One true philosophy or not

[anthony]

Paradoxical as it may sound, one could say that the liar's epistemological relationship to the truth is excellent. For the liar is not in doubt about a truth. He/she knows what the truth about an issue is. One cannot lie to oneself because one cannot know something and not know it.

Very elegantly put. It is classic Oist evasion you described.

"No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without

contradiction into the sum of his knowledge". AR

A "self-lie" is such a contradiction. It sticks in one's 'throat' ; it can't be integrated,

and only further evasions will fit with it.

What must follow is tantamount to sacrificing oneself:

..." if one doubts or rejects one's own mind, one commits an act of spiritual

suicide, and the greatest evil known to man." AR

[Xray]

Will the One True Philosophy (in and of itself) tell a baker how long she should keep her cake in the oven and at what temperature?

I doubt it.

Is it the job of philosophy to give practical advice on baking cakes?

I doubt it.

One True Philosophies are of dubious value.

Now this is an argument of more serious caliber.

There have been quite a few discussions abou "truth" recently here on OL, and since truth is always connected to a specific issue ('Truth about what'?), labeling a whole philosophy as "One True Philosophy" sounds more like a statement of personal preference (a bit like speaking of one's "true love"), than an invitation to do the itmus test on what is presented as truths in that philosophy.

One can still try to do those tests though, but the whole thing would have to be broken down to the various statements of (alleged) fact presented in the text corpus which are then to be analyzed.

Another problem arises in ethics, where chosen values and virtues don't fall into any true/false category.

Listing "pride" as a virtue for example cannot be called "true" or "false".

[Dglgmut]

The concept of truth is redundant. If we label something true, it means we aren't 100% sure that it is true, or else we wouldn't even bother.

Is it true that I'm sitting in this chair right now? Instead of asking what is true, we should ask what we're aware of. If we're aware of something, there is no need to put a label on it, as if to organize our mind.

[BaalChatzaf]

The concept of truth is redundant. If we label something true, it means we aren't 100% sure that it is true, or else we wouldn't even bother.

Is it true that I'm sitting in this chair right now? Instead of asking what is true, we should ask what we're aware of. If we're aware of something, there is no need to put a label on it, as if to organize our mind.

True to the best of our reckoning and within the error bounds of observation. A five sigma job.

Here is a snatch from an article on errors in physical experiment:

6

down voteaccepted

Errors in particle physics are of two kinds. Statistical, and systematic. Statistical is the usual standard deviation of gausian distributions, sqrt(n)/N for 1 sigma. It is the systematics that take a lot of effort, and often are not taken well into account.

Systematic errors come from

1) the background to the signal expected. The background is calculated theoretically and entered into a monte carlo program that simulates the production of the data. There are also errors in the parameters the theory has used that enter as systematics.

2)Effects from the limitations of the measuring apparatus, which is also inserted into the monte carlo simulation of events

3) from the method of analysis, i.e. the cuts made in order to isolate the signal in the data and in the simulated events.

Ideally, the monte carlo simulation will have many more events than the data and so the statistical error from the MC can be ignored. One should estimate the errors from uncertainty in theory and from defects of detectors by varying the parameters in the MC program to the 1 sigma level of the important parameters and cuts and observing the change in the distributions.

Of course there are so many parameters and cuts that this procedure is not adhered to strictly, as happened with the new 3 sigma announcement of the "fifth force" by CDF, where the errors are just statistical from the events. That is why for discovery one asks 5 sigma. It is very hard to have an effect of 5 sigma due to the systematics enumerated above, whereas 3 sigma announcements have often disappeared . The ALEPH Higgs for example was a 3 sigma one that disappeared when the other 3 LEP experiments looked. I have known a 4 sigma resonance that was the effect of not estimating the systematics of the cuts. 5 sigma is for playing it safe.

I should add here that the different systematics in different experiments are the main reason why at least two expensive experimental set ups are approved and built in the collider setups: independent confirmationin parallel .

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Whoops! Here is the place from which I excerpted the above quote:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8752/standard-deviation-in-particle-physics

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Instead of asking what is true, we should ask what we're aware of.If we're aware of something, there is no need to put a label on it, as if to organize our mind.

Without an organized mind, one would be mentally impaired.

Language is a code of audiovisal symbols essential for organizing our minds and for communication.

The very term "aware" that you have used above is itself an example of using a (linguistic) label, i. e. an audiovisual symbol representing an idea.

Do you believe that thinking processes by humans whose brain has sufficiently matured can take place ouside the realm of language?

The concept of truth is redundant. If we label something true, it means we aren't 100% sure that it is true, or else we wouldn't even bother.

Wrong. It means that we are 100 % sure.

Example for demonstration purposes: "Post # 155 here on this thread contains the term "Whoops".

I label this statement as true because I am 100 per cent certain, the certainty coming from my knowledge of the fact. A fact that I can prove.

[BaalChatzaf]

Without an organized mind, one would be mentally impaired.

Paranoids have well organized "minds". But they happen to be crazy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Paranoids have well organized "minds".

Not if you go by the premise that having a well-organized mind includes being capable of distinguishing between fact and delusional fear.

[BaalChatzaf]

Paranoids have well organized "minds".

Not if you go by the premise that having a well-organized mind includes being capable of distinguishing between fact and delusional fear.

Anyone who has survived past the age of forty knows that They are Out To Get Him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Is it true that I'm sitting in this chair right now?

Is it true that your poster name is Dglgmut, or that this forum is called Objectivist Living?

The concept of truth is redundant.

Do you suggest doing away with the concept?

That would make e. g. criminal courts in your world redundant as well. I'm sure perps would be delighted since no prosecutor will bother to find out the truth anymore.

[BaalChatzaf]

The concept of truth is redundant. If we label something true, it means we aren't 100% sure that it is true, or else we wouldn't even bother.

Is it true that I'm sitting in this chair right now? Instead of asking what is true, we should ask what we're aware of. If we're aware of something, there is no need to put a label on it, as if to organize our mind.

Yes there is. We need to do a sanity check on our judgments and conclusions, now and again. As long as there is a distinction between what is true and what is not true, then the notion of truth is neither redundant nor superfluous.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

I donated to flood victims once, empathy had nothing to do with it.

This "making the world a better place" is part of what I've heard called "Legacy Drive" - the instinctual desire to leave the world with our mark.

You may only consider altruism to be acting out of a sense of duty, as if to repay the universe for your existence.

What about indescriminate charity? Is that necessarily altruism?

Rand argued that we naturally take pleasure in the achievements of others... Well, if a city has been demolished, wouldn't the remaining inhabitants be more likely to succeed if they were, you know, alive?

So, if the motive behind charity is to increase the chances of others' success, if it doesn't burden you too much, of course, then is that not rational selfishness? When you donated to the flood victims, were you really giving them money you would have spent better somewhere else? Are clean monetary transactions even possible anymore, anyway? Is there any way to make sure your money goes to benefit what you think is right, and soley that? Unless you are incredibly strict with how you mind your ethics, I doubt your money would have ended up in a much more rational place...

I think Rand enjoying throwing words back in people's faces, like how black people started using the n-word with affection. Greed, selfishness, altruism... She tried to flip them all so that what was generally thought of as good, she would call bad and vice-versa... but I think she was reaching a bit.

What seemed to really happen is people started using words like greed and selfish in order to exploit people who really weren't demonstrating those qualities at all, and instead of calling them out for misusing the words, she accepted their usage, and argued against that.

I think what she was really against is self-destruction, for any reason--to benefit society, or simple irrationality.