Please examine the syntax in that question. It is currently incoherent.

Dear Barry Turner

"Incoherence" to a philosopher may be great sense in the real world. (I desire to say that, in any case -- as it is bound to "come up"). BUT:

You are correct, though. The "ing" IN "understanding" was incorrect. It should have been "understand". Editorial error corrected.

Now that it is coherent, what can you do??

Despite my will and many efforts, I have not managed to bring into a connection your question with the text that follows the question.

Recognition and understanding of an entity, either material or abstract,

is subject to the need for its description and definition. Of course, we need to differentiate the approaches to describing and defining an entity in academic communication. What is the problem with academics in the so-called. social domains when it comes to their attempts to explain a certain entity more fully?

Since they, in most cases, do not have the capacity to understand the wider real context of the existence and uniqueness of (material or abstract) entity that are trying to describe, they often approach the broad description of the entity and its bringing in connection with some of the previously described entities and situations in to appear. Describing the perceived properties of an entity and bringing it into contact with some other entities is almost always insufficient to define the observed entity in an acceptable way.

Therefore, their descriptions of the observed entity (which they call 'definitions') seem to us amorphous.

Brad

I am not certain that all philosophers would suggest every word is a concept they can understand. As for defintions, their purpsoe is so that we amay communicate common concepts and themes. Definitions often change and are often misapplied. We have seen some examples on other threads in the use of empirical and evidence to name but two.

Brad,

You seem to be a kind of "intellectual killer". You do not like philosophy, you do not like psychology, and so forth. It seems that you only like your human ethological approach, however important iyt may be. It also seems that you associate STUPIDITY with lack of contact with Reality, this being the case of philosophers. I guess that you, such as all of us, much of what we know is not based on contact with reality for most of what we know might be called second hand knowledge. Have you always been in contact with much of what is said in books, just to cite an example? Without theory, epistemology, and philosophy, research would be blind. Note that great scientists, Einstein, for example, saw themselves as scientists and philosophers. And psychology can be of help to explain why you are always inclined to "kill", so to say, both philosophy and psychology. Let me remind you of a Michael Polanyi:

"The amount of knowledge which we can justify from evidence directly available to us can never be large. The overwhelming proportion of our factual beliefs continue therefore to be held at second hand through trusting others, and in the great majority of cases our trust is placed in the authority of comparatively few people of widely acknowledged standing." Certainly you are going to argue that Michael Polanyi is a philosopher. Please look at what he says, not at his educational background. And please, do not "call names" to others' profession (e.g., stupidity, arrogant), As the golden rule states: "Do not do unto others what you would not like others to do unto you".

Besr regards.

OL

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

I am a just-imagining-reality "killer" (and "model" killer and by-analogy killer) ** AND this includes also being dead-set against having anything in a theory that does not at least have a clear connection to some directly observable overt behavior (at least at key times) (for psychology). Regarding the last-stated matter: the main answer "why" is because there is NO reason to believe this cannot be done.

Perhaps people do not like when I use words like "stupid" or "arrogant", but I will use them when they are completely apt. I have found then apt in the contexts I have used them and really could not imagine better words.

I maintain that it is not hard to see that there has been no Age of Reason and to argue that. Such serious deficiencies do lead to such terrible results.

P.S. I am also a homunculus "killer" and can see how there is absolutely no need to posit "executive processes" (as envisioned) OR any of the "meta"s -- those are the homunculi . I can very-well imagine human behavior (and its guidance), without any of those fictions (and, if you can't, I strongly suspect: bad theory).

Dear Daniel Romano

Regarding " Recognition and understanding of an entity, either material or abstract, is subject to the need for its description and definition."

For one thing, see where I say (rightly, properly, and rightfully): " [ I am ] dead-set against having anything in a theory that does not at least have a clear connection to some directly observable overt behavior (at least at key times). To me this is basic empiricism (and surely you can see it is).

Second: if you cannot see and know the concrete roots of ANY abstraction, then it is just an undefined fiction. (

Humans for some as yet not fully understood reason are driven by abstract thoughts unconnected to empiricism. Empiricism alone would not be sufficient for humans to expand their knowledge as by implication it is entirely reactive.

Humans ask questions about the most fundamental concepts of existence even though it is unlikley that any answer wll ever be found.

If we apply 'pure' empiricism this practice is both illogical and unproductive since abstracts are immeasurable.

However it is abstract thought that has distingushed us from other species inhabiting this planet and allowed us, not only to survive but to become the second most dominant life form on Earth.

Our language is a product of abstract thought as is our art and very much of our science. Much of our intellect is directed to ideas that have no 'connection to directly observable overt behaviour'. This is clearly an evolutionary function and withour such capability we would not be able to conceive empiricism. In a nutshell empiricism without insight and imagination would be impossible.

The route to understanding is through epistemology, empiricism and doxasticism. We are not passive machines for processing data. Abstract thought, whether or not connected to 'concrete roots' is as much a part of us as our skin is.

Dear Barry Turner

You are much like the many, who just let "education" be "poured" into their irresponsible, non-reflective 'minds', and insufficiently-active bodies-and-heads. You seem to have memorized much.

Nothing distinguishes us well from other species (except arrogance and extreme exceptional violence (and irrationality)). (There is division of labor, afterall; DO NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR MORE THAN YOU (an individual) does. ) Adaptation is the final standard for "intelligence" and we are failing at adaptation (and the sooner we are gone, the better), thus we are not special in a good way (overall, or at all, in my view) -- we are not intelligent. As far as I am concerned you are most likely just regurgitating (parroting) what you have been "taught" as so many do (with such an arrogant statement of superiority *, so often necessarily HELPING NOBODY WITH ANY UNDERSTANDING. Such statements have been and are of NO USE.

[ * FOOTNOTE: this basic same "superiority" stuff also has worked well through history on races, ethnics and women -- nearly always and nearly continuously. ]

ANYWAY, you say " Humans for some as yet not fully understood reason are driven by abstract thoughts unconnected to empiricism". That statement is a combination of something that makes no sense ("unconnected to empiricism") and something that is a falsehood ("are driven by ..."). " Indeed they (us) may not understand, but they/we also do not need to be "driven" by garbage (here: misunderstood 'abstract thoughts'). And, you say: "Empiricism alone would not be sufficient for humans to expand their knowledge as by implication it is entirely reactive." (Big ?? about those last couple of words.) YET CLEARLY: This statement is JUST A MERE ASSERTION FROM THE IGNORANT AND ARROGANT AND PRETENTIOUS (now, and historically). [ You shall likely have few "fully understood reason[s]" given your approach, which seems more to me like passivity along with the long-established existential irresponsibility. ]

Empiricism alone IS just fine. YOU simply just choose the irrational (irresponsibly) and irrationality (and I accept that in no one).

The notion of " ideas that have no 'connection to directly observable overt behavior'" is absolutely just an assertion and could not be demonstrated, much less proven.

If I were you Brad I would leave the booze alone for a few days!

If a philosopher does not attempt to attend to everything, he or she might miss something important.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

I've just now taken notice of this question. Perhaps it has already ground to a halt?

What is important about definitions to to understand what definitions are being employed and whether those involved in a give discussion are perhaps relying on different definitions. Its a matter of intellectual clarity and precision. A good starting place for common-sense discourse is usually a good dictionary. It is not that people do not sometimes move on to alternatives to standard definitions, but a dictionary is a good place to start for the sake of clarity. Dictionaries, after all, are empirical reports on how words are actually used. In more technical discussions, field-specific technical dictionaries may prove more useful --or related articles from relevant encyclopedias.

As for arguments from analogy, they are usually very suggestive; and one might regard them as plausibly involved in the formulation of hypotheses. The question then becomes the viability of the hypothesis formulated. That kind of question is not usually answered by an argument from analogy. Formulation and elaboration of theory is one thing, testing something else again.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway

It seems you may provide another partial illustration of the status quo. Do a bit more "digging" on induction (inductive reasoning) and ITS relationship to hypotheses and look a bit more into analogies (the best scientists knew/know they are bad).

I shall refrain on opinions on dictionaries and encyclopedias (though I rarely if ever find the latter useful).

P.S. to all: I am sorry if I seem a bit harsh. I am fighting many and some whole systems, so that makes me have to be tough. (You may help me if you like.)

Brad

If you call people idiots and stupid, if you insist that failure to agree with you is 'not understanding' it is likely that you will remain "fighting many and some whole systems".

Insulting people is not 'tough' it is dumb.

Disagreeing with each other is a productive route to better understanding overall but shouting down those who you disagree with is self defeating and sterile.

Try to take on board some of the opinions of others. Nobody has the right answer but we all have bits of it, even those who use thought experiments.

Oh, by the way I do not question climate change. The climate is changing, no doubt about that. What I question is some of the conclusions this generates.

Let's keep it professional. Makes for better reading.

The question has some of the literary merit of Shakespeare's Henry VI.

Enter Brad the Butcher

Brad The first thing we do, let's kill all the philosophers.

Dear Barry and Mark

I was addressing no one in particular when I described "folks" as being stupid or idiots or arrogant (

Dear Brad Jesness.

I cannot ofend you, but you seem to be, say, an "intellectual killer". I got this impression from your initial post and this impression was reinforced while reading your responses to other RG members. It also seems that you are the only clever guy in this and other treads and that most, if not all of us are stupid and ignorant. Because of this I don´t want to spend much ink in my answer. To be sincerely I do not give much credit to several of you statements. I give three examples:

(1) "Grasp the way real science is and forget philosophy!! "

(2) "Banish the term/'concept' of philosophy itself."

(3) "Philosophy is the disgrace of Western 'civilization"

Paraphrasing physicist Richard Feymann, "Are you kidding?" I think that this should be the case. If we take you seriously, then what you say seems aberrant, to say the least.

Best regards,

Orlando

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

I have not used the word "killer" to refer to myself; this seems to have started recently with you (and I replied to it, using the word "killer" so I was clearly addressing you). I most certainly "kill" nothing but the no-good-and-destructive positions/approaches/concepts.

Regarding me and how it "seems that you are [(I am)] the only clever guy ": In several contexts I believe this, because I am a stricter empiricist and in a major way (cognitive-developmental) have the only theory with definite, clear, and testable hypotheses for stages. Others remain unsatisfactorily vague, showing disgraceful answers about nature/nurture -- which I have detailed AND CAN DEMONSTRATE. For me, that dualism is totally GONE (really).

The other quotes (of mine) you quote, I stand by (recall that I believe it cannot really be demonstrated that any real "Age of Reason" has occurred -- justifying, or making understandable, the much-repeated and common grave dissatisfaction with philosophers (and social science) I have and like others to know about).

I see myself as a positive influence on any and all things that can decently be considered "intellectual" (NOT a "killer"). The "nothing" behavior you want out of me you will not get (that's for authoritarian professors, in their institutions -- for their students (sound familiar?))