Mine above in
BOLD.
TAJ, thank-you so much for taking the time to answer so detailed and complete. I am really getting into this, and am responding as best as I can.
I had to stop, as it was getting late and I will finish tomorrow.
Please respond to what I answered above. Am I still a post-modernist?
I am going to have to really take a look at this:
a priori and synthetic (true independent of experience but not true by definition).
My gut inclination is that there is no such thing. In the end I feel that it is actually true by definition, but one is deceiving oneself in imagining that one is not entering the order his or herself through covert defining. But, I may be wrong. I am going to have to devote some serious attention to this, because THIS POINT is key and vital.
Your words are in brackets:
[Wikipedia described him as being known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism.]
He is sometimes called one of the great empiricist. But I do not call him that because in today's connotations empiricism means that observation of experience is the only true knowledge.
But Hume showed how empirical data can not provide certainty for the future. So because of that I make the distinction.
[I think this is absurd. Of course it is impossible. But who cares? It seems much ado about nonsense (which is what I consider many of them to be doing - though not all of them). I never studied any philosophers to come to this conclusion, and this idea that follows comes simply from observing my experiences and expectations of the future. Any sensible person need only observe what has happened, notice the consistency and patterns, experience that these things happen in a highly probabilistic repetitive manner, and ASSUME (quite correctly) that just as the sun rose yesterday, it will most likely rise tomorrow. I think this search and need for "total certainty" is absurd too. It is a value and a need that is exaggerated and misplaced within the subject of philosophy.
There is no "certain knowledge" (not outside of the imagination), and any hope, demand or need for it is misguided. But there can be "fairly certain knowledge" that is adequate for normal practical matters. In fact, all science and especially engineering is based on the fact that we can be pretty sure that the radio electronics will function tomorrow just as they did yesterday, and that the laws of mechanics will continue along so that the bridges and buildings won't fall down.]
Who cares? Farmers care. Investors care. Parents care. Scientist care. Pilots of ships and airplanes care. Anyone who drives a car cares.
You have to remember that at the time most progress in human knowledge was based on certainty.
Today we take it all for granted. And what you would call fairly certain knowledge wasn't good enough for someone figuring out how to navigate a ship.
Because of how data and knowledge is treated by proxy in our society today we take all of this for granted.
But it was a life and death matter back then and it still is a life and death matter today, but most of us are removed from it.
I don't want the engineers who operate the nuclear reactor near my house to be just fairly certain.
Nor do I want the pilot of a plane I am in to be just fairly certain.
Or my surgeon.
Because most people in our society survive not through their own knowledge but through a vast network in the division of labor we cam get by with being fairly certain.
But the airline pilot knows he has to be certain, and the surgeon knows he has to be certain, and the guy running the nuclear reactor knows he has to be certain.
If you are not at the pivotal life and death point than you can live with being fairly certain.
[What is the point of this? I truly don't get it. We define taller to mean that A is higher than B. So if two things are taller than other things, of course, blah-blah-blah. It is "necessary" ONLY because it is defined that way. It is a mental artifice of meaning and significance, and says nothing about "truth". It is a created significance, that people then get all worked up about. If this, then that . . . logic . . . to me it all seems to be a mentally created reality that MUST conform to the rules because it is DESIGNED that way. There is no inherent truth in any of it - as the "truth" is built into it.
Tell me something that is "necessarily true" that MATTERS. These examples of bachelors and how tall somebody is seem so . . . trite (to me).]
You are fixating on an example and not the real world. It there was not know data that was necessarily true then our modern society could not exist.
Computers, electronics, aviation, agriculture and most other things could only have developed because the creators of the technology or science could distinguish what was necessarily true and what was not.
It is no co-incident that Science boomed after Kant sorted these ideas out.
And remember by the way, science at the time was natural philosophy.
[It doesn't matter if there is cause and effect. One can anticipate and predict behavior based on past behavior, because simple observation shows that certain things happen over and over and over again in the same or similar way. It is THAT simple observation that made all science possible. There was NO requirement of philosophy to permit science. In fact, philosophy and philosophers were a minor side event to the development of science. Science developed and would develop with or without philosophers. While they commented on science, they were not the reason for it or the justification for it.
For example, I have noticed that the storms come in from the west, almost always, and last about 45 minutes. I could play games of envisioning cause and effect, but I don't bother. I notice a pattern and the pattern repeats. As long as it repeats, I can continue to predict well. The same with the "laws of nature", or electricity or chemistry, or whatever. As long as it all happens just as it did yesterday, or at least as close as needed for all practical purposes, science "works". The need for some idea of cause and effect is an additive (to me). I don't need it.
And, if and when predictions start to fail, if and when the radios all stop working, if and when the bridges all fall down, then we will have to observe and notice NEW patterns, and learn a new system of prediction.]
The entirety of science and the scientific method depends on the concept of cause and effect.
Again, being so far removed from the point of invention and creation you only see the product of these ideas. Not the ideas that the products depend upon.
[Again, I don't see the importance. People make up all sorts of mental systems, logic being one of them, and then get all excited because they "find truth". The "truth" is built into the system from the start. I can close my eyes and make up al sorts of consistent worlds of meaning, where this true if that is true, and make up all sorts of definitions, but this all involves ONLY mentally created things. I suppose what I find weird is the attempt to use the word "truth" about any of it. It is a MOCK UP. It is an imaginative creation. Math is also such a thing. The IDEAS of equality, zero, infinity, addition, subtraction, etc. all "work" because they are DEFINED as they are. It is an entirely mentally created thing. And THAT is fine. I love many mentally created things. THat is one of the great wonders of the human mind and imagination. It can make shit up. I suppose a problem is that too many people, including many philosophers apparently, confuse what they MAKE UP with some essential and necessary objective reality!]
And again you don't understand what is necessary to arrive at a correct solution of ideas.
You use this thought process yourself but deny its existence.
And I suspect that you do not understand math so well.
Math predicts things that later are proven to be true.
Math is a priori knowledge. It is the study of the measurement, properties and relationships of quantities, using numbers and systems.
You can close your eyes and imagine any words or system you want. But what is true in your imaginations isn't necessarily what is true in the world. Mathematics work.
It is the one thing we know for certain that always works. It is true knowledge.
If mathematics tells us one thing and our observations tell us another thing than we can be certain that the math is right and our observations are wrong.
Do you not believe that the Earth goes around the sun? Do you really not believe that?
What we observe each and everyday is that the sun goes around us. I can point to where it will appear and point it as it passes overhead and point to it when it disappears on the other side.
But because of mathematics, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, all mathematicians knew that couldn't be true because of their mathematical calculation of the planets.
I know you admire Korbzybski, but it is you now who is claiming that the word is the thing. That your definition or any definition is what a thing is, especially math.
[Again there is no need for any concept of cause and effect, Just observe PATTERNS. When they repeat, consistently, over time, one can feel fairly sure that they will do so again tomorrow. THAT is the ACTUAL basis of prediction in life and science. All else is mental chicanery, and a contrivance of significance and meaning. One need not "believe", and instead one need only assume with a fairly high degree of probability that the same thing will repeat if done again. THAT is the entire basis of scientific experimentation. The theories and explanations are actually ancillary. NOBODY knows why anything behaves as it does. Al, pretense at grasping the WHYS is make-believe. But, just as science can observe and predict based on PAST OBSERVATIONS, so can any person.]
And again you are not seeing the level of knowledge and certainty needed for survival and for society to work.
You are just seeing the products and customs which are the result of that knowledge and certainty.
[How could a philosophical IDEA put scientific research into question? That sees absurd to me. Did these people feel so unsure of their observations that they would second-guess them based on a THEORY of some philosopher? Personally, I can't quite grasp that. If I conducted tests on ball bearings falling in a vacuum, and also of a feather falling in a vacuum , and observed that they fell at the same rate, how would some THEORY of knowledge get me doubt what I easily and clearly observed. To me, you are giving philosophy an exaggerated sense of importance in all of this. Science did and would grown and develop no matter what philosophers had to say, because it was and IS based on observation and closely tested experimental experience. If anything, the philosophers felt a need to get their ideas to conform with the complete success and validity of science!]
Philosophical ideas are what separates science from pseudo-science.
Science itself is based on philosophical ideas of knowledge and truth.
If this were not so than Hubbard would be right about everything he said and so would every trick of Houdini and every time an adult makes a quarter disappear and then pulls the quarter out of some kids ear would be science.
You are making way too many assumptions that the ideas and math and science are inconsequential to how things are in your life.
[This seems nuts to me. It is almost common sense. If you observe a certain pattern in many places, in many times, it becomes safe to assume that it will happen elsewhere in a similar way, because for all practical purposes THAT IS THE WAY THINGS BEHAVE. One doesn't need to observe ALL possible examples to safely assume that the pattern will repeat. And I need NO philosophy to know that. I need only open my eyes, LOOK, and observe the way things behave. The obvious consistency is readily apparent. It isn't consistent because philosophy says so; it is consistent because it is consistent.]
You contradict yourself so many times. If you see a pattern in many places, you have already proved Kant correct.
You see a pattern. You see many patterns. You believe it is safe to assume that the pattern will occur again.
The presupposition here is that the same cause will have the same effect.
You have proved Kant's point--you view things as space and time and with cause and effect.
You really got to let go of these ideas and presuppositions you have about words being reality, and that there is no reality outside of the words. (A post-Modern view if I ever heard one!)
[My answer? Who cares? I don't get the importance or significance of the question. YOU can and will NEVER know with full certainty any "truth" about reality. Sure, you can pretend that you do, by mental shenanigans and conceptual gymnastics, but really, it is all make-believe. If the laws of the universe change tomorrow, all of this will have been meaningless and wrong.]
You say who cares and it doesn't matter, yet you typed words into your computer with the presupposition that all the technology works, that the mathematics behind the it is true, that the science is correct, and that therefore I will see your words.
Again, you've got to lose the presupposition and idea that the entire world is just the words you call it.
[This is why I get rude with philosophy, because to me, some of it seems so absurdly minor and insignificant, yet these thinkers make such a great deal about it. Also, as an example, the advent of digital technology, and the great advances in computer technology had NOTHING to do with any theories about knowledge or truth. Science does what it does, regardless of what all these others might "think" about it.]
Your rudeness is inconsequential.
You often show your contempt for things you don't understand and hold your own thoughts as all you need.
Digit technology and science has everything to do with theories of knowledge and truth.
Do you really think an electronic engineer would be successful if he didn't know what was true and what wasn't?
You've really got to throw away Hubbard's idea that what is true for you is true for you. That is the premise for thinking you don't need to know what knowledge is.
[NO! I do not see that is true. That is not the reason why. There is something to the nature of what is "out there", and any mind interacting with it will observe similar patterns. You can "know" with a fair degree of high probability that things will repeat tomorrow. That is true if you just LOOK. It has nothing to do with any theory you have about the mind. Science WORKS no matter what theories and explanations one might have about WHY it works.]
Again, you are showing you lack of understanding of philosophy, math, and science.
Science is based on the scientific method.
At the start of the scientific method the great philosophers and mathematicians like Francis Bacon, Descartes, Galileo realized that there was not way of knowing for sure if what they were saying was true.
So they developed the Scientific Method.
The method would get to the truth.
But they recognized that they still had a problem because all that the scientific method can do is use inductive reasoning.
Kant shows that even with inductive reasoning you can develop knowledge of experience that will hold true in the future.
It is as though you are walking into a building and saying that you like the building at the same time claiming that the architects (who designed the building using synthetic a priori knowledge and mathematics), the builders, (who use physics based on synthetic a priori), and anyone else involved do not exist simply because you see a pattern of a building and therefore that is all there is to it.
You are too socked in to your own thoughts and ideas as being real truth instead of just thoughts and ideas.
Philosophy is vital.
If it ridiculous to you then perhaps you don't understand what is vital.
We would live in a dark age without it
The Anabaptist Jacques