How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That’s entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
No, I chose my words precisely here:
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That’s entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.