it is an instance of the law of excluded middle - a logical rule - which you apply to the situation to conclude that any bachelor is unmarried.
We don't observe the law of excluded middle in nature.That's not what i think bout when I think o or first thought of the distinction between a prori and postoroi I didn't say "O you can't be half way between a husband and a bachelor it's law of excluded middle."I thought of it as law of non-contradiction.
Now, there comes the part where you need to think: How do you know that this logical rule is true? I'm telling you that like other logical rules, you acquire an intuitive understanding of it by virtue of your experience in the world.
No wrong it has nothing to do with observing the world. I don't need to ask how I know it's true. that is what as priori means. it's the rule,it's true by definite
I'm telling you that whether you call it "a priori" or "a posteriori" or something else, everything you know is derived from information that you gained through your senses. EVERYTHING.
you domm;'t understand logic, this is why you make so many arguments that beg the question. you are trying to make science the basis of all knowledge
I've already dispelled the myth that understanding terms is observation of the world so you have no basis for your argument.
- I think I already said that you really, really need to learn something about the science of cognitive development and language acquisition. You'd learn how unrealistic your own arguments are.
- I think I already said that you really, really need to learn something about the science of cognitive development and language acquisition. You'd learn how unrealistic your own arguments are.
You have no expertise,I was a communication major,nothing about language acquisition justifies that absurd notion, you are not observing the world when you learn the meaing of the word
- I think I already said that you really, really need to learn something about the science of cognitive development and language acquisition. You'd learn how unrealistic your own arguments are.
People like Pinker and Chomsky would disagree. I think the deeper problem is that you're not even clarifying what you mean by what you're claiming.
Knowledge would be impossible without sense data but sense data alone would be meaningless without the ability to organize them. It's not like the mind has innate idea like "2+2=4". It's probably more like innate powers and abilities, what Pinker calls "prepared learning."
It's probably that the two influences (sense data and innate abilities) go hand in hand and are inextricably linked. I doubt that it's really as simple as the fact that one always takes priority over the other. Anybody who gives you a simple definitive answer to this question is trying to sell you something.
Knowledge would be impossible without sense data but sense data alone would be meaningless without the ability to organize them. It's not like the mind has innate idea like "2+2=4". It's probably more like innate powers and abilities, what Pinker calls "prepared learning."
- Yes, the human brain gives us innate abilities (to discern patterns, or organize information, etc. and formulate "rules"). But not innate knowledge. That comes from observation - combined (as you rightly note) with our innate abilities to make sense of it.
Yes, the human brain gives us innate abilities (to discern patterns, or organize information, etc. and formulate "rules"). But not innate knowledge. That comes from observation - combined (as you rightly note) with our innate abilities to make sense of it.
deriving a priori troth from the meaning of a word is not observing the world, there is no place in the world where word meanings can be seen in the wild.
I've already disproved this ignorance with learning and documentation you are just being suborn,
I've already disproved this ignorance with learning and documentation you are just being suborn
- Stubborn - yes, I'd say so. I'll always believe empirical science over the uninformed musings of certain (not all) philosophers who know nothing of cognitive science, and can only speculate about the mechanisms of human cognitive function.
- Yes, the human brain gives us innate abilities (to discern patterns, or organize information, etc. and formulate "rules"). But not innate knowledge. That comes from observation - combined (as you rightly note) with our innate abilities to make sense of it.
That's not true. Abilities are knowledge, such as the ability to form rules, reasons, and sentences. Sense data would be meaningless without these abilities. Discerning patterns to draw meaning from them is knowledge. You're defining 'knowledge' in a question-begging way (as usual) to fit the definition that you've already decided is the correct one.
Abilities are knowledge
- in a certain manner of speaking, perhaps.
Here's a dictionary definition for three senses of the word:
1 n. The state or fact of knowing.
2 n. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3 n. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
Innate cognitive function doesn't seem to fit, but learned abilities might fit better.
Well, some of this might be semantics, but "the state or fact of knowing" is certainly compatible with a sensible definition of a priori knowledge like "knowing how to form rules and use sensible categories" that does seem to come before (prior to) any empirical Inputs, which does seem a sensible definition.
There are, eg, things we can know about the set of bachelors -- ie that none of them are married--without any testing as the fact falls out of the category itself, which seems the point of that infamous example....
Not to quibble, but we have many innate capabilities, and most of us wouldn't call them "knowledge". For example, in addition to our innate ability organize information in the brain, we have the ability to see or sense things. These are the means by which we gain knowledge. A learned skill, on the other hand, is something that many would legitimately call a kind of knowledge.
Skep you never give a direct answer to the point Mike just reiterated about not needing to observe bachelors.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Abilities are knowledge
- in a certain manner of speaking, perhaps.
Here's a dictionary definition for three senses of the word:
1 n. The state or fact of knowing.
2 n. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3 n. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
Innate cognitive function doesn't seem to fit, but learned abilities might fit better.
did you see how many authoritative sources I quoted saying you are wrong about a prori knoweldge? three at least.
WikiL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
"These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it. Thus, the two kinds of knowledge, justification, or argument, may be glossed:
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs)."[3] [Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[2]]
that is four
Fact/Myth: http://factmyth.com/a-priori-a-posteriori-analytic-synthetic-and-necessary-contingent-distinctions/Thomas DeMichele on July 6, 2017
"a priori means “prior to experience” (“pure” “formal” imagination and reason; rationalization not based on experience), and a posteriori means “after experience” (concepts we get from observation via our senses; based on empirical experience). All our terms speak to one of these two categories or a mix, as ultimately everything we conceptualize is either the observed properties of an object, an imagined idea, or a mix."
note a priroi mans prior to experience before you judge the world
that is five
A Priori Truths - Greg Restall The University of Melbourne
consequently.org/papers/apriori.pdf
http://consequently.org/papers/apriori.pdf
by G Restall - Cited by 6 - Related articles
is H. Valid deductive reasoning seems to give us a priori knowledge on the basis of logical structure. .... You do not need to know anything about the world in order to verify that if all Fs are G or H, then ..... observations and theorising. We learn ...
You visited this page on 8/27/18.
Philosophers love a priori knowledge: we delight in truths that can be known from the
comfort of our armchairs, without the need to venture out in the world for
confirmation. This is due not to laziness, but to two different considerations. First, it seems that many philosophical issues aren’t settled by our experience of the world —
that is 7 sources I've quoted,Skep has quoted 1 he used it correctly
Philosophy Index
http://www.philosophy-index.com/terms/a-priori.php
"A Priori: The term a priori is used in philosophy to indicate deductive reasoning. The term is Latin, meaning “from what comes before”, refering to that which comes before experience.
Something that is known a priori can safely be considered to be a true statement, assuming that the logic (or deductive reasoning) used to arrive at that conclusion is conducted using valid arguments.
A priori is in contrast to a posteriori, which is a term used to indicate inductive reasoning. In short, something known a priori is known purely through reason while something known a posteriori is determined through empirical evidence.
Although one might venture to guess that something backed up by evidence is more likely to be based in truth, it is often the a priori knowledge that is more likely to hold truth. This is because evidence can often support multiple conclusions and is dependant on our accurate interpretation."
that is six
did you see how many authoritative sources I quoted saying you are wrong about a prori knoweldge? three at least.
- OK, Joe, we all know you are good at Googling things. I'm not disputing any of that. I'm trying to make a point that YOU stubbornly refuse to accept. And it is entirely consistent with what YOU say: "In short, something known a priori is known purely through reason while something known a posteriori is determined through empirical evidence." I agree with that as an essential definition, though I understand that there variant uses of the term that aren't entirely consistent with the essence of it. The difference between you and me is that I understand what it implies. I'm saying that NOTHING can be known PURELY through reason (and I'm not alone in this). I'm saying that every single thing we know derives ultimately from things we have sensed or observed. And this is consistent with cognitive science, too.
Now, if we want to get down to your own use of the term, it seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You use the term in its essential form when you speak of knowledge of God. It's the religious a priori. It's how you know - without evidence - that God exists. And then, you want to justify that knowledge by likening it to other kinds of a priori knowledge, as exemplified by your understanding of what it means to be a bachelor, which you also call a priori. But those are two entirely different kinds of understanding. You know the definition of "bachelor" not from "pure reasoning", but from what you have learned by living in this culture. But I doubt you'd be willing to admit that your understanding of God is strictly a matter of definition that you have learned along with other words like "bachelor". No, I think you would insist that your knowledge of God fits with the more essential definition of a priori - something that you just know, independently of any learning. Am I right about that?
I think the point is not about learning the definitions of things, which happens a posteri as you say, but about innate capacity for manipulation of categories, and that's why it works even with nonsense examples, eg:
"All tra la la's are sensible"
infers that:
"There are no insensible tra la la's"
What we already know, here, is how to manipulate definitions, which is, perhaps, a tacit or wordless kind of knowledge, but it does at least seem to be something we "know" (in a concretely a priori kind of way) nonetheless. And it would seem impossible to claim that without such "prior" knowledge we would be able to amass any empirical knowledge of the world at all.
You might make an argument along the lines that such "knowledge" is also empirical in a wider sense because it comes to us out of the trails and errors of evolution. But would that fly? I dunno....I've read a couple of recent books on Kant's a priori or transcendental and this is a very complex topic.
You might make an argument along the lines that such "knowledge" is also empirical in a wider sense because it comes to us out of the trails and errors of evolution. But would that fly? I dunno....I've read a couple of recent books on Kant's a priori or transcendental and this is a very complex topic.
- Well, no. I don't argue that. But I do argue that such knowledge is empirical in the sense that we LEARN the rules of logic by observing the world. Thus, our ability to make logical inferences is in fact based on our observations, and not essentially a priori.
That's true to one extent or another, and even Kant said so, but what mechanism lets us organize our experiences enough to learn anything in the first place?
I think, THAT'S the question for you....
but what mechanism lets us organize our experiences enough to learn anything in the first place?
- Those of us who are inclined toward a scientific view would call it the human brain. Others think it's some kind of immaterial soul.
If the human brain is capable of organizing various and often unpredictable experiences--as well as organizing and reorganizing itself-- in "sensible" ways, why isn't that a kind of "a priori?"- the brain's already "knowing" how to do that.
Why isn't that in itself a kind of transcendence? (Which is close to what Kant actually said in his Critique, too,I think...)
Why isn't the ability to see called a priori? Because it isn't knowledge.
Andre Newberg says there is an innate sense in the brain that arbitrates reality from fantasy. That would be aprori knowledge that informs that sense.
It isn't a priori knowledge if you don't know how it works. The brain does many things without your conscious awareness, and without you knowing or understanding the mechanisms it uses. I think it would be a stretch for you to call that a priori knowledge.
I'm saying that every single thing we know derives ultimately from things we have sensed or observed. And this is consistent with cognitive science, too.
This is the nub of the disagreement. The problem is you haven't clarified what you mean and you haven't justified how this statement could be true. You just keep repeating it as a tenet of your empiricist faith. As I and others have tried to point out to you, sense data without a conceptual framework are meaningless. Cognition is a complex, multi-dimensional process that I doubt can be reduced 'ultimately' to any one level. We have to bring to sense date a readiness to organize it in certain ways. And we probably have to bring to it concepts like cause, space and time action and object that can't be derived directly from the data.
The problem is you haven't clarified what you mean and you haven't justified how this statement could be true.
- To say that knowledge derives from experience is pretty clear, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see you explain how we can have knowledge that doesn't derive from experience. Where does it come from? How does it enter our awareness? Just making a claim that "it's a priori" doesn't explain anything. And you certainly haven't justified any such claims.
sense data without a conceptual framework are meaningless
- I agree completely. And I tried to explain how we build a conceptual framework through cognitive associations that produce meaning. What's your explanation? Do you even have one?
Cognition is a complex, multi-dimensional process that I doubt can be reduced 'ultimately' to any one level.
- Now you're not being clear. What kind of multi-dimensional process are you talking about? And why do you think I have tried to "reduce" it to something simpler than it is?
Skep you have never answered the argument that understanding the meaning of a terms is not observation of the world. It may be that everything we know that get's us to a point where we can understand a term comes from experience. But the understanding of the term does not require experience of the world, simple.
you have no answer, your only answer is to distort the meaning of the terms to place learning the term in the category of observation of the world where it does not belong.
you are wrong, you are beaten. stop your little game.
I quoted sever experts saying a priori knowledge does not require observation of the world. You have no counter.
you have not quoted one single source a priori requires observation.
OK, Joe. Since you have thus far failed to understand what I have said, I'll make another effort to spell it out to you. First, I don't care what any philosopher says if his views are not informed by science. Any philosopher worthy of the name should take scientific knowledge into account before speculating about how things are. Those who don't aren't real philosophers. They are merely espousing their opinions which, to the extent that they disagree with observed reality, are worthless.
Second, there has been some discussion about what constitutes "knowledge". Not all cognitive function is what I would call "knowledge". Consider visual processing, for example. The brain performs all kinds of processing tasks, such as edge detection, identifying shapes, discriminating objects based on color, etc. None of that is conscious. All that and more is done before the visual field is presented to the conscious awareness for higher-level analysis. And how those cognitive tasks are accomplished can't be called knowledge, because you usually aren't even aware of it. In order to say you "know" something, you at least have to be aware of it. So as a general rule, knowledge must be part of our conscious awareness.
With that out of the way, I have been trying convey an idea to you that goes beyond a narrow definition. Forget about the term a priori for a moment, if you will. My point is that EVERYTHING we know depends on observation. Everything we learn comes from experience. And that includes things that we often think of as being "innate" knowledge. The rules of logic, are a good example. We experience how the world works and internalize those rules at a very young age. We may not remember those experiences later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we learned about logic through experience.
This really isn't such a difficult idea for you to wrap your head around. What we know is what we have learned. And what we have learned comes from experience. After all, without conscious experience of something, we have no awareness of it. And without awareness of it, is isn't knowledge. Now, if you want to say that our application of logical rules is "a priori", that's fine with me. But I'm still saying that any such "a priori" knowledge we claim to have is ultimately dependent on experience or observation.
The way several people are responding to that pov is to point out that no amount of empirical input amounts to knowledge either, unless there is some "prior" innate understandings: eg of how to use and organize categories, etc. Otherwise no "knowledge" of any kind would ever amass, nor would any form of logic even be learnable.
So, to say we "know" something beforehand, before any empirical inputs, must make some sense, since to learn anything we must at least "know" how to learn.....
to learn anything we must at least "know" how to learn.....
- So you don't distinguish between what is learned and the mechanisms by which we learn. It's all knowledge, according to your theory. I disagree.
im-skeptical said...
OK, Joe. Since you have thus far failed to understand what I have said, I'll make another effort to spell it out to you. First, I don't care what any philosopher says if his views are not informed by science. Any philosopher worthy of the name should take scientific knowledge into account before speculating about how things are. Those who don't aren't real philosophers. They are merely espousing their opinions which, to the extent that they disagree with observed reality, are worthless.
that is a supremely ignorant position. It totally ignores the history of ideas,a priori an a postoriori are terms from logic not science. They existed before modern science, which actually began as s subset of philosophy. Noting in science can tell us about a proiri knowledge.
That is completely beyond the domain of science.
You have just proven to me that you are an adherent of scientism (of we knew that).
Second, there has been some discussion about what constitutes "knowledge". Not all cognitive function is what I would call "knowledge". Consider visual processing, for example. The brain performs all kinds of processing tasks, such as edge detection, identifying shapes, discriminating objects based on color, etc. None of that is conscious. All that and more is done before the visual field is presented to the conscious awareness for higher-level analysis. And how those cognitive tasks are accomplished can't be called knowledge, because you usually aren't even aware of it. In order to say you "know" something, you at least have to be aware of it. So as a general rule, knowledge must be part of our conscious awareness.
most people would not call just any fact about the world "information" but scientists do. It is all arbitrary, taxonomy is arbitrary and culturally constructed,
With that out of the way, I have been trying convey an idea to you that goes beyond a narrow definition. Forget about the term a priori for a moment, if you will. My point is that EVERYTHING we know depends on observation. Everything we learn comes from experience.
My knowledge that all husbands are married does not come from experience,
And that includes things that we often think of as being "innate" knowledge. The rules of logic, are a good example. We experience how the world works and internalize those rules at a very young age. We may not remember those experiences later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we learned about logic through experience.
we does not observe rules of logic in the world, there is no example of the law of excluded middle. Show me an example of S5 found in nature? where in nature do you find an example of obligation?
This really isn't such a difficult idea for you to wrap your head around. What we know is what we have learned.
you mean learn by observation of nature not out of books. There is no way to learn abstractions out of nature, We can only learn them by understanding ideas.I have argued in the past that some rudimentary aspects of Aristotelian logic may be suggested by observation but the only way to derive the rules of logic is to work with abstract ideas not fond in nature. We find inmate categories not suggested by nature such as obligation.
a priori does not mean inmate. We may not have any innate ideas but that doesn't mean all ideas come from observing nature,
And what we have learned comes from experience.
My understanding of not a prori means did not come from experience. Where in nature do you observe moral obligation.
After all, without conscious experience of something, we have no awareness of it.
I have no conspicuous experience of s5 modal logic.
And without awareness of it, is isn't knowledge.
you can't demonstrate either, show me an example of where we observe this in nature,
"And without awareness of it"
"without conscious experience of something, we have no awareness of it.
"
Show me natural examples of these concepts
Now, if you want to say that our application of logical rules is "a priori", that's fine with me. But I'm still saying that any such "a priori" knowledge we claim to have is ultimately dependent on experience or observation.
If you can't show me examples of these things in nature then your point is null.
(1)conscious experience = awareness
(2)only awareness = knowledge
(3)moral obligation
(4)S5 modal logic.
Those are not examples of a priori reasoning, But the topic has drifted. Now you are making statements to the effect that all of logic is found in nature. you said: "We experience how the world works and internalize those rules at a very young age. We may not remember those experiences later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we learned about logic through experience." That moves the top from a priori to all rulesopf logic.
I have yet to see an example from nature for any abstract idea.
Now we have started the Gardener parable principle,
They existed before modern science
- Exactly.
That is completely beyond the domain of science.
- You're wrong. Science dispels ignorance.
My knowledge that all husbands are married does not come from experience
- I explained how it DOES depend on what you have observed.
we does not observe rules of logic in the world
- What we observe is that all things follow these "rules". Just like the laws of physics. We would have no knowledge of them if we didn't observe the way the world works.
There is no way to learn abstractions out of nature, We can only learn them by understanding ideas.There is no way to learn abstractions out of nature, We can only learn them by understanding ideas.
- You don't know what you're talking about.
I have no conspicuous experience of s5 modal logic.
- It would be great if you at least made a pretense of following and understanding the argument. Logical rules are abstractions. We don't observe them. We observe that things work in certain ways. We formulate generalized rules - abstractions. That's what out brain does.
Show me natural examples of these concepts
- tell me something you know that you are not aware of.
I have yet to see an example from nature for any abstract idea
- I have yet to see you show a sign that you understand what I'm telling you.
--So you don't distinguish between what is learned and the mechanisms by which we learn. It's the by all knowledge, according to your theory. I disagree.
The problem with a naive, empirical realism like that is that seems a difficult and artificial task to abstract any kind of formal "knowing" away from the mechanisms used to acquire that knowing and the knowledge of knowing how to use those mechanisms? The point is that one is based in the other, you can't assume the efficacy of empirical knowledge without tacitly assuming our senses and intuitive understandings also must originally have that same efficacy. They are part the same thing, which (for some thinkers) is kinda an update on what's meant by "a priori".
the knowledge of knowing how to use those mechanisms?
- You never answered the questions I asked you. Where does this supposed "knowledge" come from, and how does it enter our awareness? If you can't answer that, then how can you presume to call my empiricism naive? What is the basis for your assertions? The trouble with non-empirical-based explanations is that they are just-so stories, without any justification in observed reality.
Skep a priori knowledge is not magic it;s not intuitive it's not SN. It;s just logic. If Husband means married man then all husbands are married men. you don't have to study nature to know that, You know it by definition it not magic it's words.
No one has to give further explanations for innate knowledge or abilities. (In fact, that would probably be impossible since every attempt to do so would have to end up falling back on those same qualities.) so just saying they're innate is sufficient. Your problem is that attempts to show otherwise - to show there is no innate understanding or knowledge - inevitably fall to a bootstrap problem. You've got another bootstrapping problem here.
So again, how does anyone begin to organize empirical data into knowledge in the first place if all knowledge is empirical?
Blogger im-skeptical said...
They existed before modern science
- Exactly.
That is completely beyond the domain of science.
- You're wrong. Science dispels ignorance.
that does not mean that all knowledge is in sciences domain poetry dispels ignorance. literature dispels ignorance. logic dispels ignorance. theology dispels ignorance. but science can be used to hide truth.
My knowledge that all husbands are married does not come from experience
- I explained how it DOES depend on what you have observed.
you nothing you said answers that argument, just because you have to have empirical knowledge to go from helpless infant to functioning adult does not mean that that same Knowles base is what gives you knowledge of a priori logic,
we does not observe rules of logic in the world
- What we observe is that all things follow these "rules". Just like the laws of physics. We would have no knowledge of them if we didn't observe the way the world works.
I have already named several logical rules we cannot observe in the world and you have not answered that,
There is no way to learn abstractions out of nature, We can only learn them by understanding ideas.There is no way to learn abstractions out of nature, We can only learn them by understanding ideas.
- You don't know what you're talking about.
then show me where in nature you observe an obligation?
I have no conspicuous experience of s5 modal logic.
- It would be great if you at least made a pretense of following and understanding the argument. Logical rules are abstractions. We don't observe them. We observe that things work in certain ways. We formulate generalized rules - abstractions. That's what out brain does.
you can't give me an example of what you mean,anything you give will just sit there and mean nothing because you can;t show the link from nature to abstraction without admitting a priori premises,
Show me natural examples of these concepts
- tell me something you know that you are not aware of.
No one said a priori is knowledge without awareness it;s before you look at nature. Knowing the meaning of words is awareness,
I have yet to see an example from nature for any abstract idea
- I have yet to see you show a sign that you understand what I'm telling you.
ahahhahhahahahhahahahahahah, so obviously a cover,you know you lost !!!!you can;t answer my arguments and you know what it means,you are trying to save face with irreverent red herrings,,
you just lost the point genus
you did not answer any of the four issues
1)conscious experience = awareness
(2)only awareness = knowledge
(3)moral obligation
(4)S5 modal logic.
Here's the deal, you answer those four just that and nothing more nothing more in the next post or I chose the thread,
ahahhahhahahahhahahahahahah, so obviously a cover,you know you lost !!!!you can;t answer my arguments and you know what it means,you are trying to save face with irreverent red herrings
- Yes, here I am, trying to have an argument with an obstinate child who denies reality and won't listen to reason. You're hopelessly confused about the difference between an abstraction and a real object, and you make no distinction between fact and opinion. You completely ignore my explanations and arguments, and then you pretend that I haven't answered you, or you misrepresent what I say. You obviously don't understand any of it. I grow tired.
- Yes, here I am, trying to have an argument with an obstinate child who denies reality and won't listen to reason. You're hopelessly confused about the difference between an abstraction and a real object, and you make no distinction between fact and opinion.
you are really nuts. It's an old distinction, ask any philosopher.It's very common knowledge that a priroi knowledge does not rely upon observing the world, I gave seven sources saying this you you have none.
Not only that but you can't even give mean example. I gave four basic issues,and two of them were derived from your promises. You can't even give me examples of your premises. You say we derive oriels of logic from observing nature and you can't even give me an example of your own assertions!
You completely ignore my explanations and arguments, and then you pretend that I haven't answered you, or you misrepresent what I say. You obviously don't understand any of it. I grow tired.
your exponentiation are deigned to cover the fact that can't illustrate your argument with examples, if you could upi would. You can't that proves we cannot derive laws of logic from observing nature.
I did conceded an extent to which the process of logical deduction does requires a real world and knowledge of the real word to get started, that is a far cry from the claims you have made,
you have never answered the argument that one does not observe all husbands being married men by observing nature, You can derive it by knowing that the term "husband" means "Married man." You can't observe it happening in nature. So that proves there is some a priori knwoelkde even though it may be trivial or tautological.
You didn't even argue that much! the four challenges:
1)conscious experience = awareness
That was your dictum but you can;'t even show me an example of it working. Now I will give you that consciousness enables awareness in a limited an immediate context. You can't derive the meaning of words from it. NO I will not let you include that as observing the world. You never answers my point about that I don't have observe as husband to know all husbands are married men.
(2)only awareness = knowledge
You have to be conscious to think about things that does not disprove a priori seasoning. You stretch the word "knowledge" beyond reason to include counter examples.
show me what you observe in nature that tells you what vin diagrams are. Some knowledge is not based upon immediate awareness of surroundings.
(3)moral obligation
show me observation from nature
(4)S5 modal logic.
bad example i should have said necessity, can;t observe it in nature, btw you can;t observe eternity in nature, Descartes's OA id good here.
OK Let the reader decide, topic is closed!
Post a Comment