You are in denial if you think there is no real controversy regarding a priori.
Hey, thanks for missing the point. I was clarifying the correct definition (and hence usage) of the terma priori, concerning which there is no controversy.
I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).
You're confusing innate knowledge, which the empiricists denied, with a priori knowledge, which they did not. Let me give another example: the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men" is known to be true a priori; that is, you need not go and examine all bachelors to determine if they are unmarried, because the statement is true by definition. In contrast, the statement "All bachelors have brown eyes" must be verified a posteriori; that is, you need to go and examine actual bachelors to determine the truth of the statement.
And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.
Nope, no controversy, just a matter of definition:
a priori: knowledge gained prior to or without dependence upon experience, e.g. mathematics and logically necessary truths.
a posteriori: knowledge gained after experience, e.g. all scientific knowledge.
You're confusing the issue by bringing up Kant, Kripke and synthetic a priori statements, but let me explain a bit. Kripke argued that aprioricity is an epistemic property, and thus is distinct from necessity. To illustrate, he gives the classic example of Hesperus (the morning star, i.e. Venus) and Phosphorus (the evening star, also Venus). Hesperus is strictly identical to Phosphorus, and thus the statement "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessarily true, but this statement is known to be true a posteriori, since for much of history Hesperus and Phosphorus were thought to be entirely different entities. The statement "that bar is one meter long" is contingently true, since it might have been the case that another bar of a different length was chosen as the standard for the meter, but it is known a priori, since that statement is true by definition. Thus, Kripke argues, the concept of "a priori" is distinct from the concept of "necessity."
None of which has anything to do with the CO2 measurements you're discussing, since they involve neither definitional truths nor statements of identity.
1) The Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting when it came to defeating the Nazis in WW2. That's not to say that the Western allies didn't contribute AT ALL, but the Soviets bore the brunt of it and did the lions share of destroying the German army.
True, the Soviets paid a high price in casualties to beat back the Nazis. However, a big reason for the high number of Soviet casualties was Hitler's invasion of the USSR (which Stalin, at least, wasn't expecting quite so soon) in violation of the 1939 Molotov/von Ribbentrop nonagression pact, at a time when the USSR wasn't fully prepared for war, partially because Stalin had just brutally purged the USSR in general and the Red Army in particular of those he feared were disloyal. One of the primary Soviet motivations for signing the pact with the Nazis, instead of joining an alliance against them with France and Britain, was the USSR's general unreadiness for war and Stalin's belief that he could build up his army while Hitler was busy in the west.
Thus, in the attempt to buy some time at the expense of France and Britain (and Poland, which Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide between themselves) to rebuild the army that he was responsible for decimating in the first place, Stalin made the mistake of trusting Hitler and got burned. So if you're trying to drum up some sympathy for the Soviets, you'll get precious little from me =)
Also, a slight nitpick: the phrase "the lion's share" means all of something, not just the majority of it. The reference is to one of Aesop's fables.
Nope. Homer casts them as great friends, not at all as lovers. The view that they were lovers was a much later innovation, which had become popular during Plato's time.
Speaking of homosexuality among the Greeks, Plato himself thought that male homosexual relationships were detrimental to a good city, as they encouraged wantonness and softness in their participants (Laws, book II).
Reminds me of the little diddy they said in Brave New World, and piped into the heads of children at an early age: "better to spend than to mend".
Close! The quotation is: "ending is better than mending." In my troubleshooting experience this is best illustrated by inkjet printers: if it breaks (or even if you just run out of ink!), the most cost-effective solution (for the end user, anyway) is often to just pitch the thing and buy a new one.
How can a car possibly exist? It needs all of its parts or it is not a car. All of it's parts must fit and work with each other precisely so they could not have been designed seperately.
Do you see the fallaciousness of the argument?
Do you see the fallaciousness of your counterargument? You're comparing a car, which exists because intelligent agents designed and built it, with a cell, which I'm assuming you'd say exists due to evolution. The original argument is intended to show that the evolutionary process is insufficient to produce "irreducibly complex" objects, i.e. objects such as cells and mousetraps that must have all of their components present and in working condition in order to function; the focus of the argument is on the process, not on the end result. Your example of the car is disanalogous.
Wheels, engines, suspension systems, steering mechinisms, all "evovled" prior to cars and for functions having nothing to do with cars.
It not necessary for a cell to spring into being as a whole entity. It is only necessary that it's basic componants can come into being and exist without the cell for some other purpose.
The preexistence of a cell's various components is a necessary condition for the existence of a cell, but it is far from sufficient. If I take all the components of a car and dump them in a pile, I won't get a functioning car, I'll get a big mess. The components must be assembled in a certain way in order to produce a functioning whole; and the more complex the whole (e.g. a cell, or a microprocessor), the more precise the configuration of parts must be. Again, the focus of the original argument is on the sufficiency of the evolutionary process to produce irreducibly complex objects.
Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.
Yeah, that's about all it's worth...
I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe.
I'll assume here that you're referring to the medieval belief that the earth was the center of the universe, and further that you're incorrectly assuming (like most who reference this belief in their philosophical ramblings) that the reason they believed this was that they thought the earth's central position in the universe was a testimony to the importance of man. In actuality, the exact opposite is the case. If one regards the earth as the center of the universe, everywhere else in the universe is "up" (so to speak) - leaving earth in the lowest and basest position. Additionally, Hell was thought by the medievals to be located in the center of the earth (and thus to occupy the exact center of the universe).
I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator.
Um, "recent claims"? The claim that the universe is uncreated is by far more recent than the claim that it was created.
One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing.
The fact that stars are really far apart lends absolutely no evidence to the belief that the universe was not created. Care to try again?
What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.
I thought you were the one who thought that humanity wasn't so special - why do you think that all God has to do with His time is to watch us humans? He's got an entire universe to amuse Himself with (imagine getting to watch supernovae as often as you watch sunsets:)
US sanctions on Iraq have not only resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis (not counting the 75,000 that died as a result of the Gulf War) but made Saddam into a hero in many Arab circles.
Try U.N. sanctions.
I'm tired of the U.S. getting the blame for Iraqi deaths due to Saddam's misuse of the funds he receives from the oil-for-food program, i.e. building palaces while his own people starve. The sanctions were put into place by the U.N., not the U.S.
Someone who has read the appendices to the Return of the King more recently than I can feel free to correct me, but IIRC Faramir and Eowyn had a son named Boromir.
They may appear similar, but when you dig deeper much of that similarity disappears; e.g. Lovecraft may have been "fascinated" by astronomy, but Tolkien studied Philology at Oxford and went on to teach at both the University of Leeds and at Oxford.
And are Lovecraft's and Tolkien's sources of inspiration really that comparable? Lovecraft's "dozens of arcane sources" vs. Tolkein's extensive use of the rich Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythic traditions?
(Just a nitpick, but the Inklings weren't actually an "all-male affinity group", as Dorothy Sayers was a member.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are in denial if you think there is no real controversy regarding a priori.
Hey, thanks for missing the point. I was clarifying the correct definition (and hence usage) of the term a priori, concerning which there is no controversy.
I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).
You're confusing innate knowledge, which the empiricists denied, with a priori knowledge, which they did not. Let me give another example: the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men" is known to be true a priori; that is, you need not go and examine all bachelors to determine if they are unmarried, because the statement is true by definition. In contrast, the statement "All bachelors have brown eyes" must be verified a posteriori; that is, you need to go and examine actual bachelors to determine the truth of the statement.
And, there is evidently some controversy over a priori that you don't mention in your post. I'm curious how you would address this.
Nope, no controversy, just a matter of definition:
a priori: knowledge gained prior to or without dependence upon experience, e.g. mathematics and logically necessary truths.
a posteriori: knowledge gained after experience, e.g. all scientific knowledge.
You're confusing the issue by bringing up Kant, Kripke and synthetic a priori statements, but let me explain a bit. Kripke argued that aprioricity is an epistemic property, and thus is distinct from necessity. To illustrate, he gives the classic example of Hesperus (the morning star, i.e. Venus) and Phosphorus (the evening star, also Venus). Hesperus is strictly identical to Phosphorus, and thus the statement "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessarily true, but this statement is known to be true a posteriori, since for much of history Hesperus and Phosphorus were thought to be entirely different entities. The statement "that bar is one meter long" is contingently true, since it might have been the case that another bar of a different length was chosen as the standard for the meter, but it is known a priori, since that statement is true by definition. Thus, Kripke argues, the concept of "a priori" is distinct from the concept of "necessity."
None of which has anything to do with the CO2 measurements you're discussing, since they involve neither definitional truths nor statements of identity.
Hope that helps!
True, the Soviets paid a high price in casualties to beat back the Nazis. However, a big reason for the high number of Soviet casualties was Hitler's invasion of the USSR (which Stalin, at least, wasn't expecting quite so soon) in violation of the 1939 Molotov/von Ribbentrop nonagression pact, at a time when the USSR wasn't fully prepared for war, partially because Stalin had just brutally purged the USSR in general and the Red Army in particular of those he feared were disloyal. One of the primary Soviet motivations for signing the pact with the Nazis, instead of joining an alliance against them with France and Britain, was the USSR's general unreadiness for war and Stalin's belief that he could build up his army while Hitler was busy in the west.
Thus, in the attempt to buy some time at the expense of France and Britain (and Poland, which Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide between themselves) to rebuild the army that he was responsible for decimating in the first place, Stalin made the mistake of trusting Hitler and got burned. So if you're trying to drum up some sympathy for the Soviets, you'll get precious little from me =)
Also, a slight nitpick: the phrase "the lion's share" means all of something, not just the majority of it. The reference is to one of Aesop's fables.
Speaking of homosexuality among the Greeks, Plato himself thought that male homosexual relationships were detrimental to a good city, as they encouraged wantonness and softness in their participants (Laws, book II).
The "love affair of Achilles and Patroclus" actually has no basis in Homer's text, it was a much later invention of other Greek playwrights.
Tell that to the Tibetans.
Reminds me of the little diddy they said in Brave New World, and piped into the heads of children at an early age: "better to spend than to mend".
Close! The quotation is: "ending is better than mending." In my troubleshooting experience this is best illustrated by inkjet printers: if it breaks (or even if you just run out of ink!), the most cost-effective solution (for the end user, anyway) is often to just pitch the thing and buy a new one.
How can a car possibly exist? It needs all of its parts or it is not a car. All of it's parts must fit and work with each other precisely so they could not have been designed seperately.
Do you see the fallaciousness of the argument?
Do you see the fallaciousness of your counterargument? You're comparing a car, which exists because intelligent agents designed and built it, with a cell, which I'm assuming you'd say exists due to evolution. The original argument is intended to show that the evolutionary process is insufficient to produce "irreducibly complex" objects, i.e. objects such as cells and mousetraps that must have all of their components present and in working condition in order to function; the focus of the argument is on the process, not on the end result. Your example of the car is disanalogous.
Wheels, engines, suspension systems, steering mechinisms, all "evovled" prior to cars and for functions having nothing to do with cars.
It not necessary for a cell to spring into being as a whole entity. It is only necessary that it's basic componants can come into being and exist without the cell for some other purpose.
The preexistence of a cell's various components is a necessary condition for the existence of a cell, but it is far from sufficient. If I take all the components of a car and dump them in a pile, I won't get a functioning car, I'll get a big mess. The components must be assembled in a certain way in order to produce a functioning whole; and the more complex the whole (e.g. a cell, or a microprocessor), the more precise the configuration of parts must be. Again, the focus of the original argument is on the sufficiency of the evolutionary process to produce irreducibly complex objects.
Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.
:)
Yeah, that's about all it's worth...
I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe.
I'll assume here that you're referring to the medieval belief that the earth was the center of the universe, and further that you're incorrectly assuming (like most who reference this belief in their philosophical ramblings) that the reason they believed this was that they thought the earth's central position in the universe was a testimony to the importance of man. In actuality, the exact opposite is the case. If one regards the earth as the center of the universe, everywhere else in the universe is "up" (so to speak) - leaving earth in the lowest and basest position. Additionally, Hell was thought by the medievals to be located in the center of the earth (and thus to occupy the exact center of the universe).
I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator.
Um, "recent claims"? The claim that the universe is uncreated is by far more recent than the claim that it was created.
One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing.
The fact that stars are really far apart lends absolutely no evidence to the belief that the universe was not created. Care to try again?
What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.
I thought you were the one who thought that humanity wasn't so special - why do you think that all God has to do with His time is to watch us humans? He's got an entire universe to amuse Himself with (imagine getting to watch supernovae as often as you watch sunsets
How much must your army SUCK that you'd need such a punishment in the first place?!!! No wonder the Roman Empire collapsed!
Some historical context: Decimation was used as a punishment for rebellious cohorts, not cohorts that fared poorly in battle.
US sanctions on Iraq have not only resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis (not counting the 75,000 that died as a result of the Gulf War) but made Saddam into a hero in many Arab circles.
Try U.N. sanctions.
I'm tired of the U.S. getting the blame for Iraqi deaths due to Saddam's misuse of the funds he receives from the oil-for-food program, i.e. building palaces while his own people starve. The sanctions were put into place by the U.N., not the U.S.
Faramir and Eowyn had a son named Boromir.
.sig or something...
Perhaps the parent poster should put this in his journal or
Johnny was a chemist's son, but Johhny is no more,
for what he thought was H20 was H2SO4.
=)
Someone who has read the appendices to the Return of the King more recently than I can feel free to correct me, but IIRC Faramir and Eowyn had a son named Boromir.
They may appear similar, but when you dig deeper much of that similarity disappears; e.g. Lovecraft may have been "fascinated" by astronomy, but Tolkien studied Philology at Oxford and went on to teach at both the University of Leeds and at Oxford.
And are Lovecraft's and Tolkien's sources of inspiration really that comparable? Lovecraft's "dozens of arcane sources" vs. Tolkein's extensive use of the rich Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythic traditions?
(Just a nitpick, but the Inklings weren't actually an "all-male affinity group", as Dorothy Sayers was a member.)