I gave arguments for that in the post. Instead of responding to those, you insisted there’s some hypothetical value system that makes the concept of truth useful, and didn’t really argue for its coherency at all.
The burden of proof is on people asserting the positive, not entirely on those trying to prove the negative. Pointing out that nobody has given an account of meaning, and 50+ comments later still nobody has done so, is very suggestive that nobody actually has one.
A binary attribute is coherent if it’s possible for the attribute to hold as well as possible for the attribute not to hold. External reality is incoherent, because it never holds and it never doesn’t hold—there’s nothing that it would mean for it to hold or not hold.
there’s some hypothetical value system that makes the concept of truth useful
Theres a value system according to which truth is valuable and that is the one where truth itself is a terminal value.
If you want to argue that usefulness is the only true value, go ahead
nobody has given an account of meaning,
Shared meaning is what allows communication to take place. Therefore, communication taking place is evidence of shared meaning.
Do you think that verificationism is filling a vacuum ? That’s it’s the only theory of meaning anyone ever came up with? There are multiple fields that deal with the subject of meaning. There are multiple theories of meaning, not zero.
A binary attribute is coherent if it’s possible for the attribute to hold as well as possible for the attribute not to hold. External reality is incoherent, because it never holds and it never doesn’t hold—
Again: the existence of external reality can be supported by abductive reasoning: it’s the best explanation for why science works at all.
You’re entitled to put whatever you want in your value system, but if it references incoherent things then you just can’t achieve it. Personally I would much prefer that 1+1=blrgh, but sadly not only does it equal 2, blrgh is meaningless. If I kept insisting that blrgh was meaningful and played a central role in my value system, what would you say? Also, I think truth can be defined without referencing external reality, just observations.
Shared meaning is what allows communication to take place. Therefore, communication taking place is evidence of shared meaning.
Evidence, but not definitive evidence, as I pointed out elsewhere. It’s possible for people to be mistaken about what has meaning, and I argue they are so mistaken when talking about external reality.
Do you think that verificationism is filling a vacuum ? That’s it’s the only theory of meaning anyone ever came up with? There are multiple fields that deal with the subject of meaning.
I’m talking specifically about the meaning of external reality. I looked up critiques of verificationism and didn’t see any accounts of such meaning. If there’s a particular account of the meaning of external reality that you’d like me to look at, let me know.
I responded to the explain argument elsewhere. Regardless, it’s unclear how an incoherent claim can serve as an explanation of anything.
Incoherent != Impossible. It’s not possible for me to get a unicorn, but it’s coherent for me to want one. It’s incoherent for me to want to both have a unicorn and not have a unicorn at the same time. It’s incoherent for me to want the “true map” to have an XML tag saying “this really exists”, because the concept of a “true map” is meaningless, and the map with the tag and the map without yield the same predictions and so neither is more correct.
Its where your sense data come from. You need the idea of an external world to define “sense organs”.
Disagree. If you’re defining it as the source of sense data, that’s roughly equivalent to the definition in The Simple Truth essay I linked to and responded to in OP.
My sense data can be predicted well by my map. Why do I need to define a concept of external reality to make sense of that?
Why? How does realism explain why science works? What is the exact argument, premises, and conclusion?
>There’s a definition of “external reality”: it’s where your sense data come from.
This definition is incoherent, and I addressed it directly in OP. It’s also circular—it assumes your sense data comes from somewhere, which is precisely what I’m claiming is incoherent. Giving a definition that assumes the matter in debate is begging the question.
>There is a purpose served by the posit of an external reality: explaining how science works .
I still don’t know how your proposed explanation works. I think any such explanation can be replaced with an equally valid explanation that doesn’t assume incoherent concepts such as realism. And even if you managed to show that, all you’d be showing is that the concept is useful, which neither implies coherency nor truth.
>There is a meaning of “true model”, based on correspondence.
This again relies on the assumption of realism, which is circular.
I’ve already given a definition of incoherent. A belief is coherent if it constrains expectations. A definition is incoherent if it relies on incoherent beliefs.
Are you going to hold yourself to same standard?
You’re making three claims: one, that realism is coherent; two, that realism explains how science works; three, that one can’t explain science as easily without realism.
My claim is that realism is incoherent, and that whatever argument you have for your second claim, I can find one just as good without using realism.
I only asked you to provide details on the second claim. If you do, I will hold myself to the same standards when arguing against the third. I can’t give a precise argument to explain science without realism now, because I don’t know what you want in an explanation until I’ve seen your argument.
That’s what “sense data” means.
So reality is defined in terms of sense data, and sense data is defined in terms of reality. No, that doesn’t work.
Are you ever going to argue for that claim? It seems unreasinable that your opponents do all the work.
And are you going to define “coherent”?
I gave arguments for that in the post. Instead of responding to those, you insisted there’s some hypothetical value system that makes the concept of truth useful, and didn’t really argue for its coherency at all.
The burden of proof is on people asserting the positive, not entirely on those trying to prove the negative. Pointing out that nobody has given an account of meaning, and 50+ comments later still nobody has done so, is very suggestive that nobody actually has one.
A binary attribute is coherent if it’s possible for the attribute to hold as well as possible for the attribute not to hold. External reality is incoherent, because it never holds and it never doesn’t hold—there’s nothing that it would mean for it to hold or not hold.
Theres a value system according to which truth is valuable and that is the one where truth itself is a terminal value.
If you want to argue that usefulness is the only true value, go ahead
Shared meaning is what allows communication to take place. Therefore, communication taking place is evidence of shared meaning.
Do you think that verificationism is filling a vacuum ? That’s it’s the only theory of meaning anyone ever came up with? There are multiple fields that deal with the subject of meaning. There are multiple theories of meaning, not zero.
Again: the existence of external reality can be supported by abductive reasoning: it’s the best explanation for why science works at all.
You’re entitled to put whatever you want in your value system, but if it references incoherent things then you just can’t achieve it. Personally I would much prefer that 1+1=blrgh, but sadly not only does it equal 2, blrgh is meaningless. If I kept insisting that blrgh was meaningful and played a central role in my value system, what would you say? Also, I think truth can be defined without referencing external reality, just observations.
Evidence, but not definitive evidence, as I pointed out elsewhere. It’s possible for people to be mistaken about what has meaning, and I argue they are so mistaken when talking about external reality.
I’m talking specifically about the meaning of external reality. I looked up critiques of verificationism and didn’t see any accounts of such meaning. If there’s a particular account of the meaning of external reality that you’d like me to look at, let me know.
I responded to the explain argument elsewhere. Regardless, it’s unclear how an incoherent claim can serve as an explanation of anything.
Well, if it’s rational to only value things that are really achievable, you need a concept of reality .
Its where your sense data come from. You need the idea of an external world to define “sense organs”.
Incoherent != Impossible. It’s not possible for me to get a unicorn, but it’s coherent for me to want one. It’s incoherent for me to want to both have a unicorn and not have a unicorn at the same time. It’s incoherent for me to want the “true map” to have an XML tag saying “this really exists”, because the concept of a “true map” is meaningless, and the map with the tag and the map without yield the same predictions and so neither is more correct.
Disagree. If you’re defining it as the source of sense data, that’s roughly equivalent to the definition in The Simple Truth essay I linked to and responded to in OP.
My sense data can be predicted well by my map. Why do I need to define a concept of external reality to make sense of that?
You need it to explain why science works at all.
To summarise:
There’s a definition of “external reality”: it’s where your sense data come from.
There is a purpose served by the posit of an external reality: explaining how science works .
There is a meaning of “true model”, based on correspondence.
So every one of your detailed objections has been answered.
>You need it to explain why science works at all.
Why? How does realism explain why science works? What is the exact argument, premises, and conclusion?
>There’s a definition of “external reality”: it’s where your sense data come from.
This definition is incoherent, and I addressed it directly in OP. It’s also circular—it assumes your sense data comes from somewhere, which is precisely what I’m claiming is incoherent. Giving a definition that assumes the matter in debate is begging the question.
>There is a purpose served by the posit of an external reality: explaining how science works .
I still don’t know how your proposed explanation works. I think any such explanation can be replaced with an equally valid explanation that doesn’t assume incoherent concepts such as realism. And even if you managed to show that, all you’d be showing is that the concept is useful, which neither implies coherency nor truth.
>There is a meaning of “true model”, based on correspondence.
This again relies on the assumption of realism, which is circular.
Are you going to hold yourself to same standard?
Exactly and precisely how?
That’s what “sense data” means.
Circular “definitions* are ubiquitous. Circular arguments are the problem .
I’ve already given a definition of incoherent. A belief is coherent if it constrains expectations. A definition is incoherent if it relies on incoherent beliefs.
You’re making three claims: one, that realism is coherent; two, that realism explains how science works; three, that one can’t explain science as easily without realism.
My claim is that realism is incoherent, and that whatever argument you have for your second claim, I can find one just as good without using realism.
I only asked you to provide details on the second claim. If you do, I will hold myself to the same standards when arguing against the third. I can’t give a precise argument to explain science without realism now, because I don’t know what you want in an explanation until I’ve seen your argument.
So reality is defined in terms of sense data, and sense data is defined in terms of reality. No, that doesn’t work.
The definition you are now giving:
Isnt’t the same as the one you gave before:
But that would certainly explain why seem to have been using “incoherent” and “meaningless” interchangeably.
Binary attributes aren’t the same as beliefs.