Krimel said: ...not only is probability a philosophical term it is a metaphysical term. It is not data it is a description of data, a way of conceiving of data, a way of understanding data. And by data I mean empirical experience.
dmb says: Okay now you're just being a weasel. My dictionary says "data" means "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis." But you want it to be a metaphysical-philosophical term that means "empirical experience"? There is data and then there is empirical data. I mean, facts and statistics (data) aren't necessarily based on empirical observations. C'mon Krimel, are you trying to change the meaning of the words just to "win" the game? That always backfires. KrimelWhat you have not repeated or even stated is what volition says about that data. dmb says:It says the data is consistent within the MOQ. It says the data is consistent with a broadened picture of the theory of evolution. It says undermining things about determinism. It says that volition and awareness don't enter at some point in the history of the universe but rather it was always here and evolved just like everything else that's here and evolved. In short, it puts that data in a larger, coherent context and otherwise makes sense of it in the big picture. That's one reason why "it's just no good to mix philosophy and science the way you do". Krimel said: Who says it's not good? Not Plato or Aristotle. Not Descartes or Locke or Hume or Kant. In fact neither do James or Pirsig. I guess it just depends on who you want to talk to. dmb says:Oh yea, you're just like those guys. I'm not saying the philosophy of science is a bad idea, I'm saying it's no good the way YOU mix them up. And in this case, "mix" means scramble, confuse, jumble, disorganize and that sort of thing. Like a scientific theory, a philosophical idea follows from the data and serves to interpret them. Theories and ideas organize them into a coherent picture or they fit the facts into a larger picture, as in the case of inorganic "preferences". This data has implications for determinism no matter how you slice it. This data pushes us in the direction of "preferences". It's just a matter of how far you feel justified in going. You can quibble about the distance but it's not a random, meaningless idea. To suggest that, I think, only shows that it's meaningless to YOU. Okay, but I'll bet that meaninglessness has something to do with the fact that you don't know a data set from a hole in the ground. Are you so anti-romantic that even philosophy is too artsy fartsy for you, egg-head? Does your imagination hurt? And tell me, since it is a philosophical term, what does "probability" mean among philosophers? How do metaphysician employ the term? To calculate the odds of being published? To figure the chances that some geek will confuse statistics with metaphysics? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
