Condescension could exist. Condescension does exist. The latter is an empirical claim, and it’s just been proven. :wally
Early Out, don’t you think that was just a teensy weensy bit uncalled for, given that I’m asking him to explain to me?
OK, I’ll stay out of your discussion. Perhaps it was uncalled for, but Lib tends to drift into this pedantic, “I’m the master,” pat-you-on-the-head type of condescension when he gets into these kinds of discussions, and it grates. “You don’t seem to be stupid, so there can only be one reason you’re not agreeing with me completely - it must be your incomplete grasp of English.” Your English is superb, and if I were in your shoes, the suggestion that it would be necessary for you to read a Swedish philosopher in order to understand these concepts would be insulting.
Statements like this are a dead giveaway, by the way:
It’s as if it were necessary for you to pass some sort of test that he has set, before he’ll engage in a discussion with you. “Oh, wise one, tell me that I am not unworthy!” Sheesh.
No need for that, really.
It grates me too when it comes from nowhere, but right now I’m actually asking him to explain to me.
Well, I did mention my incomplete grasp of English several times (three, I believe), before he said anything like that. My English is in fact incomplete when it comes to these rather advanced matters. Also, I don’t think Lib meant it quite that way; rather I believe he was trying to introduce me to philosophy.
Well then I’m an asshole too, for I too say to people that I respect them when I do.
Bingo! One of the greatest philosophers of modern times is Georg Henrik von Wright, who succeeded none other than Ludwig Wittgenstein at the University of Cambridge. He is Finnish, but he wrote and taught primarily in Swedish. (He died only last year.) Most of his work was — by incredible coincidence — in modal logic and the philosophy of science. Enjoy. 
Never heard of the guy, but I’ll see if I can find some of his books.
Knowing swedes, I’m going to agree that there are very few swedish philosophers that could be considered in any way, shape, or form, ‘enjoyable.’
On a more practical note, assuming a commonly held belief without known cause is true, and then attempting to determine potential causes for said belief, appears to be a perfect example of the scientific method. “Hypothesis: Something in willow bark tea cures headaches.” “Experiment: Seperate components of willow bark. Make various teas. Add a control group. Find out if any component cures headaches any faster than the other groups. Repeat, focusing in on sperating that component until a specific element appears.” Hypothesis, experiment, analysis, new hypothesis, experiment, analysis…
Assumption: Ghosts are real. Hypothesis: Ghosts are free standing replications of human brain waves. Experiment: Human brain waves can be detected in certain ways. Test in areas known to be ghost heavy. Experiment fails. Ghosts are not free standing replications of human brain waves.
It’s not possible to disprove ghosts at all in such a manner, but it is possible to reduce the probability of them existing in any specific manner to nigh zero.
Von Wright truly is one of the greats. His family is Scotish, he was born in Finland, but he wrote mostly in Swedish. His influence in logic, mathematics (especially statistics), science, ethics, psychology, and politics (here is one example) has been enormous. He virtually invented deontic logic. I have heard, but obviously cannot verify, that his writings in Swedish have a Shakespearean command and a rare clarity. Anyway, what does probability have to do with existence? What was the probability 10 billion years ago that you would be born? — and yet, here you are.
Very small, and anyone who was around 10 billion years ago would have done well at that time to assume that E-Sabbath would never be born. Right now, though, I’d say his existence is very probable indeed.
Am I right about Ghost Guy’s further claims?
Mea culpa. I had missed that. I apoligize to Liberal for jumping to an unwarranted conclusion about his motives.
Some of this illustrates one of the difficulties of written communication - each of us reads different things into the printed words, because we’re lacking a lot of the cues we normally rely on - tone of voice, facial expressions, body language. You don’t feel that you’re being condescended to. For me, the condescension shines like a beacon. Who’s right? There’s no way to know.
I’m sorry for crapping in your thread, but I’m usually cranky before the morning caffeine kicks in. I’ll stop now. Honest!
(BTW, I think you’re one of the least asshole-ish people here. Sorry if I implied any sort of offense.)
No offense taken, and thanks for the compliment; it’s on the top 5 of Nicest Things Ever Said To Me On The SDMB.
Hi, another random passer-by hoping to learn something, so please pardon my intrusion.
I’ve been a bit fuzy on the distinctions too, so let me see if I have it right.
Bob and Frank and chatting. They’re discussing elephants. Arguing about how big they are, what color the are, the noises they make, and so forth, are metaphysical, yes? Because they’re talking about what it means to be an elephant.
Now, if Bob and Frank were looking at a creature, discussing how big it is, what color it is, the noise it’s making, and arguing with each other if that is an elephant, that’s empirical, yes? Because they’re not arguing what makes an elephant an elephant, but whether this creature meets those criteria.
Which reminds me of many of the debates I see around here. Folks begin arguing about whether is an elephant, and by the time it winds up in the Pit, it’s really an argument about what an elephant is. Or am I oversimplifying to absurdity here?
OK, I’m not feeling any less confused now.
InkBlot
:eek:
Well, I might be a ghost, or an AI, or a well written expert system (Like the Justhink posts), or a bit of beef, some undigested mutton, a hallucination, or a sock. If I were a sock, would I exist? (Does a method actor’s character exist?) (Is this the first time someone rationally accused themselves of being a sock?) In fact, this question is far more interesting than it appears. According to traditional Newtonian physics, the probability would have been, Calvanistically, one hundred percent, at that point in time, or any point in time. According to quantum mechanics, though, things aren’t quite so sure, but they don’t rule it out, either. Do we have free will, or is it, even in theory, possible for a large enough computer (Which would, yes, have to be more complex than the universe) to run the ‘program’ of the universe repeatedly, and have the result come out exactly the same way each time?
Of course, the question is, if I exist, do you exist? You can’t prove it by me. I can barely prove I exist to myself, I might just be someone else’s hallucination. (Some days, I dearly wish that to be true.)
Ain’t science grand?
Oh, and I’m proved right. It’s a Scot. See? Never going to find an enjoyable Swedish philosopher.
Though, if I wasn’t going for a cheap gag, I might have thought of von Wright, though I’m not as well read as Lib. Mmm. Modal logic. It’s brainriffic.
I’m glad you said something because I actually missed that post. Sorry.
Yes! (Number 1 is both an epistemic “I know” and an empirical “I saw” claim.)
You don’t sound confused to me. Quite often, both sides are to blame. The person who raises the topic might say, “I’ve seen ghosts, so I know they exist.” The respondent then says, “Oh, yeah? Show me a ghost.” The OP then ought to say, “I never said I could show you a ghost”; instead, he says, “Here is someone else who has seen one.” Pretty soon, there is every manner of claim and every manner of challenge afoot until the thread is some sort of rhetorical vomit — composed of bits and pieces of every conceivable type.
No problem. I know we’ve had our differences, and I can hardly blame you for assuming the worst. For what it’s worth, I was on the other end of the stick when Priceguy was patiently answering my questions about the stock market in General Questions. We all pretty much learn from each other here.
OK. Believe it or not, this is actually starting to make sense. If you’ve got the patience, let’s go through Ghost Guy’s responses containing metaphysical claims.
- Ghosts must exist. It is inconceivable that a human mind would just disappear after death.
I cannot attack this with “show me a ghost” or “show me anyone who’s seen a ghost” or “show me an empirical study that indicates the existence of ghosts”, because that is, in fact, not the claim. I can attack either the logic or the premises. The premises, however, seem to be or at least be based on empirical claims, for example “The human mind exists as an entity independent of the human body”, which seems to be a claim Ghost Guy makes here. I can therefore ask him “how do you know the human mind exists as an entity independent of the human body?” and work from there.
- Ghosts must exist. So many people have seen them. It’s unbelievable that they were all mistaken or hallucinating.
Basically the same case as in 2. I can attack either the logic or the premises, so I can ask, for example “how do you know many people have seen them?” or “how do you know they were not mistaken or hallucinating?”. If I ask the first question, he’ll probably reply with stories of people who have seen ghosts, and then we are in empirical-claim area.
In fact, it seems to me that every metaphysical claim is, at heart, based on an empirical claim. Even “I exist” is based on my having experiences at all.
Your analysis is excellent. You’re right, you now are getting it. One small tweak:
You can state that as a premise of your own, but you must understand that others can reject it. There are schools of thought that hold that all actual entities are physical, but there are schools that hold otherwise. You are a physicalist or logical positivist. (So was Georg Henrik von Wright, which is why I’m convinced you will like him.)
The most beautiful debate, to me, is one in which the opponents understand not only their own points of view but each others as well. I’ve already mentioned SentientMeat and Spiritus Mundi. Another one to watch is Darwin’s Finch. He is the best debator on the board for evolution versus alternate theories. He has a profound understanding not only of evolution but of the other theories as well. He approaches his opponents with respect for the premises they hold, and avoids unnecessary contention by pointing out to them specifically which premises he accepts and which he rejects.
It is almost always the case that, when we disagree with one another, our underlying premises conflict. Knowing the right tool for the right job will help you drill down to find the ultimate source of your disagreement. Then, you can come away respecting one another and disagreeing at the same time because, in the end, we all rely on our experience as the epistemology that trumps all others. And since we are subjective beings with consciousnesses that we cannot share, it only stands to reason that we all will view the world differently.
Out of interest, if you do not base “I exist” on “I am having experiences”, then what do you base it on? This seems to be the most basic foundation of human thought.
Now that I believe I finally see what you’re saying (and it’s unquestionably true, although there are still some points on the subject of 1+1=2 I wouldn’t mind hammering a bit more), could I offer you some words of advice? You have made some enemies here (I have myself been among them), and I think that’s completely unnecessary. When you say that you need to approach a metaphysical claim with analytic evidence and an empirical claim with empirical evidence, to someone who hasn’t studied the subject as much as you have, it does sound simply like wordplay, or worse, as if you’re trying to bully them with big words. If, instead of saying that you said something along the lines of “Why are you asking him to show you a ghost? He never said he could do that. He just said he believes in them and you don’t even know why he does that yet. How can you then know what to ask him?” or similar, it would be much clearer what you mean. Of course, you can add notes about claims being metaphysical and the like, and when you’re in a discussion about philosophy then by all means bring all your howitzers to bear, but I think this approach will make your participation more pleasant for everybody.