Keith Russell

Greetings:
So, "Relativism doesn't want for values; it just acknowledges that values (alethic, aesthetic, ethical) are only valued from some standpoint, and that different standpoints have different values."

OK, so--what?

Does anyone really disagree that different people have different values?

The point remains, if you want to check to make sure that you've chosen the right values, or at least the best of the available values, relativism cannot help you.

In that respect, I don't see relativism as a philosophy, but simply as an accounting or census-taking tool.

Keith.

John Page

Please see separate message.
Certainty (using your word) is not necessarily absolute. Consider there is a part of Floatman that doesn't believe anything.
Cannot be both absolutely possible and [b]absolutely[/] impossible. Everything else is a mixture of both.
Floatman II is a clone, your suggestion of "better" uses that perjorative term. Different. Consider two identical Floatmen both absolute relativists , change one of the Floatmen to take a specific view. Compare both Floatmen using their new positions, have Float I compare you with Float II and have Float II compare you with Float I. All comparisons are made objectively (w.r.t. the viewpoint assumed). I know this isn't clear but this is like weighted averages to remove bias so you get an undistorted view.
Let's not fetter the debate with unscientifically derived boundaries!
I don't understand your point.

Cheers, John

Primal

[quote
Certainty (using your word) is not necessarily absolute. Consider there is a part of Floatman that doesn't believe anything.[/quote]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=certain


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute

The fifth sense of absolute is the one that best relates to the epistemic stance I am describing and it is very similiar to what is meant by certain.






Well the term impossible though is pretty absolute, as is the term possible. They are mutually exclusive terms, hence the invocation of one in relation to an issue is the denial of another.





But this all presupposes a fair/objective means of comparison, which you state is impossible. Only any given floatman accodring to this viewpoint can make the comparison at any time and only according to their own biases. Also the issue is whether or not one can resolve the inconsistencies of driving the process of deprivlidging via a source that must priveledge itself. Merely being "different" would not resolve the issue.




Ah but how else are we to distinguish between issues best left to science and those best left to nonscientific means?




Let me give an example, you ask a Xian how he knows the world was created. The XIan brings out the book of Genesis and tells you about the 6-day creation,Adam and Eve, etc. Now the Xian has offered an explanation but nothing in the way of justification.

Or lets say a scientist presents us with evidence for evolutionary theory. Now the scientist has justified his theory, but we may still hardly know how the theory works i.e. the explanation.

Another, lets say Randi shows us how the psychics and such do all their tricks. We now have an explanation for it. But we hardly now have the evidence or proof needed to say they are wrong.

Hence explanations clarify,describe a position or process.



Justification though the underlying evidence for such a position.

And I admit sometimes they may mix with and accompany eachother, but one doesn't necessarily equate to the other in every case.

John Page

I think I understand your point, and my response leans partly on your comments regarding justification.

My short response is that the invention of a word and a definition does not create the "thing" in reality. To me, the phrase "absolutely impossible" is not justified unless the scope of its applicability (domain) is also defined.

Example: "It is absolutely impossible for a male to be a female", which has universal extension, as against . "It is absolutely impossible for the males observed in this controlled scientific experiment to have been females."

The epistemic status of the latter claim is higher (due to justification) but the scope of the word "absolute" is, ssomewhat contradictorily, limited.

I think the opposites are "always possible" and "impossible" and inbetween are degrees of possibility depending how sure we think we are. I have never experienced an "impossibility" nor somethings that is "always possible", same as I have never experienced an "infinity" or something "of which there are none".

What I am doing, therefore, is differentiating between:
a) those concepts that meaningfully relate to my experience of reality (that is, reality external to my imagination),
b) those that might conceivably exist but which I have not yet experienced, and
c) those that, by definition, confine themselves to the realm of imagination only. I put "infinity" and "absolute truth" into this category.

But understanding that difference and compensating for it should help. Again, I'm not a "pure relativist" for the reasons mentioned above - some notions appear nonsensical when compared to my understanding of reality, but then I've been wrong before!

I know this is a way off, but when we understand how viewpoints come to be and the parameters that drive them perhaps we can be more objective about this issue. By such stepwise refinement, perhaps we can edge more closely to the absolute through a "view-neutral view", although I accept this could be imaginary only!
Must we? I guess my response was more geared against compartmentalization and the "establishment" rather than method. My suggestion is to let one's imagination run riot and then sift the possibilities through the skeptic's lens.
Thanks, this is clear - there must be a piece of the priviledged empiricist in all of us!

Cheers, John

Primal

However that is the accepted/established defintion, hence if you wish to revise it then I would say the burden falls on you to explain why.

We cannot just go around revising definitions at will, or debate and discuission will be impossible.

Agreed except I would argue that substituting the words probable and imporbable for possible and impossible are more appropriate, which is ultimately what provisionally possible/impossible mean.


Possible yet impossible? That's a contradiction.


Yes and these degrees are called probabilities.


Well I was not aware of the fact that could experience possibilities at all but that one thought of it. And I can think of many things always possible.

I likewise do not see how a claim can be possible "sometimes" and then "impossible" other times. At this point you are merely changing the definitions of the words.

But I would say those that exist im imagination are equivalent to what can concievably exist yet are not experienced. For imagining an existence is merely concieving it exists without experience before hand.


How? That sounds like difference for its own sake.



Ah yes but such an edneavor would itself rely on certain standards, certain methods of dicovery. And thus understanding where our viewpoints come from, would itself be an endeavor wholly reliant on the assumption that our methods of inquiry do in fact hold true. For if our methods of inquiry turn out to be failures, all that was discovered by them(including the fact that they are failures) can be discarded.



I think we should, seeing as unwarranted speculation has led us astray in the past and only found to be folly by scientific thinking i.e. freudianism,creationism,geocentrism and vitalism. Such speculation only clouds the issues in question.

Now psychology and cogntive sciences are working on how we come to our ideas and such, via the scientific method. And such issues are complex ones in the past best placed in the hands of empirical research. Thus I doubt any philosophical conjecture on the issue will prove of any service when science is so much better at prodviding answers to such questions.

John Page

I'm not wishing to revise it, I'm trying to establish that the concept of "absolutely impossible" cannot be proven to without restricting the domain of its applicability - in which case it is not "absolutely impossible" in a universal sense.
Not sure I follow you. What I had posted was "always possible" and "impossible" were opposites.
Agreed, degrees between always and never.
OK. I can think of something that (you believe) is always possible but whether it is (actually) possible is another matter. You are therefore experiencing the idea of something that is "always possible" and that is what I was refering to.

My post was likely unclear, I also suggested the example of "infinity" which is another concept that we seem to experience and communicate about but I have not experienced an (actual) infinity (to the best of my poor knowledge!).
Minor point - I would say "merely conceiving that may possibly exist before hand"
I don't think so - the world we inhabit is so because of the differences we can perceive and we make sense of it by understanding those differences. I'm not sure whether that makes me a cognitive realtivist or not - perhaps I'll look into it
I agree (of course, for absolute truths are unobtainable) there are methodological issues but I think one can aim for a balanced but incomplete view.
...and now we have swapped positions because I argue that we don't know a priori which speculation is unwarranted and which is not.
But surely we must continue to ask the "big" questions until they are answered and while philosophy may presently be more art than science we must surely seek the method in our madness.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Greetings:

That which exists, makes its opposite, impossible.

Keith.

John Page

Keith:
I admire your brevity. However, a couple of points:

1. If that which exists "makes" its opposite, how is the opposite impossible (since it has been made)?
2. There are many things that exist, some of which we have no knowledge. If you agree this statement then we may arrive at a contradiction, since something determined as "impossible" using your statement will, in fact, exist.

Cheers, John

John Page

oops!

Keith Russell

John:

Just because we don't know that something exists, in no way means its not possible.

Nothing impossible has yet been discovered, and we've discovered much that was previoulsy unknown.

Oh, sure, there have been people who claimed that this or that is impossible, or that this or that could not be done. Often, they were later proven wrong, when this or that was either discovered (found to exist) or this or that was actually accomplished.

All that exists is, and is thus possible.

Keith.