- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Discussion > imperical truth or anlytik truth
Login/Join to Participatemember
32 posts
Location: Bucks
32 posts
Location: Bucks
Posted:
what is better???? this is an argument that i regularly have with my friend matt.
For those of wondering what im goin on about
Imperical truth is using evedece from the world around you. This is what all science is based on. The problem with impirical truth is that it is based on the fact that because something has happened before it must happen again. so if a man rolls 6 on a dice for all his life impericaly he will only rolls 6's but as we know there is a 1 in 6 chance that he will roll a 6. the question that therefor has to be asked is this therefor really true????
Anlytik truth is based only on what is certain. eg. 1+1=2 this is anlytikly true. the problem with anlyitk truth is that were we to live our lives by it all our understanding of everything would have to be rethought this would mean reinventing everything our race has done in the last few million years and most medicne would never be invented.
i being very sientificly minded belive in impirical truth tho as you will probable see i love to play devils advicote so i will probaly end up arguing both sides of this argument.
witch do you think is better??
Seb
what is better???? this is an argument that i regularly have with my friend matt.
For those of wondering what im goin on about
Imperical truth is using evedece from the world around you. This is what all science is based on. The problem with impirical truth is that it is based on the fact that because something has happened before it must happen again. so if a man rolls 6 on a dice for all his life impericaly he will only rolls 6's but as we know there is a 1 in 6 chance that he will roll a 6. the question that therefor has to be asked is this therefor really true????
Anlytik truth is based only on what is certain. eg. 1+1=2 this is anlytikly true. the problem with anlyitk truth is that were we to live our lives by it all our understanding of everything would have to be rethought this would mean reinventing everything our race has done in the last few million years and most medicne would never be invented.
i being very sientificly minded belive in impirical truth tho as you will probable see i love to play devils advicote so i will probaly end up arguing both sides of this argument.
witch do you think is better??
Seb
There is nothing quite like standing on your head.....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Analytic is the best.
Empirical 'truth' is merely a shadowy substitute for the real thing- it has no certainty.
Empirical 'truth' is a mere gadget for the likes of engineers and other 'practical' types; no true philosopher would touch it with a bargepole.
Analytic is the best.
Empirical 'truth' is merely a shadowy substitute for the real thing- it has no certainty.
Empirical 'truth' is a mere gadget for the likes of engineers and other 'practical' types; no true philosopher would touch it with a bargepole.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,099 posts
Location: Bideford and Bath, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,099 posts
Location: Bideford and Bath, United Kingdom
Posted:
surely a mix of the two is best.
there are certain things you can't achieve with either of them but can with both.
surely a mix of the two is best.
there are certain things you can't achieve with either of them but can with both.
UCOF "evolution: Poi -> stick -> hoops -> devil stick -> juggling club -> juggling ball -> crayons."
Supergroovalsticprosifunkstication
In other words, it's the thumps bump
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Empirical truth can only disprove things with certainty... but seeing that the sun rises every morning is a good indicator that it will rise tomorrow morning
Empirical truth can only disprove things with certainty... but seeing that the sun rises every morning is a good indicator that it will rise tomorrow morning
"Moo," said the happy cow.
newbie
3 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Oz
3 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Oz
Posted:
Hello.
Monkey speaks.
As to whether empirical or analytical information is better, I believe it depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve with it. Neither of these can be classed as the complete and final truth, as 1) all experience is filtered through the human consciousness, providing a built in bias that cannot be avoided and 2) analytical information cannot provide you with anything you do not already know.
It all comes down to the difference between deduction and induction in the end, and we can never know anything for certain anyway, so let's just eat bananas.
Love from Dr.Monkey.
Hello.
Monkey speaks.
As to whether empirical or analytical information is better, I believe it depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve with it. Neither of these can be classed as the complete and final truth, as 1) all experience is filtered through the human consciousness, providing a built in bias that cannot be avoided and 2) analytical information cannot provide you with anything you do not already know.
It all comes down to the difference between deduction and induction in the end, and we can never know anything for certain anyway, so let's just eat bananas.
Love from Dr.Monkey.
Beware the Rampaging Monkey...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
On anyones view, it can never be said with 100% certainty that we can never know anything for certain.
My own view is that some things can be known for certain, and that these are all of the analytic variety.
On anyones view, it can never be said with 100% certainty that we can never know anything for certain.
My own view is that some things can be known for certain, and that these are all of the analytic variety.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
32 posts
Location: Bucks
32 posts
Location: Bucks
Posted:
but how can you possable live your life by analytic truth?????
by analytic turth it is not possable to trust anything of mordern invention eg. medicens so surly empirical has to be the way to live
but how can you possable live your life by analytic truth?????
by analytic turth it is not possable to trust anything of mordern invention eg. medicens so surly empirical has to be the way to live
There is nothing quite like standing on your head.....
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
What would it mean to 'live your life by analytic truth?'
Life has never struck me as containing much certainty in the first place, and, where trusting modern technology is concerned I know where I stand- most of it works most of the time, but it's far from 100% trust-worthy.
The knowledge that one day my PC will fail doesn't stop me making use of it.
What would it mean to 'live your life by analytic truth?'
Life has never struck me as containing much certainty in the first place, and, where trusting modern technology is concerned I know where I stand- most of it works most of the time, but it's far from 100% trust-worthy.
The knowledge that one day my PC will fail doesn't stop me making use of it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
32 posts
Location: Bucks
32 posts
Location: Bucks
Posted:
what i mean is that it is not really possable to belive omly in analytic truth and that empirical truth has to be accepted as true if you are to live in this society
what i mean is that it is not really possable to belive omly in analytic truth and that empirical truth has to be accepted as true if you are to live in this society
There is nothing quite like standing on your head.....
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
will have to say a mixture. but bare in mind that empiracal truths are not as str8 forwards as, roll as 6 once, assume that 6 is always rolled. there are statistical tests to conduct to see if there is a significant degree of certainty. when things are 95-99% certain of happening, they are generally acepted.
think you need both tho. so im sitting on the fence.
will have to say a mixture. but bare in mind that empiracal truths are not as str8 forwards as, roll as 6 once, assume that 6 is always rolled. there are statistical tests to conduct to see if there is a significant degree of certainty. when things are 95-99% certain of happening, they are generally acepted.
think you need both tho. so im sitting on the fence.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
SILVER Member
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Posted:
I'm with David Hume- we're creatures of empirical custom and habit- we believe becasue we in the past circumstances have appeared as such- we absorb recalcitrant (unexpected and contrary) experience by means of 'exception to the rule' and 'one-off' despite its more significant plausability.
Quine's theories on relative truths and such are very interesting also.
I'm with David Hume- we're creatures of empirical custom and habit- we believe becasue we in the past circumstances have appeared as such- we absorb recalcitrant (unexpected and contrary) experience by means of 'exception to the rule' and 'one-off' despite its more significant plausability.
Quine's theories on relative truths and such are very interesting also.
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
As Mr Chutney said, humans are fundamentally empirical; as a baby you learn that you can locomote yourself by moving limbs in a certain order, try it one way, it works, try it another, it doesn't. We learn the right orifice to stick food into and if you stick your hand in a fire, it hurts: all trial and error.
Interestingly, there's a school of thought that that's why we tend to be crap at things like programming videos; if you press a button and nothing happens, you assume it hasn't worked, when in reality everything is programmed and ready to go.
Hutton's* Law of Uniformitarianism states "The present is the key to the past." Geologically speaking, it refers to modern day processes like waves depositing pebbles must be the same as those that deposited the pebbles that form conglomerates. If us rock bashers had to go all analytical-like they'd have to do some serious re-thinking on the syllabus.
*It may have been Holmes or Lyell, and it might have been a Theory rather than a Law, as I graduted nearly 10 years ago I no longer have to care.
As Mr Chutney said, humans are fundamentally empirical; as a baby you learn that you can locomote yourself by moving limbs in a certain order, try it one way, it works, try it another, it doesn't. We learn the right orifice to stick food into and if you stick your hand in a fire, it hurts: all trial and error.
Interestingly, there's a school of thought that that's why we tend to be crap at things like programming videos; if you press a button and nothing happens, you assume it hasn't worked, when in reality everything is programmed and ready to go.
Hutton's* Law of Uniformitarianism states "The present is the key to the past." Geologically speaking, it refers to modern day processes like waves depositing pebbles must be the same as those that deposited the pebbles that form conglomerates. If us rock bashers had to go all analytical-like they'd have to do some serious re-thinking on the syllabus.
*It may have been Holmes or Lyell, and it might have been a Theory rather than a Law, as I graduted nearly 10 years ago I no longer have to care.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I suppose, I’d b a practical human empirical type then, because in nature nothing is certain, and understanding uncertainty is an art.
As far as philosophy goes, I’d have tow the party line and say textbook stuff, full of idle and irrelevant theorising. Law’s, theories and no understanding of the real world.
Perhaps, Mr Chutney we believe because we understand, and learn from exceptions to the rule; that’s why it’s exciting.
Eera, I might have missed your point, but just because we don’t teach our kid’s to breath or walk proper, doesn’t mean we can’t in the future.
:drowning:
I suppose, I’d b a practical human empirical type then, because in nature nothing is certain, and understanding uncertainty is an art.
As far as philosophy goes, I’d have tow the party line and say textbook stuff, full of idle and irrelevant theorising. Law’s, theories and no understanding of the real world.
Perhaps, Mr Chutney we believe because we understand, and learn from exceptions to the rule; that’s why it’s exciting.
Eera, I might have missed your point, but just because we don’t teach our kid’s to breath or walk proper, doesn’t mean we can’t in the future.
:drowning:
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
damnit, people, read some quine: the analytic/synthetic distinction is long dead. there just isn't any hard and fast separation between the two.
the paper you want is 'two dogmas of empiricism'.
damnit, people, read some quine: the analytic/synthetic distinction is long dead. there just isn't any hard and fast separation between the two.
the paper you want is 'two dogmas of empiricism'.
ture na sig
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think the most important is the synthetic a priori, the one cool thing about studying Kant. Which shows that there is no analytic truth without empirical and no empirical truth without the analytic. You need empirically-gathered data to analyse, and you need analytic skills in order to gather such data.
So
EDITED_BY: nearly_all_gone (1119991521)
I think the most important is the synthetic a priori, the one cool thing about studying Kant. Which shows that there is no analytic truth without empirical and no empirical truth without the analytic. You need empirically-gathered data to analyse, and you need analytic skills in order to gather such data.
So
EDITED_BY: nearly_all_gone (1119991521)
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Of course everyone has their own opinions on the issue of exclusivity in philosophical discussion, and I'd like to stress here that I'm not trying to get into a fight, but simply expressing my opinion.
Which is, as I've mentioned on numerous other threads, that unnecessary use of 'technical' jargon and published papers, is, to an extent, excluding.
To access published papers requires access to a fairly specialised library- OK for those doing philosophy degrees at a university, but problematic for others.
Additionally, and again, this is just my opinion, but, if what these guys wrote was so great, what's the problem with just putting it- nice, consisely and easy to understand- in your own words.
Then, everyone here, including those not doing philosophy degrees (and, on what is primarily a board for spinners, that's going to be most of them) can actually understand what you're talking about, and maybe even venture an opinion or two of their own.
My own feelings on the matter (and I have done a philosophy degree, so I do have some experience of both styles of philosophy), is that many of these texts/proofs/arguments, when put in plain simple english, tend to be highly flawed.
Written by: quiet
damnit, people, read some quine: the analytic/synthetic distinction is long dead. there just isn't any hard and fast separation between the two.
the paper you want is 'two dogmas of empiricism'.
Written by: nearly_all_gone
I think the most important is the synthetic a priori, the one cool thing about studying Kant. Which shows that there is no analytic truth without empirical and no empirical truth without the analytic. You need analytically-gathered data to analyse, and you need analytic skills in order to gather such data.
So
Of course everyone has their own opinions on the issue of exclusivity in philosophical discussion, and I'd like to stress here that I'm not trying to get into a fight, but simply expressing my opinion.
Which is, as I've mentioned on numerous other threads, that unnecessary use of 'technical' jargon and published papers, is, to an extent, excluding.
To access published papers requires access to a fairly specialised library- OK for those doing philosophy degrees at a university, but problematic for others.
Additionally, and again, this is just my opinion, but, if what these guys wrote was so great, what's the problem with just putting it- nice, consisely and easy to understand- in your own words.
Then, everyone here, including those not doing philosophy degrees (and, on what is primarily a board for spinners, that's going to be most of them) can actually understand what you're talking about, and maybe even venture an opinion or two of their own.
My own feelings on the matter (and I have done a philosophy degree, so I do have some experience of both styles of philosophy), is that many of these texts/proofs/arguments, when put in plain simple english, tend to be highly flawed.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posted:
I did.
Written by: nearly_all_gone
You need empirically-gathered data to analyse, and you need analytic skills in order to gather such data.
I did.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
i agree with dave, simple language is usually best. BUT on the other hand, 'jargon' is usually used to put in to one word what would normally take several paragraphs to explain. it would be nicer if we could talk in simple words, but often we cant, without losing alot of the implications.
it would nice to be simple, but it often isnt practical.
i agree with dave, simple language is usually best. BUT on the other hand, 'jargon' is usually used to put in to one word what would normally take several paragraphs to explain. it would be nicer if we could talk in simple words, but often we cant, without losing alot of the implications.
it would nice to be simple, but it often isnt practical.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Jargon is very useful for that; indeed, as a discussion progresses it becomes essential.
For politeness though, I think it's good if such jargon is well defined when it is first introduced on the thread, so everyone involved in the thread knows what it means.
This is actually good practice even for those who do know what it means from other sources, because often such jargon is understood to mean slightly different things.
Many a discussion has gone on for ages when in fact, both parties don't actually disagree, but are simply using different meanings for their base terms.
A prime example is the 'does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if there's no-one to hear it?', where, if all parties are using the same definition of 'sound', there is no problem. Yet people have spent hundreds of hours debating the question. purely because they mean different things by 'sound' and just don't realise.
Arguably, many classic problems of philosophy are sustained by the same problem (not realising that the basic terms being used are understood in different ways), in particular those about 'free-will', 'determinism' etc.
Jargon is very useful for that; indeed, as a discussion progresses it becomes essential.
For politeness though, I think it's good if such jargon is well defined when it is first introduced on the thread, so everyone involved in the thread knows what it means.
This is actually good practice even for those who do know what it means from other sources, because often such jargon is understood to mean slightly different things.
Many a discussion has gone on for ages when in fact, both parties don't actually disagree, but are simply using different meanings for their base terms.
A prime example is the 'does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if there's no-one to hear it?', where, if all parties are using the same definition of 'sound', there is no problem. Yet people have spent hundreds of hours debating the question. purely because they mean different things by 'sound' and just don't realise.
Arguably, many classic problems of philosophy are sustained by the same problem (not realising that the basic terms being used are understood in different ways), in particular those about 'free-will', 'determinism' etc.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
hear hear. i second everything dave just said (said='to express in words).
i have had several 'discussions' where it was the definitions that were causing problems not the actual topic or subject.
hear hear. i second everything dave just said (said='to express in words).
i have had several 'discussions' where it was the definitions that were causing problems not the actual topic or subject.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
enthusiast
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted:
(although it's quite technical and hard going, and I'm too lazy to read it atm)
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: quiet
the paper you want is 'two dogmas of empiricism'.
To access published papers requires access to a fairly specialised library- OK for those doing philosophy degrees at a university, but problematic for others.
(although it's quite technical and hard going, and I'm too lazy to read it atm
) monkeys ate my brain
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Dave - no, it doesn't. I just did a google search for that paper and found an appropriate link. It took about 12 seconds.
https://www.galilean-library.org/quine.html,
if you're interested.
As concerns jargon: agreed, coming into a thread and starting to use incomprehensible words (incomprehensible to non-specialists, that is) can be exclusive, irritating, or downright rude. But for a thread which was started specifically in order to discuss a distinction, and where the distinction itself was explained carefully(-ish) in the very first post, I honestly can't see what the problem is.
you'd be surprised what you can find on google, these days.
Dave - no, it doesn't. I just did a google search for that paper and found an appropriate link. It took about 12 seconds.
https://www.galilean-library.org/quine.html,
if you're interested.
As concerns jargon: agreed, coming into a thread and starting to use incomprehensible words (incomprehensible to non-specialists, that is) can be exclusive, irritating, or downright rude. But for a thread which was started specifically in order to discuss a distinction, and where the distinction itself was explained carefully(-ish) in the very first post, I honestly can't see what the problem is.
you'd be surprised what you can find on google, these days.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Indeed, I am surprised (cheers for the link mo-seph and quiet)- I was under the impression that most published papers would have some form of copywrite protection and not appear on the net.
Nevertheless, I would say, if it's so easy to track them down, it would be good, when first bringing them into the discussion, to post a link.
As for jargon, I was quite happy with the original post as it did explain the terms- the later post I was referring to did not do so.
Lastly, having looked at Quinnes article, I'm reminded of why Iost interest in academic philosophy
If Quinnes point is valid, I see no reason why it has to be presented in such a drawn out and incomprehensible fashion.
I realise it's geared towards academic philosophers, who are accustomed to such badly written papers; but seriously... why?
I'm really suspicious of arguments that are presented in such a needlessly complex way- all kinds of invalid reasoning can be slipped in top the midst of that kind of confusing writing.
I
Indeed, I am surprised (cheers for the link mo-seph and quiet)- I was under the impression that most published papers would have some form of copywrite protection and not appear on the net.
Nevertheless, I would say, if it's so easy to track them down, it would be good, when first bringing them into the discussion, to post a link.
As for jargon, I was quite happy with the original post as it did explain the terms- the later post I was referring to did not do so.
Lastly, having looked at Quinnes article, I'm reminded of why Iost interest in academic philosophy
If Quinnes point is valid, I see no reason why it has to be presented in such a drawn out and incomprehensible fashion.
I realise it's geared towards academic philosophers, who are accustomed to such badly written papers; but seriously... why?
I'm really suspicious of arguments that are presented in such a needlessly complex way- all kinds of invalid reasoning can be slipped in top the midst of that kind of confusing writing.
I
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
but dave - the later post to which you referred didn't use any terms that hadn't been explained carefully, earlier . . .
but dave - the later post to which you referred didn't use any terms that hadn't been explained carefully, earlier . . .
ture na sig
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
i think its a problem with most academic writers, atleast in the social sciences. physical scientists still seem to be able to write short concise articles. maybe its the nature of the material, but i have found the social sciences lose all writing skills soon after being published.
it gets quite irritating struggling thru incomprehensible articles, trying to make sense out of sentences over 100 words long, then getting marked down for run-on sentences in our own reports. as i get further along in my career tho, i find myself doing it more and more often as the ideas and concpets we deal with get more and more complex.
i do however think that the language does not need to be so esoteric (Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people).
and many people have a predisposition to maintain an excessively verbose nature within the texts that they have created with the desire to communicate their ideas and concepts
i think its a problem with most academic writers, atleast in the social sciences. physical scientists still seem to be able to write short concise articles. maybe its the nature of the material, but i have found the social sciences lose all writing skills soon after being published.
it gets quite irritating struggling thru incomprehensible articles, trying to make sense out of sentences over 100 words long, then getting marked down for run-on sentences in our own reports. as i get further along in my career tho, i find myself doing it more and more often as the ideas and concpets we deal with get more and more complex.
i do however think that the language does not need to be so esoteric (Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people).
and many people have a predisposition to maintain an excessively verbose nature within the texts that they have created with the desire to communicate their ideas and concepts
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
most of the analytic philosophy i read is quite concise. i generally don't bother with the rest.
and quine ain't prolix, mate.
most of the analytic philosophy i read is quite concise. i generally don't bother with the rest.
and quine ain't prolix, mate.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As far as I can tell, 'synthetic' did not occur prior to the posts I was talking about-
and, when it did appear, there was no accompanying defintion/explanation.
Similarly, with the 'synthetic a priori'.
Maybe I missed it?
Written by: quiet
but dave - the later post to which you referred didn't use any terms that hadn't been explained carefully, earlier . . .
As far as I can tell, 'synthetic' did not occur prior to the posts I was talking about-
Written by: quiet
damnit, people, read some quine: the analytic/synthetic distinction is long dead. there just isn't any hard and fast separation between the two.
the paper you want is 'two dogmas of empiricism'.
Written by: nearly_all_gone
I think the most important is the synthetic a priori, the one cool thing about studying Kant.
So
and, when it did appear, there was no accompanying defintion/explanation.
Similarly, with the 'synthetic a priori'.
Maybe I missed it?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com