Vale Hilary. I have learnt so much from your work (or rather unlearned so much).RIP

these are wonderful, thank you for uploading this content.

Happy to see Putnam address this. Sometimes when talking to members of certain Departments, I get the sense that anyone who analyzes the logical structure of an argument or asks for evidence for a claim is called a Logical Positivist.

Thank you. Do you know Putnam's exact position (or any other relevant philosopher's) as to why he finds meaning in statements that would be rejected by a verificationist, i.e. the example regarding the extra-terrestrials being intelligent? I can't find this answer ANYWHERE. I'm sure it exists somewhere.

@SquidPartyGames

7 жыл бұрын

I am not very well read in Putnam, but I do know he thinks that reference might determine sense in some cases. That is part of his account of meaning.

@tesfuweldemikael2902

4 жыл бұрын

It's not about the extra-terrestrials being intelligent, but about intelligent extra-terrestials being, that is, existence. The verificationist should not find meaning in this sentence according to Putnam. Why is that? Because we cannot verify. But obviously, there is a very precise meaning to the sentence, namely that there aren't any intelligent extra-terrestrials. Precise enough to depress Putnam if it were true. Meaningful enough to be understood. There is a slightly different argument about the historicity of lack thereof of Moses. I think it was in Renewing Philosophy. There's a lecture on meaning and externalism by Putnam that may contain the answer or some clues. I listened to it some time ago so am not sure, but I found the link for you. Might listen to it again these days myself, I quite liked it. kzread.info/dash/bejne/q5OVkqOHc9zWd9o.html

@havenbastion

3 жыл бұрын

There are two ways of knowing, empirical probability and logical certainty. Since we have no empirical knowledge of extra-terrestrials, we can only rely upon logic. Logic is always valid but only sound when the input is correct, and since the input about ET is suppositional, the outcome can also only be suppositional.

@Robinson8491

2 жыл бұрын

the Threefold Chord, I think he argues against Dewey and verificationism there, but not sure as I agreed so much with him and therefore did not pay too much attention to that part of his book

@ajblum58

5 ай бұрын

The statement "there are no intelligent extra-terrestrials" means the same thing as "all extra-terrestrials are not intelligent." How would you prove the statement "all extra-terrestrials" true. You would have to be sure you examined the intelligence of every extra-terrestrial. How would verify that you had seen all of them? Maybe all of them that you have seen so far are unintelligent, but what about the next one you come across? So, you can't verify it, but it I (and you, I assume) know what he is saying. It is a strong statement about the intelligence of extra-terrestrials. No different in form than saying there are no happy New Yorkers. Clearly a meaningful (and I assume false) statement.

I live in New England......1 hour from Boston........Can't believe I never heard about this stuff 20 or 10 years ago...I could have sat w/Quine & Putnam.....dang it man

A Pragmatist is a Positivist with a broken heart

I think Putnam is here operating on quite a narrow notion of verifiability, i.e. that which can be practically verified. While the existence or otherwise of ET life is indeed unverifiable on this definition, it is still nonetheless very much verifiable in the broader sense of verifiability in principle, i.e. it is empirically testable, even if at present we lack the technology to carry out such tests. I seem to remember Ayer early in LTL giving as an example the existence of craters on the dark side of the moon. At the time of writing, this was not practically verifiable, but nonetheless did not count as nonsense on the broader notion of verifiability employed by some of the Vienna positivists (incl. I think Carnap). Either way, I think this narrow/broad split in verificationism was a bone of contention in positivist circles. I'm surprised Putnam does not mention this.

@americanphilosopher

7 жыл бұрын

I think he's referring to the unprovability of a negative. It is important that he's talking about the NON-existence of ETs. Their existence (if true) is in principle verifiable, but their non-existence isn't since having not found them they still might turn up. Thanks for your comment!

@KitCalder

7 жыл бұрын

With a little imagination one can envisage a God-technology that would account for every living organism across the entirety of physical existence. Such a technology surely could, with no offence caused to one's sense of logical cogency, prove the non-existence of ETs - there would simply be nowhere unaccounted for out of which they might unexpectedly appear. N. B. Here I seem to be arguing in line with Hume's semantic empiricism as interpreted by Schlick (1938) and more recently A. W. Moore (2012), by which there is nothing we cannot know of, at least in principle.

@tesfuweldemikael2902

4 жыл бұрын

I think he mentions it elsewhere. The more specific verification problem about whether Putnam actually said something being his rich production and long career...

i love putnam and agree with him. i think verificationism about truth (not meaning, especially meaning as use) is correct, though.

@oneshot2028

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you say you "THINK""?? U don't know for sure??

Philosophy is just bunkum. How can philosophers comment on extremely complex subjects like QM and theoretical particle physics when they don't anything about the subject??? They only know the results of science, even that at a very high level. They don't know the minute details of the scientific process. I don't think any serious scientist take philosophers seriously.

@americanphilosopher

2 жыл бұрын

Well, if you were citing experimentally verified evidence, that would be one thing. Specifically, that would be science. But your claims here are not that, you are making an argument, and that's philosophy. How much do you know about philosophy? (Thanks for watching!)

@oneshot2028

2 жыл бұрын

@@americanphilosopher Well, I am just a philosophy enthusiast who has read a few books on philosophy. Yes, you are right. I am giving an opinion. It's not a blind opinion. I have heard some well known scientists say things like what I have stated. Take general relativity for example. Just ONE science book is all you need to know about it. BUT to get the "philosophical" view on general relativity (or scientific knowledge in general) will require you to read dozens of philosophy books and almost all of them will give different "opinions" and never say anything definite. So a scientist will say the curvature of space and time is REAL. But read 10 books on philosophy of science and knowledge and you will get 7 or 8 views with no definite answer whether space time curvature actually exists or not. I think that is one main reason why scientists don't take philosophy seriously. I think philosophy focuses on problems still not answered by science. The last philosophy book I read was Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude which was I have to admit the best book I have read on the trying to bridge science with epistemology and ontology so far.

@oneshot2028

2 жыл бұрын

@@americanphilosopher //But your claims here are not that, you are making an argument, and that's philosophy. // So do you think philosophy is mostly just "opinion"??? Isn't that why no philosopher can agree with other philosophers, while all scientists can agree on just one thing very easily because evidence is there??

@americanphilosopher

2 жыл бұрын

@@oneshot2028 Well, one can have opinions about philosophical issues and scientific questions alike. The question is the degree to which one has satisfactory arguments to support them. The thing I was trying to point out is that it's not a question of doing philosophy or not doing philosophy. Philosophy is unavoidable. The question is how consciously one does it and how well: to what extent have alternatives been explored and arguments supported and challenged. There are any number of open issues in the philosophy of science that have a bearing on the interpretation of scientific claims. Now you might say that we should just settle these issues scientifically. But that would require not a philosophy of science, but a Science of science. This has been tried, and not successfully. (This is what the logical positivists wanted to do, and their *philosophical* program failed.) So, I think that the claim that "Philosophy is just bunkum" is at least a touch overwrought. That was my only point. Good day to you!

@oneshot2028

2 жыл бұрын

@@americanphilosopher Yeah, I agree with you. I was exaggerating. So r u a professional philosopher??