Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote

Ontology, as conventionally understood, is the study of what exists. Obviously being "the study" means that "the study of Ontology" is a process of thought. That doesn't mean that Ontology is about thought. That would be like saying that woodwork is not about working wood. It's about thinking about woodwork.

The question of ontology asks us to look at what IS, but when the question is asked, the what IS is already conceived in the asking as an idea, recollected language, logical construction and an already existing sense of what there is that needs inquiry. You don't go into the matter ex nihilo, nor does any possible response arise this way. This "isness" or Being you seek an accounting of must be there in experience beforehand, for the asking, but then, what is "there"? The idea here, in part, is that we cannot conceive of what that could be without the attendant ideas that make conception possible. Once you drop thought, in other words, you drop understanding, and this makes things "as they are", beyond the scope of language, utterly ineffable, transcendental. If you take this kind of thing seriously, transcendence, you step into another, very odd and interesting, if you ask me, world. The fact that you can ask the question about such non linguistic apprehensions of the what IS that is not a nonsense question opens a very strange door in philosophy that is beyond the scope of this discussion.


The point I want to make does touch on this, though: the rational grasp of something delimits that thing, brings it to heel, removes the thing from what would otherwise be without understanding altogether because unconditioned by thought. This, one might say, is one aspect of a rationalized world and it is part of empirical science's hegemonic bias, given that science wants this above all: logical clarity. But while logical clarity does work in the affairs of science where things are quantitatively conceived, it is a very rough go regarding the entire theater of human affairs where a standard of clarity applying to our horrors, joys, loves, fears, the very things that stand out to inquiry in need of understanding is absurd. Hence a movement in philosophy called existentialism.

The assumption of what? Of science? That would be like saying that the assumption of woodwork is that one cannot step outside of wood. Science, by definition, is largely about sensory experiences in the sense that it is empirical. That doesn't mean you can't "step outside". If you want to try to do that in some way you're free to do so. You just won't be doing science then. There's no law saying that you have to.

No. I'm saying one cannot step out of experience because sense cannot be made of such a thing. To step outside of something implies that where one is stepping makes sense to be stepped into. I can make sense of stepping out of woodwork, but I cannot make sense of stepping out of experience fir that would be stepping out of making sense itself.

You're talking as if somebody has told you that philosophy has to be all about science. Obviously it doesn't. But obviously it makes sense for it to be informed by science's findings for the same reason that it makes sense for it to be informed by any other findings.

So I still don't see what the point of the OP is. Its title seems to suggest that it's a defense of the proposition "Science has hegemony and that's absurd". But maybe it isn't. I'm none the wiser!

Someone told me? Well, not personally. I read.

Maybe? I mean, look at the arguments. What do you think about its specific issues. This is just being dismissive.

Atla wrote

Depends what you mean by that. Technically, experience has no actual structure, just as the outside world has no actual structure. (Probably.) Our own mind/thinking is/creates that apparent structure, but it's not set in stone, for example I frequently change the structure of my experiences using various techniques.

Avoiding such traps is one reason why philosophy shouldn't be purely a priori.

But you don't change the having of motivations, grief, anxiety, logic, engagements, and so on; you can ignore these, become a monk and they can all just fall away from experience, but then, are you still human? People who actually do this kind of thing talk in terms alien to existence.

As to philosophy being apriori, it is no more than looking at presuppositions OF what you might find in science. A scientist looks at data regarding, say, plate tectonics to study movements of the earth's crust. Looking at data: what is this? What is in the looking, studying, analyzing, comparing, and so forth? There is reason. What is this? How is this evidenced to be posited? It is in the very form of a given judgment: logical form. Can one separate logic from what logic in observation tells you about the world? After all, logic is a matter of apriority, so how can this be about an object when knowledge of objects is all posteriori knowledge?

Now you're deep into an apriori analysis of an empirical claim. It is not second guessed by the empirical claim, but is altogether a different kind of question about a different kind of issue.

Terrapin Station wrote

How would we provisionally verify versus falsify a claim like that?

One would simply observe the nature of language and logic. This is done by taking the various propositional forms and analyzing them, and determining what they are, as in assertions, denials, conditionals and the rest. You cannot say, Eureka, there is life on Mars! unless you can make a statement in the form of an assertion.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 21st, 2020, 12:39 pm But you don't change the having of motivations, grief, anxiety, logic, engagements, and so on; you can ignore these, become a monk and they can all just fall away from experience, but then, are you still human? People who actually do this kind of thing talk in terms alien to existence.

Whose existence? Shouldn't philosophy cover all of existence, including the various kinds of not fully human humans?

As to philosophy being apriori, it is no more than looking at presuppositions OF what you might find in science. A scientist looks at data regarding, say, plate tectonics to study movements of the earth's crust. Looking at data: what is this? What is in the looking, studying, analyzing, comparing, and so forth? There is reason. What is this? How is this evidenced to be posited? It is in the very form of a given judgment: logical form. Can one separate logic from what logic in observation tells you about the world? After all, logic is a matter of apriority, so how can this be about an object when knowledge of objects is all posteriori knowledge?

Now you're deep into an apriori analysis of an empirical claim. It is not second guessed by the empirical claim, but is altogether a different kind of question about a different kind of issue.

How do you know that logic is a matter of apriority? So far, the entire known universe seem to behave in a way that's consistent/compatible with human classical logic. Maybe apriori human logic evolved to reflect how the universe around us behaves.

Atla wrote
Whose existence? Shouldn't philosophy cover all of existence, including the various kinds of not fully human humans?

Of course. Would like to include stones, animals, spiders? Yes,they are included. But in doing this, have you made any alteration in the argument? Living things like us are considered only to the extent a characterization is warranted. A stone: One can only say what one observes and there is no interior to a stone that can be accessed. An animal? We are not as dogs and cats and the rest are animals, so the best we can do infer what it would be like from what we are, given a similarity in observable constitutions but this is the best we can do. As to other people, we also infer from what we experience to others, and are right about a lot of things for observations seem to match up. But then, even with animals and other people, we cannot see into their interiors, so we infer what they are like.

How do you know that logic is a matter of apriority? So far, the entire known universe seem to behave in a way that's consistent/compatible with human classical logic. Maybe apriori human logic evolved to reflect how the universe around us behaves.

But to even speculate about such a thing requires you to employ your reason. Keep in mind that if the universe were to behave in odd ways, it would not be apriority that was threatened, but simply our observations and the consistency they have thus far yielded. To imagine a world where logic itself is upended is to imagine world beyond logical possibility, modus ponens doesn't really work. Such a thing is beyond imagination. Important is that logic is IN the structure of the thoughts you use to construct your suspicions about logic. There really is no way out of meaningful discussions requiring apriori logical form.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 21st, 2020, 1:47 pm Of course. Would like to include stones, animals, spiders? Yes,they are included. But in doing this, have you made any alteration in the argument? Living things like us are considered only to the extent a characterization is warranted. A stone: One can only say what one observes and there is no interior to a stone that can be accessed. An animal? We are not as dogs and cats and the rest are animals, so the best we can do infer what it would be like from what we are, given a similarity in observable constitutions but this is the best we can do. As to other people, we also infer from what we experience to others, and are right about a lot of things for observations seem to match up. But then, even with animals and other people, we cannot see into their interiors, so we infer what they are like.

Alteration in what argument?

But to even speculate about such a thing requires you to employ your reason. Keep in mind that if the universe were to behave in odd ways, it would not be apriority that was threatened, but simply our observations and the consistency they have thus far yielded. To imagine a world where logic itself is upended is to imagine world beyond logical possibility, modus ponens doesn't really work. Such a thing is beyond imagination. Important is that logic is IN the structure of the thoughts you use to construct your suspicions about logic. There really is no way out of meaningful discussions requiring apriori logical form.

Well, sure.

(I don't know what your point is.)

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 21st, 2020, 12:45 pm One would simply observe the nature of language and logic.

??? But "All science is a construct of language and logic before it is ever even gets to constructing tests tubes and telescopes " is a claim about science, it's not a claim about language and logic.

If we said, "All dogs are black," and someone said, "How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim," we wouldn't respond by saying, "One would simply observe the nature of black"! We have to observe dogs, and check whether they're all black or not, because it's a claim about the properties of dogs, not the properties of colors. Likewise, you made a claim about the properties of science, not the properties of language and logic.

This is done by taking the various propositional forms and analyzing them, and determining what they are, as in assertions, denials, conditionals and the rest. You cannot say, Eureka, there is life on Mars! unless you can make a statement in the form of an assertion.

Of course you can not say something without using language. But that's aside from the issue of whether all science is a construct of language and logic. Would you be suggesting that we can not do science without saying something? Could a person who can't speak, write (or sign, etc.) be incapable of doing science? How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim?

(And note by the way that the claim, "is a construct of" is different than if we were simply to say, "is done with the aid of.")

Terrapin Station wrote
??? But "All science is a construct of language and logic before it is ever even gets to constructing tests tubes and telescopes " is a claim about science, it's not a claim about language and logic.

If we said, "All dogs are black," and someone said, "How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim," we wouldn't respond by saying, "One would simply observe the nature of black"! We have to observe dogs, and check whether they're all black or not, because it's a claim about the properties of dogs, not the properties of colors. Likewise, you made a claim about the properties of science, not the properties of language and logic.

I am saying language and logic is foundational for science; it is presupposed by it. The verification or falsification of whether a dog is black would certianly require empirical confirmation, but then, the question here would go to the verification of the empirical claim itself, qua empirical claim. This brings one to, not another observation of an empirical nature, but an analysis of what it is for something to be empirical at all (hence, the apriori nature of philosophy: what is assumed, presupposed by X).

Of course you can not say something without using language. But that's aside from the issue of whether all science is a construct of language and logic. Would you be suggesting that we can not do science without saying something? Could a person who can't speak, write (or sign, etc.) be incapable of doing science? How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim?

(And note by the way that the claim, "is a construct of" is different than if we were simply to say, "is done with the aid of.")

You can tie your shoes without language, but it would be closer to what a cow does when it looks for greener pasture. Science is symbolic work, and yes, you cannot do this without language. Science is a body of factual propositions, and propositions are inherently linguistic.
You could verify versus falsify this by asking how physics could be possible without language and logic. You would have to demonstrate this: give examples of science and show how these are free,or can be, of language.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2020, 11:29 am

Terrapin Station wrote
??? But "All science is a construct of language and logic before it is ever even gets to constructing tests tubes and telescopes " is a claim about science, it's not a claim about language and logic.

If we said, "All dogs are black," and someone said, "How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim," we wouldn't respond by saying, "One would simply observe the nature of black"! We have to observe dogs, and check whether they're all black or not, because it's a claim about the properties of dogs, not the properties of colors. Likewise, you made a claim about the properties of science, not the properties of language and logic.

I am saying language and logic is foundational for science; it is presupposed by it. The verification or falsification of whether a dog is black would certianly require empirical confirmation, but then, the question here would go to the verification of the empirical claim itself, qua empirical claim. This brings one to, not another observation of an empirical nature, but an analysis of what it is for something to be empirical at all (hence, the apriori nature of philosophy: what is assumed, presupposed by X).

Of course you can not say something without using language. But that's aside from the issue of whether all science is a construct of language and logic. Would you be suggesting that we can not do science without saying something? Could a person who can't speak, write (or sign, etc.) be incapable of doing science? How would we provisionally verify versus falsify that claim?

(And note by the way that the claim, "is a construct of" is different than if we were simply to say, "is done with the aid of.")

You can tie your shoes without language, but it would be closer to what a cow does when it looks for greener pasture. Science is symbolic work, and yes, you cannot do this without language. Science is a body of factual propositions, and propositions are inherently linguistic.
You could verify versus falsify this by asking how physics could be possible without language and logic. You would have to demonstrate this: give examples of science and show how these are free,or can be, of language.

So if you were trying to figure out how to best hunt an animal, say, and you did that by observing its behavior--where it goes at different times of the day, how it reacts to sounds and so on, so that you can make predictions about the best way to hunt it, you wouldn't call that a scientific approach? Because you could do that without language, and certainly language (or logic) wouldn't be "constructing" it.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 19th, 2020, 9:45 pmScience does not do ontology.

QUOTE>
"A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve."

(Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. p. xi)

"(I)f 'ontology' just means 'the study of what exists' or 'the study of things', as opposed to the study of knowledge, don't the sciences qualify for that label? Doesn't the physicist study the existing things of the physical world? And similarly for all the other sciences: don't they all study a certain class of existing things—biology, astronomy, psychology, and so on? There are various entities in reality and the various sciences study the nature of those entities—planets, organisms, subjects of consciousness, and so on. Isn't a scientist by definition an ontologist? The answer must surely be yes: the scientist studies the order of being, or a certain category of beings. He or she wants to know what kinds of being exist, how they should be classified, how they work, what laws or principles govern them. Science is therefore a kind of ontology—a systematic study of what is, why it is, and what it is. Science is the study of being (not the study of nonbeing). But, then, granted the synonymy of 'ontology' and 'metaphysics' (as that term is now understood), science is also metaphysics. There is no contrast between science and metaphysics; science is a special case of metaphysics. The physicist is a metaphysician (= ontologist), quite literally, even when his concerns are thoroughly of this world. Theories of motion, say, are metaphysical theories—because they are ontological theories (not epistemological theories). Darwin had a metaphysical theory of life on Earth. There are metaphysical facts, like the rotation of the Earth or the boiling point of water. Philosophers also do metaphysics, of course, but they do so in the company of scientists: we are all practicing metaphysicians, for we all study being. We all do what Aristotle was doing in the book he wrote after writing the Physics. We study objective reality in a rigorous and systematic way, aiming to produce a general picture of things, seeking to keep bias and human idiosyncrasy out of it.
…
This is not to deny any distinction between the kind of metaphysics (ontology) that philosophers do and the kind that scientists do. There are all sorts of distinctions between the kinds of metaphysics the various students of the world engage in—physicists or biologists, chemists or philosophers. No doubt every field differs from all the others in some way. There are many ways to be an ontologist, i.e. metaphysician, though that is what we all are. It is a matter of controversy what constitutes the philosophical kind of ontologist—especially what kind of methodology he or she adopts. Some see themselves as continuous with the scientific ontologists, perhaps arranging their several results into a big perspicuous ontological map. Some rely on the method of conceptual analysis to further their ontological goals. Others appeal to a special faculty of ontological intuition (they tend to be frowned upon by their tougher-minded laboratory-centered ontological colleagues). Aristotle understands his enterprise as differing from that of other ontologists merely in respect of generality. Where the physicist investigates substances of one kind—physical substances—the philosophical ontologist investigates the general category or substance. Where the chemist looks for the cause of particular chemical reactions, the philosopher looks at the nature of causation in general. These restricted ontologists want to know the nature of particular physical and chemical substances and causes; the philosophical ontologist wants to know the nature of substances and causation in general. They are both studying the same thing—being, reality—but they study it at different levels of generality. Thus philosophical metaphysics is fundamentally the same kind of enterprise as scientific metaphysics—though, of course, there are differences of method and scope. All are correctly classified as metaphysics (not epistemology or axiology). That is the right descriptive nomenclature to adopt."

(McGinn, Colin. "Science as Metaphysics." In Philosophical Provocations: 55 Short Essays, 215–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. pp. 216-7)
<QUOTE

Consul wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2020, 4:11 pmQUOTE>
"A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve."

(Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. p. xi)
<QUOTE

Footnote:
The noun "ontology" is used both as a count noun referring to what exists according to a theory (= those entities to which it is ontologically committed) and as a noncount noun referring to the theoretical discipline called "ontology".

Consul wrote

Footnote:
The noun "ontology" is used both as a count noun referring to what exists according to a theory (= those entities to which it is ontologically committed) and as a noncount noun referring to the theoretical discipline called "ontology".

Read through those quotes. One thing I do not say in these posts, and this is because I am explicitly trying to avoid the off putting name dropping, is that I hold the position that Heidegger's (and other derivative views) phenomenological ontology is the only one that satisfies the condition of at once encompassing all that "is" and avoiding the tedious, what Rorty might call, hypostatization of language. Heidegger considers all non phenomenological ontologies as merely ontic, or pre ontological, and here, in the everydayness of science and daily affairs, one can use the term at will, but it will not be authentic philosophical ontology. I try to put Rorty and Heidegger together: what IS, is a ready hand, pragmatic field of possibilities and choice. I cannot even begin to understand what materialism is about outside of the pragmatic meaning it has in the, to borrow from Heidegger, primordial grounding.

Of course, to oppose this view is to argue its explanatory deficits.

ready to hand

Terrapin Station wrote

So if you were trying to figure out how to best hunt an animal, say, and you did that by observing its behavior--where it goes at different times of the day, how it reacts to sounds and so on, so that you can make predictions about the best way to hunt it, you wouldn't call that a scientific approach? Because you could do that without language, and certainly language (or logic) wouldn't be "constructing" it.

Making predictions without an understanding of a logical conditional? It is not the formal study of symbolic logic that is part of the hunter's knowledge, but the logical form of thought that allows assertions, negations, conditionals, and the rest. Remember, logic and all of its forms is derived from judgments we make every day. As children, it is modeled by everyone around us from a very early age. Of course, there is the feral child and it makes interesting speculation to ask how one like this might anticipate a storm, say, or know there is danger. the way this is approached is to say that we are given as part of our hard wiring the a logical ability, evidenced in the way we think and make judgments, but it takes experience to bring this out. Otherwise, it remains in latency.
You could buy the pragmatist epistemology that says all thought is essentially grounded hypothetical deductive method, which simply means you walk into a given circumstance, and the reason you know what to do is the ready to hand activation of a memory. Before you actually arrive at the mailbox, you are already prepared to engage, putting the fingers to the latch, pulling just so, and the rest. The situation is the present actuality of something familiar. Hard to put this is the small space of a post, but all language is like this, and all logical forms that eventually manifest are inherently anticipatory. To be conscious at all, is to anticipate. The excpetion to this, you might say, would be in meditation yoga, but here, of course, the whole idea is the termination of the self and its language.

At any rate, my idea here is that it is not logic and language so much as the whole of experience itself that needs to be recognized and theorized about in philosophy.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 21st, 2020, 10:09 am As far as your distinction; not sure there is one since science is a practice, its practice defines what it is.

Science is also a reservoir of learning, and I think it reasonable to compare this reservoir with the practitioners who use it (or claim to).

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 21st, 2020, 10:09 am My basic objection is that it in no way forms an hegemony; would that it did.
We would have a more rational world being based on verifiable truth rather than rumour or faith.

As for the hegemony, the facts are there in our socieities and our world, to be observed. We could argue about matters of degree, but to what point?

We would have a more rational world, but would it be a world that is more acceptable to us humans, to live in? Or would we prefer a world more in accord with our emotional and irrational needs? For myself, I would not wish to live in a world where Spock and Mr Data are considered role models.