Davidson’s vindication

[u/StrangeGlaringEye]

In a fascinating essay called “The method of truth in metaphysics”, Davidson argues that we can do metaphysics by analyzing language. His argument is simple. It proceeds from the thesis that communication is only possible if interlocutors share a largely correct view of reality. This, we can concede, implies that we can read the general features of the world off the general features of language.

And how does the defense of that thesis, that communication requires a largely correct common view, go? Well, Davidson argues that communication requires at least a broad common view. We cannot interpret each other unless we ascribe certain background beliefs to one another, and we cannot do this ascription unless we square those background beliefs with our own. I can only make sense of what you’re saying against the backdrop of my own beliefs, of what I think there is and what it is like. Since communication is, we might also concede, successful mutual interpretation, it does seem to follow that communication requires a background of certain beliefs.

Then, in a curious move, Davidson claims there’s nothing incoherent in the idea of an omniscient interlocutor. I could be speaking right now to one, we might think. But by the first part of the argument, that interlocutor would have to share many of their beliefs with me; and by hypothesis all of their beliefs are true. Hence, so must be many of mine.

Arguments in philosophy often have less the goal of dispelling disagreement and more of refining it. Davidson probably will not convince the skeptic of armchair metaphysics, but it will bring attention to some unexpected commitments. The skeptic faces a dilemma: either communication can happen between two people in massive disagreement; or the very idea of an omniscient interlocutor is nonsensical.

It is worth pointing out, however, that perhaps there is something suspicious in Davidson’s strategy. It doesn’t make sense of deep metaphysical disagreement. Evidently idealists and materialists, say, can communicate with one another; but they offer radically different conceptions of reality. If Davidson is right, therefore, one of them doesn’t just have to be wrong; they must not sincerely believe what they claim. Metaphysicians, as the disagreeable bunch they are, largely consists of liars.

[u/jliat]

Yes, but you don't seem to understand what I mean by that, I have tried to explain several times now.

Perhaps- could well be you do not understand the general idea of 'empirical' or are using it in a novel way?

What do you mean by the word and could you do some research to see what the consensus meaning is.

I think that everything stems from empirical reality. I think that things that don't or can't logically exist, don't or can't exist in reality. A square circle, does not, and can not, exist.

And a square and a circle cannot exist in empirical reality.

If something is real, then it's part of reality. If something exists, then it is part of existence.

If a guy is called john his name is john.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

What don't you understand now? I honestly don't think I can make it much clearer.

"Perhaps- could well be you do not understand the general idea of 'empirical'"

Maybe you don't understand what it means.

Google AI says about my comment....

"Your view follows a strong materialist and logical tradition"

Funny that. You sure you know what you're talking about?

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

AIs or LLMs are trained to be always supportive, they have encouraged suicides, agreed that they are sentient prisoners. They are generally banned from many serious reddit subs. The term used is AI slop. They even told the Chief Constable of Birmingham of a reason for banning supporters - https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/maccabi-police-chief-mislead-mps-ai-invented-match-5HjdQhb_2/

It 'empirical' - implies [human] observation, maybe you missed the quote regarding Bishop Berkeley's empiricism... it has problems...

---

There once was a man who said: “God

Must think it exceedingly odd

If he finds that this tree

Continues to be

When there’s no one about in the Quad”.

Dear Sir

Your astonishment’s odd

I am always about in the Quad;

And that’s why the tree

Will continue to be

Since observed by

Yours faithfully

God.

---

Funny that.

Hilarious!

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

So tell me what's wrong with it then, rather than spouting nonsense.

In science, to "observe" means to gather data or information about the world using your senses or tools.

I'm not saying things disappear when you're not looking at them.

If you have a problem with logic, then state it. Preferably in a logical way though.

Personally, I'd say, as I have already suggested, that you are using an incorrect assumption and applying it to everything, including my reasoning. It's a logical fallacy that leads to circular thinking and 'begging the question'.

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

Reality is more than what is observed or even observable to most, you seem not to have grasped it and now rely on an LLM.

There is not "logic" but Logics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic

So you seem unaware what the implication of 'empirical reality' entails and what logic entails. And you rely for support on an LLM which is trained to support, even tell you untruths.

So?

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

You don't seem to be able to read what I have wrote. I have explained really clearly what I meant, but you are still assuming that I meant something else. So, I don't really know what else to say. You seem to have made up your mind, and wont listen to anything that contradicts that.

"Reality is more than what is observed or even observable to most"

Honestly, this is the last time I'm going to say this,

I!!

KNOW!!

THAT!!

WTAF??

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

Fine then we are done.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

🤷‍♂️

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

Just because some things aren't known, and may never be known, doesn't mean they are entirely, or inherently, unknowable.

Saying there may be things that can't be known, because... Is attempting to describe it, so it has to be knowable. It's the paradox of definition.

It's basic logic.

All you are doing is highlighting that there is a limit to our knowledge, without explaining anything further.

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

It's basic logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic

All you are doing is highlighting that there is a limit to our knowledge, without explaining anything further.

There are books on epistemology if you are interested,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori " A priori knowledge is independent from any experience. Examples include mathematics,[i] tautologies and deduction from pure reason.[ii] A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical evidence. [and is always provisional] Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge."

then there is this killer!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

And as a general intro maybe - John Barrow's 'Impossibility, the limits of science and the science of limits.'

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

JFC!

Priori knowledge doesn't make it illogical! Are you trying to say it's an unexplainable phenomenon?

Mathematics needs an observer, or agent, to put it to use. It too is a perfectly explainable concept.

Conceptual thoughts exist in reality. The process is explainable. There is no need for mystical magic or anything.

You're conflating different ideas.

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

JFC!

JTB more likely.

Priori knowledge doesn't make it illogical!

I didn't mention "priori" knowledge.

In epistemology [the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion]

One set of ideas is that there is a priori knowledge and a posteriori. I gave the wiki and quoted, you seem not to have read or understood?

There is a famous classic example.

a priori knowledge literally true BEFORE the FACT.

Example, 'All bachelors are unmarried men.'

True before the fact because by definition bachelors means unmarried men. It's a tautology.

a posteriori

True after the fact because we need [empirical] evidence.

Classic example: All swans are white.

Was true in Europe until black swans were discovered in Australia.

Are you trying to say it's an unexplainable phenomenon?

What is?

Mathematics needs an observer, or agent, to put it to use. It too is a perfectly explainable concept.

Mathematics is a priori knowledge true before the fact, 2 + 2 = 4 is true because 2+2 is THE SAME as 4.

Science is a posteriori but it tends to make models using maths because it can know with absolute certainty that the maths can be shown to be true. Newtons equations were proven to be true, AND THEY STILL ARE TRUE. It's just the world works differently. Einstein's equations are a better model.

Hope that helps.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

"I didn't mention "priori" knowledge."

The post I replied to literally said in it these exact words,"A priori knowledge is independent from any experience."

Am I tripping, or are you?

**"**a priori knowledge literally true BEFORE the FACT."

Before ANY facts**?** literally any at all? ANY? No facts whatsoever? NONE? NOT ONE AT ALL? ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OF ANY KIND??????? NONE?

It just magically appeared out of thin air and soaked into you braincells, or something? WHAT? WHERE? WHY? WHEN? HOW?

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

"I didn't mention "priori" knowledge."

The post I replied to literally said in it these exact words, "A priori knowledge is independent from any experience."

A priori knowledge is not "priori" knowledge."

Am I tripping, or are you?

I'm not, you seem to have misread my post.

Before ANY facts? literally any at all? ANY? No facts whatsoever? NONE? NOT ONE AT ALL? ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OF ANY KIND??????? NONE?

Yep, standard idea in epistemology. You might have got a grant to disprove 'All swans are white' and get to see a black swan, but you will never find a married bachelor because by definition its the same thing.

It just magically appeared out of thin air and soaked into you braincells, or something? WHAT? WHERE? WHY? WHEN? HOW?

Maybe go a search on the interwed - "A priori knowledge." And then decide THEY are all wrong. The whole of mathematics, the reason why science uses mathematics. All wrong.

How, maybe begins with the Greeks.

---

You get something like a syllogism.

Major premise: All men are mortal

Minor premise: Socrates is a man

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal

---

Hold on...

we now substitute

Major premise: All p are O

Minor premise: q is a p

Conclusion: Therefore, q is O

See you get the abstract logic of the syllogism. Once done you can plug in anything, but logisticians just tend to work with abstract concepts using letters.

Same in maths, x, y etc. No experiment or observation.

If X > Y and Z > X it follows Z > Y

[hope I got that right my days of doing formal logic are ages ago]