Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Evolution results in many adaptations which in retrospect we can see serve a purpose; but unless you subscribe to Intelligent Design; evolution itself is without purpose.
It's entirely possible for components of a complex system to serve a purpose without there being a designer. One can to use teleological concepts without assuming a design hypothesis. There is a view of evolution according to which it achieves exactly this, by creating "design" and complexity ultimately out of simple and naturally occurring constituents.
Well if you know of a linguistic theory of definition; in particular dictionary definitions; the simplest way to falsify my assertion is to state what it is .
I've already explained that dictionary definitions don't play a large role in the analysis and clarification of language, but there are other approaches which are more widely used. For example, one can try to state necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, it's possible to develop an ultimately problematic theory of knowledge by proceeding from the claim that a subject S knows a proposition p if and only if: 1. p is true. 2. S believes that p. 3. S is justified in believing that p. and the theory would then explain the role and content of each of the above three components. To understand why this won't work, read an article on Gettier cases.
No. The problem is that many "observations" in science are deeply bound up with theoretical insights that are required in order to understand what the observation is. That's one of the principal arguments against Popper's account of falsification, for example. As stated earlier I don't believe Karl Popper, can receive much blame for my theories.
You haven't explained why objections that are germane to his theories don't apply to your own, as I suggested they do.
Reading 'observations' as 'observed fact'; I am stating quite explicitly that the particular observed facts, which will falsify a hypothesis are those implicitly or explicitly asserted by the hypothesis
You then need criteria for determining which facts those are and an explanation of what is required in order to falsify them. If you read the literature you can at least avoid making the mistakes of others and avoid the most important objections that have been made against theories of scientific knowledge based on falsification.
you become a philosopher by doing philosophy. And the right way to do philosophy is to engage thoughtfully and critically with the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries. Well I would contend precisely the opposite; a failure to put aside:
"the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries." is " highly likely to be neither original nor interesting"
I think there is empirical evidence to the contrary: all of the great contributions that come to mind have been made by people who are very well versed in the prior literature related to the particular issues in question. You're making an empirical claim and it happens to be false. I also said that original and interesting contributions by those not familiar with the field are extremely rare, if they occur at all, so one or two counter-examples wouldn't be enough to displace the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Likewise, trying to prove a major theorem in mathematics without understanding prior mathematical results is likely to be a futile undertaking.
But the contrary is also true; an encyclopaedic erudition in mathematics may also result in no original theorems !
To clarify, the claim was that the understanding of mathematics is a necessary condition for establishing original theorems; it is not a sufficient condition. You appear to hold that it is not a necessary condition either, but as I've argued earlier in the thread, it is in fact necessary.
Again I would contend precisely the opposite, especially in philosophy; a failure to inquire independently prior to consulting the literature; will result in little understanding, and the mediocrity so typical of academia.
It's easy to dismiss what you don't understand, and it's also a grave error. Of course, to establish that mediocrity is typical, you would need to engage with the literature that you want to avoid, in order to demonstrate what is, in your view, mediocre about it. I have engaged with the literature and much of it yields genuine and valuable insights into the topics discussed. Thus I have plenty of evidence that it's not, in general, mediocre. It's also true that, if lots of smart people who have devoted considerable thought and research to a topic think that certain concepts and issues are important, this provides a very good reason to understand what those ideas/issues are before you claim that they're not significant.