Epistemology General

File: th.jpg (12KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x225px

>>7938922
>his epistemology isn't Bayesian

>>7938945
>Bayes
Bitch please. Anyone's that's tried to factor large numbers knows that you can't use statistics to create new hypotheses.

File: red_tailed_black_cockatoo_2_by_punkdiva-d3d9mql.jpg (117KB, 729x1097px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 729x1097px

>>7938948

>he thinks epistemology is concerned with the details of hypothesis generation

>>7938945
Wait I've got a stronger form of response.

Prove Aumann agreement isn't what happens between individual organic neurons.
>>7938968
>concerned with the details
No, it's just that evidence can't exist in a vacuum. You can't analyze evidence against no hypothesis.

File: egrets I've had a few.jpg (40KB, 500x311px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x311px

"Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and when we cease our attempts to drive our piles into a deeper layer, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that they are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being." (1959)
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung (2002),

>>7939144
Solid, solid epistemology. Assuming the quote reflects how you really feel about science, then I'd say your epistemology is proximate to mine, but still ultimately smaller.

>>7939153
I LOL'd, as they say on the internet. Yes, I do subscribe to that belief. Please tell, how still smaller?

>>7938948
And what exactly does that have to do with Bayesian epistemology, besides "nothing"?

>>7938968
>birdposting

Everything not Bayes is a heuristic approximation, and soon AI will kill us all.

>>7938945
*her

File: cosmos.jpg (705KB, 800x7200px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 800x7200px

>>7939257
I wish OP would come back.

>>7939257
Ahem. *logical omniscience* Ahem.

>>7939263
>>7939279
Looks like she did and I missed her. C'mon OP, say more.

>>7939188
Realize that epistemology isn't the only real thing you have access to.
>>7939191
Trying to converge on the bell curve of truth doesn't work too well with intentionally designed statistical anomalies. You can't just search for approximation and expect to factor your number in polynomial time. Some problems are legitimately hard. Again, that's the weak response: >>7938989

>>7939257
Bayes is a method of converging heuristics, not a method of analyzing their applied reasoning. You still end up with the normative fallacy.
>>7939263
>their
Singular they is best when gender is unknown.
>>7939279
Let me take a look...

I don't see any explicit epistemology there. Just a really ironic take on the lack of epistemology in common Christian thought.
>>7939288
My logical omniscience is larger.
>>7939294
I already gave my claim. What more do you want?

>>7939686
>Singular they is best when gender is unknown.
he > they
Fucking theyfags.

>>7939944
>not being the little girl
Get out.

>>7939686
>Realize that epistemology isn't the only real thing you have access to.
This I understand for myself in a couple of different contexts, although I would like to hear more from you about this.

>>7939279
>Let me take a look...
Pic not related.

>>7939288
>My logical omniscience is larger.
I threw this in as it is a critique of Beyes, the possibility of logical certainty.

>>7939294
>I already gave my claim. What more do you want?
I want to hear more about your claim! It's a big claim. I'm not trolling for proof, just want to hear what you have to say.

File: Koala.jpg (763KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1024x768px

>tfw humanities PhD in philosophy & history of science
>tfw pissing off scientists by historicizing the epistemological underpinnings of their worldviews in front of them
>tfw STEMplebs go into autistic conniption fits when you tell them that their "IT'S JUST TRUE!!! IT'S TRUE BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!!!!!!!!!" simplistic axioms of all human inquiry are actually just a case of them bastardising something that was debunked in the '60s
>tfw scientists are just human calculators, and functionally retarded

>>7940768
You've gotta love koalas. Who doesn't love koalas.

>>7940261
>I would like to hear more from you about this.
So would I, you, based on what you just said. The only difference is that I don't say it. Therefore my epistemology > your epistemology. Asking has an implied context potential that you can't refute.
>>7940261
>logical certainty
Omniscience doesn't imply lack of doubt. You can have an image of the entire cosmos and still fill the mind with doubt. You could say omniscience isn't useful without reasonable certainty, so logic ends up being more important than even omniscience.
>>7940261
>It's a big claim.
No it isn't. It's a relational claim made on an image board for anonymous interested parties. Neither of us is prepared to that this interaction personally. If you think your epistemology is significantly large as it is, THEN it would be a big claim but until you demonstrate a claim other than mine you've added nothing to the topic. Mine is bigger because I had the balls to make the topic. You are purely another reaction to my epistemology.
>>7940768
>are actually just a case of them bastardising something that was debunked in the '60s
<3

Weaker form of my claim: Prove humanities anon doesn't have a larger epistemology than the rest of you.

First delegate achieved. Please acquire a tripcode if you want to be part of this, humanities anon.

>prove me wrong

Its the theory of truth, not a possession or attribute.

>>7941666
>Its the theory of truth
If your epistemology can't reach past the philosophy of "truth," then your knowledge is singularly irrelevant in comparison to all other anons in this thread, combined via their worst (least epistemic) attributes.

>>7941666
>not a possession
This just in: Nobody can have any ideas.

>>7941651
>>>7940261
>>I would like to hear more from you about this.
>So would I, you, based on what you just said. The only difference is that I don't say it.

Well, you did say it, which was why I was asking you to say more. You said, mine (me here) is smaller, I asked why, you said realize that epistemology isn't the only real thing you have access to, implying that you do.

>Asking has an implied context potential that you can't refute.

What do you mean, that the questioner always has an agenda? Of course, but if you use that as a reason to not reply then why post in the first place?

>>>7940261
>>logical certainty
>Omniscience doesn't imply lack of doubt.
In the context of the specific criticism of Bayes and Logical Omniscience and the requirement for the workarounds which it entails, it did. But you know that.

>>>7940261
>>It's a big claim.
>No it isn't. It's a relational claim
Big is a relative term, no?

>Neither of us is prepared to that this interaction personally.
Eh? I'd be happy to sit down and have a beer with you.

>Mine is bigger because I had the balls to make the topic.
Your's may be bigger but it ain't because you made a topic.

>You are purely another reaction to my epistemology.
No, I'm a reaction to your OP. You haven't told us what your epistemology is, yet.

>>7942582
>if you use that as a reason to not reply
>an agenda
More like ignorance. Your supplying your logic has provided me with no motivation to respond in depth.
>>7942582
>you know that
I don't/didn't. It was clear that logical omniscience has a discrete meaning in contexts of criticism of Bayes' philosophy, but my epistemology exists at a level beyond bothering to name arguments, counter-arguments, or logical fallacies. To name it can only stunt discussions with the slightly-less well-read.
>>7942582
>Big is a relative term, no?
No, it isn't. Even /sci/ can tell you why size isn't a non-quality. It's only relative in idioms.
>>7942582
>I'd be happy to
My epistemology isn't some casual parlor trick. I'd be insulted if I weren't so aware that you have no grasp of my epistemology.
>>7942582
>ain't because you made a topic
World states, friend. World states. I'm the one who did. It is direct first-hand evidence in this debate. I *could* unpack my full reasoning for you, so why haven't I? Analyze, don't just blindly refute.
>>7942582
>what your epistemology is
Larger than yours. It would require an epistemology on par with mine to suss out greater details.

>>7943489
So your "reasoning" is that, because I cannot somehow intuit what you mean, you are above responding to me with any actual answers. So far, you haven't said anything with any real substance. Well mate, despite your kinda tacky line in put downs, I extend this invitation as a gesture of friendship and my humble desire to learn, this is your shit or get off the pot moment.

>>7943701
Epistemology is a method of learning. The point is so that I don't have to teach you anything beyond that. Are you prepared to claim that your current method of learning is flawless and/or perfect?

>>7938922
It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

>>7943776
<3 <3 <3

<3

poststructuralism is pretty cool guys just saying

>>7938922
You have just proven your own idiocy by making that conjecture with absolutely no evidence

>>7943958
My hypothesis involved collecting evidence after it was made. /sci/ epistemology would otherwise be more or less impossible to accurately measure.

>>7943726
>>7943961

You have said nothing of any value. The potential bait in your OP was obvious, but I thought hey why not, let's see if anon actually knows something. But so far all I see is attention whoring.

>>7944632
>attention whoring

DingDingDingDingDing! It's what's behind a lot of posts here.

>>7944632
>The potential bait in your OP was obvious
Honestly I felt kind of bad that you were taking me seriously before anyone had posted the "You can't prove a negative" obvious response. Nobody's even really put me on the defensive here aside from ad hominem arguments. Obviously the potential for a decent discussion is there or you would have just let it sage like (most) everyone else has but until you treat this like a real debate I won't have much more to say beyond the bait effect.
>>7943942
Damn. My secret plot to create a "<pronoun> just went full post-structural. One should never go full post-structural" meme has been subverted.

>>7945829

but poststructuralism is cool and useful

>>7945835
Yes it is, but never go FULL post-structural either.

>>7945841

i like deluze's transcendental empiricism

>>7945845
>internal difference
I can tell he's given this a lot of thought.

>>7945859

i tend to frame my critical theory thinking in terms of separation and granularity, wherein the identity of a concept only exists in perspective of its separation from the adjacent and the relative distances between concepts being analyzed

if that makes sense, its something ive been thinking through recently

>>7945845
>For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding.
>an origami cosmos
I like this.
>>7945873
I wouldn't say it necessarily makes sense or not, but it says more about cognition than it does our notion of concepts.

>>7945876

yeah hes cool, i also suggest butler (bodies that matter is a wonderful read)

>>7945845
>Philosophy, science, and art are equally, and essentially, creative and practical. Hence, instead of asking traditional questions of identity such as "is it true?" or "what is it?", Deleuze proposes that inquiries should be functional or practical: "what does it do?" or "how does it work?"
First philosopher I've ever encountered that seemed to have a rational grasp of the economy.

>>7945907

feminist academics and other critical theorists have a better understanding of the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of many different concepts than those myopic within their own fields of study

the beauty of critical theory lies in its intrinsic flexibility in its aim for utility over any essential form of truthfulness

>>7945918
>myopic within their own fields of study
That is directly redundant. All such recommendations erode over time as entire fields become ossified. Academic feminism is no more or less pananalytic than any other field as an objective quality of its field of study, but as a function of where along its ossification it currently exists.

>>7945928

the structural basis for critical theory as i know it is rhizomatic, one that's branching and modular with no inherent centrality of any set of ideas; the goal of critical theory is not to construct an internally consistent theory of itself, but to embrace contradiction and argumentation as essential to the formulation of the useful through the rejection of a closed axiomatic system, as proven by godel to be necessarily incomplete in its scope and application

>>7945937
Why are you saying this?

>>7945946

i dunno i think its interesting, and i do think flexibility and expansivity is very much central to critical theory as a discipline in comparison to many other fields of study

>>7945952
>i think its interesting
Then make a topic for it. Don't pollute this thread with unrelated nonsense. It already has enough bait just with the OP.

>>7945960

sorry ill take my ontology out of the epistemology thread

>>7938922
Your theory is larger than mine? So, mine may very well be more concise? I'm okay with this.

>>7945961
Yes, thank you. I really only care about people that can prove me wrong. So far all I've gotten are attempts to imply the counter-position without arguing it directly.
>>7945963
>mine may very well be more concise?
Correct. Some things get lost with size. Detail tends to be one of them.
>theory
Method of generating theories. Basically I can generate more higher-quality theories, making up for the deficit in details that might occur within one of my theories. Think of it like the brute force approach to logical reasoning.

>>7945966

well within a critical theory framework i can incorporate other epistemologies rhizomatically so wouldnt that make your epistemology a subset of mine

>>7945969
>i can incorporate other epistemologies
Only if you have the sub-space for them. If mine is larger than the capacity of your modules, then you can't exactly import mine without potentially corrupting the entire modular dynamic.

File: .jpg (244KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 866x1300px

>>7945969
But can you get a man?

>>7945972

i can excise elements of your epistemology which are explicitly exclusionary and embrace internal contradiction within mine by working with it piecewise at any given time, so my epistemology is both smaller and larger than yours, or even functionally the same if i find that to be useful and practical given the context im working in

>>7945974

no but i have a girlfriend

>>7945976
degenerate

>>7945980

thats what my dad thinks yeah but we dont talk anymore

>>7945978
adjusted for deletion

File: 1427511930948.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>7938922
Here's a better one...

If your epistemology is larger than mine how do you know that you arn't an epistemology of what you're so blatantly feeding with every keystroke you throw into it, as to say that if you know that the function of knowledge is simply to have it so that you might expand on it, as you can not use it you can only re-derive it in circumstance that... well... as implied.

>>7945966
>Correct. Some things get lost with size. Detail tends to be one of them.
Alright, well I have no way of disproving your statement, as you have yet to share your epistemology.

My epistemology says that all things are true. Does that make me win?

>>7945976
>i can excise elements of your epistemology which are explicitly exclusionary
Then what you absorb is ultimately smaller than my epistemology. By construction, your epistemology pretends that all other epistemologies are smaller for the sake of pretending to have absorbed them. At the end of the day, your epistemology has only shuffled and mine is still larger. Basically your episteomology will spend its entire life trying to find mine, without knowing where to look or even having a name to follow. Your modularily blinds you to the nature of scale. At least, it blinds you the way you use it. (Exclusionary pseudo-absorption.)
>>7945987
>a better one
Your last post read like a Markov chain. Better or worse don't apply; the comparison doesn't form at the outset.
>how do you know that you aren't an epistemology of
Grammar, my friend. Grammar. I know I'm not "an epistemology of" anything, regardless of what that thing is or how you define that thing, because epistemology is defined as a possession to begin with. We use epistemology, not the other way around.
>>7945988
>I have no way of disproving your statement, as you have yet to share your epistemology.
That may be the case, but in saying so you've admitted something about your epistemology: It can't judge the qualities of other epistemologies until it has contact with them. Mine, as implied by the claim I made at the outset, can.

While you may not have a way, other anons might. I can't consider my premise faulty with the current sample of responses so far, but it may be faulty in ways that nobody has noticed yet. I certainly can't expect a criticalist like >>7945969 to find a hole in my only partially shared reasoning.
>>7945999
Hmm. I'll need to think about that. It might just be a case of false epistemology, but if not, it'd be the largest epistemology mentioned yet. For mine to be larger, I'd need either a more complex notion of infinity than your epistemology currently espouses or else a fair way

>cont

>>7946005

you assume there are necessarily bounds on the size of a modular epistemology; my epistemology allows me to use your epistemology wholesale, or modify it, or incorporate it into others, or incorporate others into it, or synthesize it into something new

your notion of scale blinds you to the boundaries of your epistemology

>>7946005
...a fair way to measure the size of disparate and conceivably incompatible epistemologies. Oh wait.
>>7945999
>are true
Never mind, I was right. Saying all things are true is the same as saying nothing at all. If all things hold the same attributes, your epistemology is perfectly nullified. Its size, if anything, would be 0.

Any other epistemology must necessarily be larger than yours.
>>7946008
>the boundaries of your epistemology
Your unreasonable assumption shows me that, if your epistemology is truly modular enough to absorb the ideal volumetric qualities of any epistemology that it encounters, its current state is insufficient to recognize the boundless nature of the current state of my epistemology. As of you, you have no reason to assume that my epistemology isn't just a future state of your epistemology. If your epistemology can only grow in size and never lose any volumetric qualities, then mine being a future state would imply that yours was a subset (past state) of mine, not the other way around.

Again; process of elimination won't work on my epistemology is mine is already larger than yours. By assuming your epistemology was separate from mine, you enacted a fallacy within the current state of your argument.

>>7946017
>As of now

>>7946017

here's my thought process:

1. for an epistemology to generate true and justified knowledge, it must be consistent
2. you may use a subset of any given epistemology so long as that subset is an epistemology itself (i.e. can generate consistent knowledge)
3. given some bounded, finite epistemology, all knowledge generated within those bounds must be consistent, or else the knowledge that (sub)epistemology generates is not justified

godel argued that an axiomatic system can either be consistent and incomplete, or complete and inconsistent; i argue that completeness is more worthwhile in the context of generating a large epistemology

an unbounded, modular epistemology circumvents the issue of internal consistency across its entirety in practice by utilizing only subepistemologies, and in theory by opening itself to modularity which reconciles any inconsistency

unless you can argue that there is a necessary bounding on epistemologies then either we both have the same epistemology (the epistemology of all epistemologies) or yours is necessarily a subset of mine

>>7946031
>in practice by utilizing only subepistemologies
How do you pick?

>>7946035

by using what is useful and practical

newtonian mechanics is ostensibly wrong on many counts but "true" in an empirical sense is based on replicability and measurable accuracy, so within classical limits it is true and valid

>>7946031
>either we both have the same epistemology or yours is necessarily a subset of mine
Mine is a little stricter about subsets, dictating the loose compliance that any set is a subset of itself, so if we shared the same epistemology, yours and mine would necessarily be subsets of each others.

Your argument boils down to: |A| <= |B| where A is my epistemology and B is your epistemology. This is a decent argument, but since it can't argue that: |B| > |A| necessarily, for fear of pain of disproof, ie. since it can't make the same claim I made, it can't be confidently larger. Moreover, >>7946031
>an axiomatic system
In the context of epistemology, axioms are criteria for defining knowledge. Epistemology is a process for generating knowledge/axioms, so epistemology itself isn't restricted to Godel's axiomatic argument.

Any given instance of epistemology, measured as having a "size" trait, can be consistent+complete, inconsisent+complete, consisntent+incomplete, or inconsistent+incomplete. Since the "in" prefix has an arithmetic analogue, we find four ways of measuring the size of an epistemology: You either gain or lose points for completeness, and similarly for consistency. Since losing points means lesser size, arithmetically, we see that epistemology isn't measured by the binary decision you conceived, but as a relational system [math]S(e) = ae_{consistency}+be_{completeness}[/math] where a and b are connected values that calibrate the "weight" (ie., scale) of those traits.

Your epistemology, losing points for completeness is necessarily less than mine if completeness was at all relevant (0 < b) to your size metric. (Assume similar scales of consistency for argument's sake, if not for the sake of discussion.)

For maximum conciseness, I should point out that your epistemology is just Bayesianism without the p-values. In that case, see >>7938945 and replies.
>>7946035
Ah the selection problem. Another great critique of modular epistemology, such as Bayesians.

>>7939202
Underrated post

>>7946005
>That may be the case, but in saying so you've admitted something about your epistemology: It can't judge the qualities of other epistemologies until it has contact with them. Mine, as implied by the claim I made at the outset, can.
So yours is moot, being that it claims to presume.
/thread

>>7946252
Other way around; it presumes to claim. An epistemology that can't ever make a positive claim is useless for anything other than creativity exercises.

>>7946005
>It can't judge the qualities of other epistemologies until it has contact with them. Mine, as implied by the claim I made at the outset, can.

You are just full of shit. I'll say it again, you have said nothing of any substance. And don't hind behind whinging about ad hominem, sometimes bullshit just needs calling out. All you've done is said why yours can possibly be bigger without actually saying what it is. Stupid head games, pseudo-intellectual wanking. Just fuck off.

>>7946810
*hide* behind whinging

>>7945918

>its aim for utility over any essential form of truthfulness

this is funny because "critical theory" is a leading candidate for the Most Useless Field of All Time prize

>>7946810
>sometimes bullshit just needs calling out
Yes, in this case, ad hominem isn't a fallacious argument. I'm just saying that none of the ad hominem arguments made so far are very /convincing/ for me. I don't have any reason to retract my claim yet, and I certainly haven't been proven wrong.
>>7946810
>yours can possibly be bigger
Yes... That's kind of the point of the claim. I need argument or else evidence to refute it.
>without actually saying what it is
The moment I actually share it, you can shift the goalposts on your end of things and my claim no longer holds water. ie., you can change your epistemology to be closer to mine and the claim resets, along with the entire argument. Science is just a bunch of people getting together to agree to shift the goalposts so rapidly that nobody will ever notice that we don't actually understand this stuff.
>>7946812
>whining
>>7947157
But at least they understand *why* their field is useless! That's... something, right?

>>7947901
>ad hominem isn't a fallacious argument
I should point out that anyone could've replied with:
>prove having the largest epistemology doesn't make you the largest faggot
And that would have been a perfectly valid counter-position. If someone can completely argue that posting this makes me a faggot, and *why* it makes me a faggot, and why it makes me the /largest/ faggot currently present, and how that connects back to my epistemology, that would be a valid way to use an ad hominem argument to refute my claim. Again; it is not a fallacy with this claim.

>>7947914
>can competently argue
Typo, sorry.

File: 1458175616493.png (378KB, 1646x1987px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1646x1987px

I use antirealism to study oppression of biologically neglected social groups of people and otherkin

>>7947942
Now THAT is something I can really dig into. I only use anti-realism for pre-refuting panpsychism.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that you're using active study, ie., the oppression you're studying is the kind you're causing for the sake of that study. Is this correct?

>>7947966
Damn. Here I thought this was about to get good.

Ehhh... Bump. Just this once.