Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
(→Philosophers generally don't measure.) |
(→Assumptions that do not match reality.) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=== Assumptions that do not match reality. === | === Assumptions that do not match reality. === | ||
Philosophy that attempts to address reality needs realistic assumptions. But there is a trade-off: the more general an assumption (and thus useful for reasoning), the less it conforms to reality. For example, if I say the sky is blue, most people would agree. But is it blue at night? On a cloudy day? When it is filled with dust or smoke? In space? No. And these exceptions are important: maybe more important than the original assumption. | Philosophy that attempts to address reality needs realistic assumptions. But there is a trade-off: the more general an assumption (and thus useful for reasoning), the less it conforms to reality. For example, if I say the sky is blue, most people would agree. But is it blue at night? On a cloudy day? When it is filled with dust or smoke? In space? No. And these exceptions are important: maybe more important than the original assumption. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Often these assumptions are disguised as "apriori knowledge". Belief in a priori knowledge is touchingly naive. It is a philosophical superstition, just as souls are. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Science has a superior approach, modeling. You don't "believe" in models. You accept or reject them based on whether they are accurate enough to beat out other models. Certainty is hardly an objective of science. Science is heuristic, not certain. | ||
=== Philosophers are very poor at second-best solutions. === | === Philosophers are very poor at second-best solutions. === | ||
