Philosophical Vegan Forum

thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm So, for whether suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective, based on empirical evidence, observation, and logic.
Are you thinking about it and having to consider it further, or are you taking the fourth?

Same as a lot of my other questions. It's really putting you not in a good light to just skip them and ignore them. It tells you're either being willfully ignorant to not be proven wrong, or you're just willfully ignorant because you're too lazy.
Either isn't a good thing. Are you going to answer to the rest of my questions, or not?

ANSWER. If you need more time to think about it, say so, don't just ignore it like a child.

I'll humor what you said once more, but if you don't address this and keep ignoring things when it most suits you, I'll give you the same treatment by picking what I'll answer to randomly, leaving out the parts that I don't fancy to answer.

Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:43 pm

thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm Everything that you just said doesn't counter my point in the slightest.
It actually is a point for why language would be prescriptive.

You just said it yourself. The 'rule' of the 'game'

Rules are prescriptive. It's the reason why they're called rules.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The reason why I say that is the rules of language (in question) cannot prescribe themselves because that would require them to precede themselves. You see now? A prescription is made in language and therefore the language requires rules. Now do you see that the rules for that language which are spoken the prescription needed to be expressed in another language which needed rules which themselves can only be expressed as a prescription in language?

So far it seems I understand what I'm talking about far more than you do.

What you're saying makes no sense.
When you create a game, YOU set the rules, not the rules themselves set themselves. Do you think the rules have to precede themselves? No, you just created the game - and it works with the rules.
The rules are prescribed by the creators of the game. In the case of language, they're first prescribed by the people that made the language, and then new additions/changes are prescribed by a concordance that made the new additions/changes, NOT by the rules themselves. The rules obviously don't have agency to prescribe themselves. Rules are a tool to make the game work, a set of regulations, not the acting agents that create rules.

Do you understand that you're trying to make the very definition of prescriptive make no sense, because otherwise you'd be wrong?

Rule:
'one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.'
What's not clear? The rules don't precede themselves, you're making a logical fallacy.

By that logic, math is a paradox. So is evidence. So is anything.
Because for anything to make sense, the rules and the logic that make it what it is and make it work would have to precede themselves.
What are you even saying.

Bob wants to make a board game. Bob wants there to be a rule in the board game where people have to throw again IF and ONLY IF they throw a number 6 with the first throw of their turn. So, Bob sets that rule.
Now, in the game, if you throw a 6 with your first throw of your turn, you have to throw again. It's prescriptive. It's a rule of the game - set not by the rules themselves, but by Bob.

There is NO paradox. You're creating a paradox where none exists.

thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:21 am

thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm So, for whether suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective, based on empirical evidence, observation, and logic.
Are you thinking about it and having to consider it further, or are you taking the fourth?

Same as a lot of my other questions. It's really putting you not in a good light to just skip them and ignore them. It tells you're either being willfully ignorant to not be proven wrong, or you're just willfully ignorant because you're too lazy.
Either isn't a good thing. Are you going to answer to the rest of my questions, or not?

ANSWER. If you need more time to think about it, say so, don't just ignore it like a child.

I'll get back to, with some honest answers.

And maybe some questions too, after I give you some answers tho

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:16 amMost linguists agree that they have little or no effect on the spoken language.

I'm not referring to the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy in linguistics, but just the idea that a word means something and not any other random thing -- descriptivism is a limited form of prescriptivism that prescribes a word's meaning as what most people think it means at a given time.

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:16 amA Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić famously argues attempts to preserve a language using prescriptive rules is not only not productive, but also counter-productive, because they make people less comfortable speaking their own language.

What about efforts to objectively assess the meanings of words based on their modern day usages?
Or is what any string of words just a personal opinion, where if one person says "the words in your last post are talking about a wizard cat eating pudding" that is just as right as my interpretation which was that of an argument on linguistics to which I believe I've read, understood, and am responding to now?

Is Humptydumptyism valid?

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:16 amBut the claim that any form of prescription in language is impossible due to infinite regress is obviously absurd, by that logic, C++ compilers could never be written in C++ (yet most widely used C++ compilers are indeed written in C++: GCC, CLANG...).

That's a very interesting point. I wonder what Kaz has to say about that. Seems his only escape would be to claim that all computer programs themselves are inherently subjective entities and don't and can't do anything objective. Or to argue that human brains are magic.

Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:12 am

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:49 am Interesting, Kaz already has an open thread on this topic where he failed to follow through in the discussion.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5541

I thought I recognized that name. He didn't know what color was, and he doesn't believe science is objective because it relies at some point on human observation.

Like I said, hardcore moral relativists are always, ALWAYS ultimately factual relativists when you dig down deep enough.

After reflecting on our discussions regarding colour, you actually changed my opinion on colour...

You seemed to be trying to save face there before, but it's good to see you admit that.
Do you understand that science itself is also objective and not made subjective by experimental and measurement error?

And can you admit you are likely to be similarly wrong on linguistics and morality? You're coming off as inordinately certain of your claims there when you have only just been profoundly wrong and corrected on a very similar claim.

Just like Teo is far too certain prisons don't exist when he was just corrected on his belief that the Earth was flat, then after that that airplanes don't exist, and after that that bombs are physically impossible so don't exist.

There's a kind of induction that both of you are missing here. The track record here should lend you more skepticism of your own position and a tentative assumption that I am correct, so the goal should be asking questions to figure out what you misunderstand rather than trying to make an argument for your own position. I'm not saying accept my being correct on faith, certainly consider the possibility that I am wrong, but that should be the starting assumption -- working together rather than against each other we can better determine where the misunderstanding lies and we save a lot of time by searching where it most probably originates first.

Anyway, why did you not continue responding in the thread I linked? The topic turned back to morality which was the principal question. It was supposed to be the same topic as this thread and it was not in any sense done.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Or is what any string of words just a personal opinion, where if one person says "the words in your last post are talking about a wizard cat eating pudding" that is just as right as my interpretation which was that of an argument on linguistics to which I believe I've read, understood, and am responding to now?

I am not sure how a trained linguist would respond to that. Here is how Daniel from LinguistForum responded to a somewhat similar question:

http://linguistforum.com/outside-of-the-box/croatian-toponyms/msg25334/#msg25334 wrote:

LinguistSkeptic wrote:And what do you think is the difference between saying "'Yes' means 'boiling' in English, and it comes from PIE *yes." and saying "'Colapis' meant 'river with many meanders' in old Croatian and it comes from PIE *kwol-h2ep."?

About the same as the difference between claiming that a rhinoceros is a type of plant and actually study biology.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:44 am Do you understand that science itself is also objective and not made subjective by experimental and measurement error?

Yes the empirical sciences are objectively verifiable, they are not in anyway subjective and for example, it's like how the sciences behind "colour" are objective, scence is not a matter of feelings, beliefs or opinions. It's objective.

And can you admit you are likely to be similarly wrong on linguistics and morality?

I've got learn more about how linguistics relates to morality, that is definitely true. Besides learning more about "how linguistics relates to morality" is important as doing that leads you to the truth of the matter. This is something I plan to do and just like colour; I will spend time reflecting, learning more and questioning myself regarding my pre-existing beliefs.

But I don't see myself believing that morality is subjective nor do I see myself believing morality is objective (as I understand it to be.) it would be interesting to learn more about minimal moral realism

brimstoneSalad wrote:Just like Teo is far too certain prisons don't exist when he was just corrected on his belief that the Earth was flat, then after that that airplanes don't exist, and after that that bombs are physically impossible so don't exist.

There's a kind of induction that both of you are missing here. The track record here should lend you more skepticism of your own position

I don't quite understand the logic here. I mean, why would that make any more sense than saying "Science has been wrong before, therefore we shouldn't trust it."? Each time science corrects some false belief, it gets more reliable. And the same goes for individual people, each time we correct some of our false beliefs, we get more reliable.

Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:16 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:44 am Do you understand that science itself is also objective and not made subjective by experimental and measurement error?

Yes the empirical sciences are objectively verifiable, they are not in anyway subjective and for example, it's like how the sciences behind "colour" are objective, scence is not a matter of feelings, beliefs or opinions. It's objective.

So do you agree that IF we were to define moral quality as color wavelengths (e.g. blue things are good, red things are bad) that whether something was good or bad (and to what degree between them) would be an objective fact?

Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:16 pmI've got learn more about how linguistics relates to morality, that is definitely true.

I hope the answer to the above is "yes", and if it is I think that will help you understand the relationship: because whether morality is objective or not depends on the definition, and that comes down to linguistics (including whether definitions in linguistics are objective or not).

Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:16 pmBut I don't see myself believing that morality is subjective nor do I see myself believing morality is objective (as I understand it to be.) it would be interesting to learn more about minimal moral realism

The biggest question there to start with is what subjective and objective really mean in the philosophical context we're discussing them in.

Have you read this article?
wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_distinction

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:36 am I don't quite understand the logic here. I mean, why would that make any more sense than saying "Science has been wrong before, therefore we shouldn't trust it."?

People are not epistemological categories of knowledge, but more like textbooks.

One with many errors in the first chapter, or the first version, even if corrected eventually is more likely to be in error than one that covers the same subject material with fewer or no errors.

Your track record can change over time, but thus far there has been no evidence of that. It would require a change in the way you think.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:36 amEach time science corrects some false belief, it gets more reliable.

And if it had a competitive source of knowledge that was right from the beginning and verifiably didn't make as many mistakes it would be reasonable to prefer that other source. Faith is not competition for science, it makes far more mistakes but doesn't correct them. Very different from a competitive source that makes fewer mistakes to begin with. Making a mistake then correcting it is at best even with the source that didn't make the mistake to begin with, but more likely still falls behind because the process by which the mistake was made probably still exists.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:36 amAnd the same goes for individual people, each time we correct some of our false beliefs, we get more reliable.

Not if you make the same mistakes again and again. You only get more reliable if your track record demonstrably improves.

brimstoneSalad wrote:One with many errors in the first chapter, or the first version, even if corrected eventually is more likely to be in error than one that covers the same subject material with fewer or no errors.

I don't agree with the "even if corrected" part. Think of it this way: if some program has very few bug fixes, is it more likely that it's nearly bug-free, or that it is not actively developed? Bug fixes are a lot more common (and have been for decades) for Firefox than for Internet Explorer, and that is why Internet Explorer is much more buggy (plus that some websites rely on Internet-Explorer-specific behavior to work correctly, so there is an incentive not to fix bugs in it).

brimstoneSalad wrote:It would require a change in the way you think.

How is that different from saying science getting more reliable would require a change in the scientific method? I mean, I am trying to follow the methods of science, regardless of where that leads me.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You only get more reliable if your track record demonstrably improves.

In my opinion, my track record has demonstrably improved drastically. A few years ago, I was clueless about anything. Today, I am one of few people who have published papers in both linguistics and computer science.