tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post179288206727186318..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: My first hour in a Geometry classOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-40483372553876350422009-11-18T08:33:48.952-06:002009-11-18T08:33:48.952-06:00Welcome Uri, and thanks for the comment.Welcome Uri, and thanks for the comment.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-81643677090128655832009-11-17T14:00:04.269-06:002009-11-17T14:00:04.269-06:00Blarg. research. Leave it to me to undermine my rh...Blarg. research. Leave it to me to undermine my rhetoric with a typo.Urinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-19989839549504754042009-11-17T13:59:18.845-06:002009-11-17T13:59:18.845-06:00but the mathematics is not an end in itself.
Oh,...<i><br />but the mathematics is not an end in itself.<br /></i><br /><br />Oh, yes it is. Like any creative field of human endeavour. How horrible it would be if the only justification for things were bridges, airplanes and economic researcg!Urinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-22507040710845672762009-09-25T11:39:49.841-05:002009-09-25T11:39:49.841-05:00Saying that a ball is red, and action is evil, or ...<i>Saying that a ball is red, and action is evil, or that 2 + 2 = 4 would mean we had accepted means of demonstrations so that every observer who accepted such means as valid would accept the result.</i><br /><br />I find it interesting (and somewhat anomalous) that you consider an ethical statement--"Action x is evil"--a statement of objective truth, similar to arithmetic (2 + 2 = 4). That is a minority position. Carnap and Co claimed ethical statements such as "killing is Evil" were meaningless (really Hume and Darwin had suggested as much). <br /><br />I don't agree with the Carnapian positivists in regards to the meaninglessness of ethical/normative statements (or with the scoundrel Hume), yet I think the problem with providing a satisfactory definition of normative language remains--and is all the more problematic for secularists, Darwinists and naturalists of whatever sort. <br /><br />Given naturalist assumptions, any definition of justice seems primarily "hedonic": ie good is pleasure, bad is pain. That might work for certain situations--say, consumerism, taste in sports teams, cars, music, etc--but people obviously do use moral language to denote objective morality, the Good, Justice, etc., even if they can't really prove that objective morality exists. <br /><br />When some person on KOS starts ranting that "Bush is Evil", he does not mean "I don't care for Bush, but you can form your own opinions", does he? No. He means Bush is Evil according to some standard of justice--not merely shared or agreed upon, ie hedonic. For hedonic ethics (whether utilitarian, or any secular ethics) merely implies you have decided Bush offends you (causes you uneasiness, displeasure--). Things could be different, given a hedonic starting point, due to conditioning, background, nationality, etc. Hedonic ethics IS relativistic ethics, regardless of utilitarians/humanists' attempts to persuade us otherwise. <br /><br />Ergo, I think ethical universals, like Justice, do exist in some sense--and that hedonic ethics/utilitarianism is mistaken--though proving that may be difficult if not impossible. When we say "Stalin was Evil incarnate" we are not merely barking, or playing some syntax music as the positivists suggested. I am reluctant to bless some full-blown platonism, so I would say it's sort of a psychological universal--perhaps Sanity--rather than metaphysical/transcendent---but I am not entirely convinced a metaphysical account is impossible...Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-52631269862213470772009-09-24T15:31:43.293-05:002009-09-24T15:31:43.293-05:00I absolutely agree with you here, and I emphasize ...I absolutely agree with you here, and I emphasize that even while the math itself is a formal system, the primary reason for studying it is the usefulness of the system involved. I'm a formalist, but a very pragmatic version (if that makes any sense to you). So, formal systems don't have any gaurantees concerning reality, but we still aim for it (much like we try to aim for certainty in science and demonstrability in our belief systems).One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-81345579181830859442009-09-24T15:08:51.661-05:002009-09-24T15:08:51.661-05:00Useful distinctions, sir. However I feel that for...Useful distinctions, sir. However I feel that formalism of whatever often tends to reinforce anti-humanism. Of course we need mathematics--Im no postmodernist--but the mathematics is not an end in itself. Calculus allows engineers to build bridges, or airplanes, or alas, bombs; it may also help with economic research. The equations do not float in some platonic abode. <br /><br />So there is a pragmatic aspect to math and science, obviously. We don't have to be William James to understand that. Formalists often (especially logicians and programmers) lose sight of the practical applications--and in some circumstances, it's not really a matter of demonstrable truth, but something like efficacy (ie a new medicine--does it work, or not).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com