Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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. | 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. | + | 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. And science documents where its assumptions and models fail. |
See [[Existential Comics 259: A Dialogue on Freedom]] for an example from [[Robert Nozick]]. | See [[Existential Comics 259: A Dialogue on Freedom]] for an example from [[Robert Nozick]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Calvinball === | ||
| + | Moral philosophy is Calvinball. Rules are made up as you go. Assumptions are added as needed to get the desired results. Every conclusion can be reversed by the addition of a sufficiently potent assumption. The fancy name for this is defeasible argument. The result is that moral philosophy is a post-hoc intellectual excuse for previously chosen positions. It can also serve as a quick introduction of where selected assumptions can lead, with the caveat that with minor tweaks the entirely opposite results can hold. | ||
=== Reifications === | === Reifications === | ||
