Timeline for Why doesn't philosophy have higher standards for its arguments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2019 at 15:47 | comment | added | Yechiam Weiss | I'd add that some philosophical arguments are indeed presented with formal logic language, which, if that's what the OP refers to as "higher standards", would count. But I think what needs to be emphasized contrary to typical formal language "standards", in philosophy, is writing standards. On that department, I genuinely think there's a disturbingly low standard - even in classical philosophy papers! | |
| Jul 16, 2019 at 23:16 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @cmaster the difference is mathematics typically permits one to limit the domain to things that can be precisely defined, while a philosopher will continue to dabble outside. (and there's no reason you can't philosophize with math). For example, it's well recognized that "life" is ill defined, but we continue to study it with great fervor. | |
| Jul 16, 2019 at 22:52 | comment | added | cmaster - reinstate monica | a) How much of proof theory is actually know and used by the average philosopher? b) When things get "murky", my experience is, that's precisely because the terms are not well-defined. And because of this, people jump to wrong conclusions. Take for example that stupid "proof" that there can be no omnipotent god because if there were, he would be able to create a stone he can't lift, so he can't be omnipotent. This argument only proves that the term "omnipotence" is badly defined. Much in the same way as the set of all sets that don't contain themselves (every mathematician knows about it). | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 16:42 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @loki Also, re-reading my answer and reminding myself of what I was trying to say, the reason I mentioned proof theory is that it starts to blur the line between philosophy and mathematics. Obviously its very tricky to write proofs about the most fundamental constructs in prof theory, so the arguments that must be made at that point turn more into prose and a philosophical argument as to why said constructions are a valid way to view the concept of proofs. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 16:01 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:56 | comment | added | Joshua | On the other hand, what I take objection to is philosophical claims like "God does not exist." or the brain in a vat hypothesis. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:52 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | You may have a great deal of evidence to back up your assertion, but it will fall far short of what is expected from the standards of a mathematical proof. And that's okay. That's why history, as a discipline, is not reliant on mathematical proofs. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:52 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @Joshua Write that up in a formal mathematical proof and we can explore its validity =) In all seriousness, I am certain you've studied the topic more than I have, and your argument is more sound than any I might make. However, I also expect that if you were to put it into a formal mathematical proof in the form the OP is asking about, I'd be able to slaughter it by poking at the myriad assumptions. What you describe is probably an excellent example of why philosophy (or in your case, history) doesn't rely on something akin to mathematical proofs. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:49 | comment | added | Joshua | @CortAmmon: I've studied the juncture points. It's going to sound like handwaving, but it's not. The chain of events that lead to a Communist Russia are unlikely even though a revolution is likely. No Communist Russia->No Communist China (it's the smaller assumption that we still end up with a nasty dictator than we don't though)->No Domino theory->No Cuban Missile crisis. No decades long embargo of Cuba. Probably no US in the Vietnam war. But WWII is inevitable. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:21 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @Joshua What are your assumptions regarding how to model the twentieth century when perturbing the nineteenth? =D | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 15:12 | comment | added | Joshua | I have proof. Much nonsense of the twentieth century could have been avoided had nineteenth century philosophers not vastly overstated their confidence level in their results. And the overstated confidence has not changed. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 14:58 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @loki Perhaps my wording there was imprecise. In that sentence I was referring to not just the tools used in proof theory itself, but their product, which are the tools used everywhere in mathematics for proofs. You can imagine how difficult it would be to start a cryptography proof with "Everyone has an intuitive sense of what prime numbers are, but to date nobody has been able to put forth a succinct definition for them." That's the kind of murkyness which appears in philosophy all the time, and which proofs have a difficult time dealing with. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 13:42 | comment | added | sis | Could you clarify "The tools of proof theory are not designed to work with that."? I don't have statistics but I would say that 90% of mathematicians never use any serious tools of proof theory in their research. Why would one expect it to be helpful to philosophers? | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 6:12 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | I will note that philosophy does have some remarkably precise arguments. The problem is that there's so many nuanced positions that there's simply too many precise arguments. In the determinism vs. freewill debates, there's enough precisely defined concepts of freewill out there to give you a headache so strong that you'll seek out a trolley to get hit by! | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 6:06 | history | answered | Cort Ammon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |