tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post685844730816257356..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Who Cares What Philosophers of Science Say About Science?gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66314895680205837592014-01-29T14:13:24.098-05:002014-01-29T14:13:24.098-05:00I think I also understand what rationalism is, too...I think I also understand what rationalism is, too. It's like taking something that is metaphorical so as to be real. In other words, it loses the context behind an idea. For instance, property rights, which are a notion abstracted from the context of a political community, are taken to exist outside of a political community. I think this is probably the same mistake that groups like "freemen on the land" run into with common law. It's also the same problem behind the "I didn't sign it" objection to social contract theory.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-39728847826573872452014-01-29T11:50:16.582-05:002014-01-29T11:50:16.582-05:00I find myself largely in agreement with it and you...I find myself largely in agreement with it and you have a lot of interesting straightforward stuff to say on it. It involves stuff like the Feser quote you posted about directly "perceiving" other minds. To think and to realize is to "perceive". The deal on moral disputes is a result of "perceiving" notions of morality "built in" to the world, but "seeing" it from different angles. It's really strange, but in a good way.<br /><br />I think I also understand what you've posted on principles, prudence, and the difference between tacit and technical knowledge. Principles are statements of the "disposition to choose", tacit knowledge manifesting itself as technical knowledge. It's like how a photograph is a manifestation of concrete reality. Prudence is the selection of <i>incomplete</i> knowledge. Libertarians who are bound up in ideology don't even realize that they're using it because they wouldn't know how to apply the NAP to begin with (when they manage to apply it correctly). The reason it can never be technical knowledge is that you run into "That's not what I mean!" scenarios, and it's also the reason "a priori" knowledge is impossible. Technical knowledge is formal while tacit knowledge is "clicky" and is notionally similar to "impression". That about right, too?<br /><br />I assume that it's the use of careful redefinition that creates an ideology. If so, then I think I've partly fallen for it. Quite interesting.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7236672878860941822014-01-28T23:55:15.304-05:002014-01-28T23:55:15.304-05:00I think I find myself largely in agreement with it...I think I find myself largely in agreement with it. I think I understand what you've been posting about principles, prudence, and the difference between tacit and technical knowledge.<br /><br />With regard to principles, they are statements of the "disposition to choose", which is the tacit knowledge. They are tacit knowledge (i.e., "the gut feeling") rendered in technical form, like the same way concrete reality is captured by a photograph. Prudence is the selection of what you have <i>incomplete</i> knowledge of. It is a manifestation of tacit knowledge. Libertarians bound up in ideology don't even realize they're using it because they must have had first experience of something that constitutes aggression in order to even apply the NAP correctly (when they actually do apply it correctly, rather). That about right, too?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-27029953482958348242014-01-28T23:41:09.295-05:002014-01-28T23:41:09.295-05:00Yes! You are cleverer than me: it took me a decade...Yes! You are cleverer than me: it took me a decade to grasp this. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-72360857688571484642014-01-28T23:03:50.053-05:002014-01-28T23:03:50.053-05:00By the way, this reminds me of what Richard Feynma...By the way, this reminds me of what Richard Feynman had to say in one video I watched on YouTube yesterday. He said something along the lines of you can know what something is called, but you won't know anything about it until you can see it. I'll try to find it.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-57571405297151978202014-01-28T22:55:17.138-05:002014-01-28T22:55:17.138-05:00I think I'm getting the idealist worldview and...I think I'm getting the idealist worldview and what you're talking about here—looking at what scientists are doing instead of thinking about what they should do — is a good illustration of it: the "ought" and the "is" are sort of woven together, both part of reality. They're not concluded, but "perceived" instead, and human activity (i.e., how scientists perform their experiments) is the process manifested as fact. That about right?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30377225040401516092014-01-28T18:03:13.156-05:002014-01-28T18:03:13.156-05:00This naive process fits better how Bob Murphy thin...This naive process fits better how Bob Murphy thinks about conspiracies and the federal government. A stockbroker in Manhattan had a double soy latte when for months he had a macchiatto. Is this a super secret signal to the Krugmanite barista to activate the chemical sprayer.<br /><br />To judge by what I see on his blog today anyway.Bobybuilderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07218089991533436881noreply@blogger.com