Additionally unaddressed by your post - the intrinsic value of sentiment is equally unquantifiable, even in principle. How do you feel about ethical propositions, I wonder?
I don't feel ANYTHING has an intrinsic in value in the moral/ethical/etc meaning of that word. IMO, it is just another abstraction, a formalism no different then any of the many constants and measures and approximations used in the sciences to make the maths less daunting/work So, it is a non-issue, at least to me.
But that has nothing to do with the truth as such, and you know it. The Glasgow scale is a poor analogy, and I think that the above is nothing more than a dodge. Reread my argument.
As for above, as I don't think there is a true, universal, real value in the painting, my abstract list of criteria is just as good as anything else. I feel the Glasgow scale was a decent analogy to my view on this, it's a quick and dirty way to measure an otherwise intangible, imprecise concept, in manner which is efficient and relatively simple to those people concerned with doing it. I feel the aesthetic value of an art work is also intangible and imprecise, and measuring it is only meaningful in context, much like asking how conscious a person is. (Something which varies in different contexts and is philosophically troublesome to define.)
Did you read the Wikipedia article? Therein, positivism is described by one of its own proponents as "dead as any philosophical movement ever becomes," or something to that effect.
Does that mean it is declared dead by all? Does the argument by assertion made by one man make it truth? I disagree that positivism, as you term it, (I would term it reductionist empirical naturalism) is dead or invalid? Again, I am unaware of any other technique or methodology which comes anywhere close to the success of it in terms of explaining the universe.
Perhaps you should consider expanding your philosophical purview. The water's fine, I promise.
Honestly, I have been trying a bit recently, it's just, um, difficult? and I usually have more pressing matters to attend to. Plus, the water is kinda dangerous tbh, both the religious folks and the postmodernists seem to bite science types like myself.
They accuse of either trying to condemn everyone to hell, or in the second case, try to tell me that
Principa Mathematica is a manual for rape because of the stuff about "an object at rest will remain at rest until
ACTED UPON BY A FORCE" or something as silly as that.
it is steadily becoming clear to me that what you are intent upon doing here isn't conducive to 90% of what people call 'philosophy' (and isn't particularly spiritual either) - in fact, I suspect that what you are practicing isn't even philosophy at all, but is, rather, a form of rhetorical apology for your own methodological dogma.
I'm not sure that is true, it may not be 90% of peoples preferred method, but I believe most people would consider Russell to still be philosophy. Similarly, I think they would find some of the "off-topic" writings of e.g. Einstein (He took it to a philosophical level in his rejection of uncertainty/randomness, which was really purely philosophic as it had no basis in science.) and Feynman (He wrote quite a bit on what is truth, aesthetics, and other non-science topics, in natural language) to meet the basic criteria. I am not so arrogant as to think I am as good as those authors, but I do think I follow the same approach and thus it is still philosophy. You are right, it is not spiritual, I am not spiritual, I reject the entire concept of the super-natural. (However, I do acknowledge that the internal emotional experience can mimic it, and in any case, does not need to be strictly logical and based in empirical reality to be valid...I CAN love my S/O even tho I have no convincing objective reason to do so, I just do, which is imo, similar to just believing in a God in some respects)
Positivism has been thoroughly discredited by everyone whose professional opinion counts, which is about as much authority as you'll ever be liable to obtain in the field of philosophy.
Who's professional opinion DOES count anyways? I would disagree, I hold the opinion of Nobel prize winning scientists above that of
Social Text when it comes to anything about explaining the world.
With this in mind, don't you think it's time for you to go back to the drawing board, or at the very least to seriously reflect before proclaiming the obvious superiority of your preferred (dubious) epistemic paradigm?
I am still not sure of where empiricism is "dubious" when it comes to explaining how anything works, or what is or is not objectively real. Even for things which are not objectively real, I don't see a better to find out someones internal emotional state then a) asking them or b) observing their actions and statements. Which are both still empirical.
I strongly urge you to reconsider before making a post that could be construed as overly aggressive re. truth, etc. Your ideas do have merit, but from where I'm sitting, they're hardly ironclad. Declaring someone WRONG is therefore, by my lights as moderator and by the addenda to the P&S Forum Guidelines, unacceptable.
I do apologize if my mannerism is, um, brute? It's an issue with me and I admit I am poor with people at times. I will try to insert more syntatic sugar into my posts from now on.
How far does it have to go before one can declare someone wrong? If someone posts "The sky is green, specifically: the peak frequency of E.M.R. coming in from the sky is 575 THz" Do I have to my bite my tongue and swallow it? I guess I can deal with that, considering where I work, I am okay at taking arbitrary orders from those with more stripes then I have.
As I'm sure you're aware, philosophy as a discipline is renowned, alongside the natural sciences, for its emphasis on self-criticism and its willingness to concede uncertainty and error in the face of conceptual conflict. Please consider this, and try not to emulate in tone the people that you claim to abhor.
Yes, I agree. I am ALWAYS uncertain to some extent (which comes from my science background no less) about, well, anything. I have no issues admitting a specific error if someone refutes my statement solidly. I honestly don't even give myself any weight on my views on internal emotional values or aesthetics, because frankly, I know fuck all about those subjects.
@Ro4eva: my post about "calling someone wrong" was not directed at you per se. It was a question about "If an arbitrary person is incorrect, why is it improper to declare them to be so." I'm going to be honest, and say that while I disagree with your religious views on grounds of truth/not truth, I do not disrespect you for holding them. also, that I don't know enough about the...um...Axioms? Laws? etc of your religion to try and address your main question. But just to be clear, I extend my hand and my Ti-83 graphing calculator in friendship.
@MDAO, I have a poorly formed, generic question for you. So, I've known a few physicians as friends over the years (and a few engineers too..I put you guys in the same category in terms of having a huge knowledge of, and using regularly, the information and techniques of the sciences, yet also not being scientists as such, instead a unique "class") Yet, I am often, well, shocked at the philosophical views of physicians and engineers, and how widely it diverges from that I find among the {physical} science types. What leads you to, despite being deeply engaged in the worldview and techniques of the sciences, to hold such an inverted, almost anti-empiricist view to it? This is not an attack or a trolling, it is a genuine question, (and one I've asked of other physicians and engineers, yet still do not understand.) As for the above, I extend my hand, and in this case, my I.R. laser and Fourier Transform to spectroscopically analysis CO2 levels in exhaled air in friendship.
