Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › great philosophy video series

great philosophy video series

A former member
Post #: 2
Unfortunately, Patrick Grim's series seems to have been removed from YouTube. I would like to see the series if it is posted anywhere else. I am really enjoying Tamar Gendler's lectures on human nature. haven't had a chance to listen to the rest yet. Thanks for posting!
A former member
Post #: 907
welcome.
youtube is increasingly taking down non infringing copyrighted content based on
robot computer crawlers seeking infringing content and emailing youtube/google of the
abuse.

whether accurate or not.

This alone is enough for content to be taken down.
And, once taken down, very hard to prove that the content is not infringing and putting back up on youtube.
Rather than the burden of showing that some video content is infringing some type of copyright on youtube.
A former member
Post #: 909
One impediment to accuracy of belief is the feeling of knowing without having the
supplying knowledge to the steps which legitimize such a feeling of knowing.



A former member
Post #: 914
Hard to prove or cannot be proven that a negative or a non-existent something in fact does not exist.


A Negative Hippopotamus


A former member
Post #: 916

Interesting video topic below about 'imaginative resistance'. That is, trying to see the world ethically different than through our own ethics.

This difficulty may lead to challenges in understanding others who may have different moral systems than our own.
This difficulty to interpose someone else's ethical system to our own gives us difficulty as we may feel weakened for feeling we may not have an 'ethical center' to our being.

The below video discusses how, perhaps as a psychological self-defense, to resist imagining
alternative ethical systems than our own.

Brad Pitt, Homer and Imaginative Resistance


A former member
Post #: 920


The philosophical burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Holder of the burden
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim.

"If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms).

Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.


The burden of proof


Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,698
But did he prove that what he was saying was indeed right? How would he do so? How does he legitimate all those claims?
A former member
Post #: 929
I like the idea of exploring this further.

What were all the discoveries and understandings that made this process the process that the above video advocated for.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,699
What criterion or criteria would you use to decide whether what he was saying was correct or not? What would be your legitimization criteria?

BTW, I accept what he says. But should I? Why?

Am I just a sheep?
A former member
Post #: 930

Am I just a sheep?

no, not at all, a bulldog for truth, accuracy, and understanding if any allegoric creature would do.

I agree too with the video, although, left to my own devices, I'm not sure I would reach such a clean process of pruning my belief tree.

I would like to retrace the process which makes holding this process valuable.

One process in the video mentioned was that beliefs were given names called propositions, I believe.

Going to watch this video again.

These propositions were presented as a belief that one wished for the other too have.
And this process of accepting rejecting beliefs involves others who may not agree with each other.

This proposition had certain criteria which one person believed that gave some predictive outcome of a model when seeing the data or evidence in a certain way.

Propositions being discussed for belief have criteria such as evidence which fits a hypothesis which supports a consistent model of some sort. Or, even making a meta-model of what makes inconsistent models.

People may have inconsistent criteria for various beliefs that they each may hold.

How may models or beliefs that annihilate other beliefs ever be accepted?

What do we do with inaccurate evidence gathering methods and models when a more accurate evidence gathering method is discovered.

How may we more quickly adopt this newer more accurate evidence gathering method.

Certain evidence gathering methods and models stay with us a very long time.


Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.

A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular.

Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation:

effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.

So, in discussing a proposition, I see that legitimizing the criteria used for which a proposition was gathered from says how we may give credence to the proposition and also the accuracy of that belief model.

I meandered a bit, I'll focus closer to the topics in the video.



Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy