Joe Campbell

I don’t think so. Ask any AI.

@SedaryRaymaker The term 'objective' seems unnecessary. What matters is you are warranted in saying it is ugly.

@PhilosopherJoeC Christians like Neil refuse to even recognize objective ugliness.

Good luck with that!

@shannons1724 It is not that I think that beauty is subjective either. The terms are bad since genuine beauty is a bit of both.

@PhilosopherJoeC I hope you were being sarcastic?

@shannons1724 I’m just speaking to the idea of objective beauty.

@PhilosopherJoeC There is the beauty of the soul and then there is some kind of beauty that enlightens the eyes. From what I know about Christian faith, the experience is more than just a recognition of a superficial reality. 🌹

@mouse_math Are they in competition with one another, or are they used for different kinds of predictions and explanations?

@PhilosopherJoeC switching a number base is superficial, a different representation of the same structure. where things get interesting and nuanced is the study of structures which are "number-like" such as polynomial rings, the Gaussian integers, p-adic numbers, etc.

shallow and uninformed "thinkers" sometimes assert that an alien civilization would develop mathematics identical to our own, yet two different human authors on ring theory have different definitions, logical development, and theorem statements.

@mouse_math No I'm not looking for 'equivalent.' Compare two systems of arithmetic: binary and base 10. They are different but they are not in any way contraries. Any statement made in the former can be made in the latter and one can compute how to get from one to the other.

@PhilosopherJoeC i believe the word you're looking for is "equivalent". "isomorphic" has a very specific meaning and is not applied to entire systems of math, but specific structures. but no, not all systems of math are equivalent! neither are all systems of logic.

@John_Attridge There is an objective basis: regularities.

Bro wake up. Awake from your dogmatic slumber. Causation is unknowable lol. Inductive reasoning has no basis in objective reality lmao

US national debt surges past $39 trillion just weeks into war in Iran flip.it/JNrr-5

Mullin looks bad in this clip. youtube.com/watch?v=Z4xze0…

@luscofusch Thanks! I realize there is no easy X answer to the question.

Oh, there is so much to say about that that it would really require a book-length answer! Popper said a great deal about the epistemology of explanation, the structure of explanation, and the improvement of explanations. But because some of what he said about structure of explanation resembles Hempel's work, part of the literature tends to dismiss him on the same grounds on which it dismisses Hempel, namely, the counterexamples to the DN model. Danny Frederick’s work is largely an implicit attempt to show that the literature made a mistake on that point. I do intend to write about this in greater detail in the future. As for Deutsch, you can look at his idea of “hard-to-vary.” It captures *some* of the ideas Popper had about what makes for a good explanation.

I said that “criticism” is not an axiom for Popper. A banality. Then some random guy googled “Popper axiom” and posted the first result as if that debunked me. But one page earlier, Popper explicitly says he is talking about deductibility, not criticism. Average day on twitter.

@luscofusch What do Popper/Deutsch say about explanation?

Generally speaking, yes: a lot of people read Popper in a way that amounts to a kind of naïve falsificationism along the lines of "You test theory, test fails, hypothesis refuted. Therefore, logical positivism, relativism, and subjectivism are refuted" plus some complaints about Plato and Hegel. That is pretty much it. Sometimes, if they have read Deutsch, they add something about explanation.

@luscofusch It doesn't help that there is a knee-jerk Popper that some science minded folk actually believe and offer, as if a theory of corroboration weren't also needed (and developed by Popper).

@PhilosopherJoeC Very likely. "Claude, show me where Popper speaks of axioms." Unfortunately, he forgot to add "criticism" to the prompt. I'm annoyed by the fact that the number of people who can only communicate through AI slop keeps increasing in my replies daily.

@j46868225 @WilliamsNietzs3 OK, I didn't say it was about control though I see the argument. I'm not sure how good the advice is. Some people at least have treatable mental illness and there is no evidential link (that I know of) between religious belief and cures of mental afflictions.

@PhilosopherJoeC @WilliamsNietzs3 I don't think what I'm talking about is a matter of comfort, I think it's a matter of courage. I just don't see how there's no other way than to see this type of statement as being about control. I'm not trying to convince about God by argument, don't to each their own me please!

This is dangerous philosophy

Went to a talk today on Climate Policy, and there are no real arguments against wind. What are the arguments? Trump doesn't like wind, so no wind energy.

@j46868225 @WilliamsNietzs3 This is a good point and I am not trying to take away God as a source of comfort. I find God to be a source of comfort. I’m just not going to try to convince someone they should believe something about God on the basis of argument. But to each his own.

@PhilosopherJoeC @WilliamsNietzs3 The thing is, letting go can require levels of courage that, if you're struggling with it, are very hard to reach without strong faith in someone or something. Mind can say you're going to die or go insane, if there isn't faith in something greater, how do you do the trust fall?

@CWashington1988 @ErrorTheorist But you’re missing the broader, more philosophical point: is there any reason to think that value judgments can be established by arguments of the understanding, as Hume says?

@PhilosopherJoeC @ErrorTheorist Philosophers don't primarily see arguments as tools for ascribing blame. You may disagree with the position, but accusing it of "blaming" people misses the point.

Here’s a paper arguing that getting tattoos can be immoral. The author argues that altering your body in this way can violate duties you have to your future self.

@CWashington1988 @ErrorTheorist It provides motivation to extend blame to other areas of people had not considered. In fact people that read this will likely blame others on the basis of the content of the paper You can’t prevent that.