It seems to me that Descartes has not really used zero premises to prove that he exists. He says (at least in the version I found): "But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me...I am, I exist..." So he says "If P then Q" and also "If not P then Q" implies that Q, where P is that he is being deceived and Q is that he exists. If he is being deceived, he must exist, if he is not being deceived, that he "obviously" exists. Either way, he's making use of many assumptions about logic to prove his conclusion: the law of the excluded middle, modus ponens, etc. Even the fact that he says "I think, I exist" rather than "I think therefore I am" is not really important---his language may not include the logical implication explicitly, but it's still there, otherwise the sentence makes as little sense as the nonsensical logical proposition "P Q". There must be some connective. Even if we just say "I think", it still requires assumptions. When I say that thinking means I exist, I've defined two concepts, and then said that one is the same as the other. Certainly I may choose to define things however I like, but this argument becomes "Assume I think", and then allowing me to say I've proven "I think" because I've assumed that "I think" still requires an assumption.
Descartes did say "ego cogito, ergo sum" in his Principles which were written in Latin and in a posthumous work...not that it really matters. Enjoyable lecture, but no clear separation between epistemological and metaphysical doubt was expressed even though you did say he was "still eating" and do call his doubt "methodological". Still, I don't see how to get to solipsism through epistemological doubt... it seems this muddies the water between epistemology/metaphysics which Descartes couldn't (and didn't) do.
55:15 interesting thing you did there, but it won't work in most indo-european languages, at least in french, portuguese, spanish, italian, and even latin. "Cogito" just means "I think", in the present tense. you can (and in some cases it's better to) translate it to "I am thinking", but in english this version of the verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb. similarly, "I will study" originally means "I have the will to study", but now we use it to express futurity in relation to the main verb.
specially in portuguese and spanish, the translation would be really weird, because the verb "to be" in these languages is divided into two verbs, "ser", which is originally from the latin "esse", meaning more stable statements, like "I'm a doctor", and "estar", which is a form of the latin verb "stare", "to stand", that is, it's the version of "to be" related to more immediate states, like "I'm sick" ("estou doente"/"estoy enfermo"). the thing to point out here is that one should use the second version for auxiliary verbs, so "I am thinking" would not be the same as "I am and I think"
I am thinking, I exist.. What about the evil deceiver putting that thought into your head? How do you know you exist? You could be the product of someone else's dream, (similar to the matrix, or Putnam's "brains in a vat")
As a philosopher, Adam should hold to binding belief as equated with proof. If something is not proven, then the philosopher is not bound to believe what is not proven. If the Earth's motion or the sun's motion is not proven, then the philosopher is not bound to believe either object moves. The Galileo episode as presented in this video has a bias which is science has proven the Earth moves around the sun, when in fact science only has models which can be modified according to underlying assumptions. There are different variants of both the heliocentric and geocentric/geostatic models which claim to account for all that is observed with varying degrees of accuracy and explanatory power. In short, there is no scientific proof that the Earth is moving, nor is there any proof the Earth is not at the centre of the universe. The modern approach to the Galileo incident assumes the victory of the moving Earth theory as part of the assumed Enlightenment based victory of science over religion. Such an assumption is in general only the promotion of a modern myth.
You start by assuming that all philosophers require a standard of undoubtable proof in order to believe something. I"m not sure that's a safe assumption.
It is far safer for the professor of philosophy to remain agnostic about the motions of planetary bodies, rather than take a side by assuming the Heliocentric/moving Earth model is either true, or more likely to be true. For all the philosopher knows, the Catholic church was correct to condemn Galileo and the moving Earth theory, even though many in the post Enlightenment society accept the Earth's motion as a fact, or near proven fact. The professor would be doing the students a service by providing a clear statement about the philosopher's role in the issue of the moving/stationary Earth problem (or any physics-based problem), rather than simply taking a position on the problem and assuming one side of the argument is almost certainly true. The professor's current position as stated in the above lecture may be indicative of a fallacy of subjective bias, or confirmation bias to encourage the students to see the moving/stationary Earth issue the way the professor currently believes the issue has been resolved. A more balanced approach would be to investigate the issue as a philosopher of science and evaluate the truth value of physics models and the conclusions contained within those models. Then evaluate the reasons why scientists prefer one model over several other models. Then the professor could make clearer and more balanced judgements about historical incidents such as the Gallileo case. The current, standard approach in the academy, in general, is to approach the Gallileo case and the Catholic church in a fallacious way which avoids critical thinking on the issue. The standard approach assumes the moving Earth model has won the day and must be assumed to be true, when in fact there are many experiments that are consistent with a stationary Earth located in a special place in the universe. WMAP, and the Sloan digital survey provide evidence for the centrality of the Earth in the universe, with the symmetrical universe having an axis of symmetry along the ecliptic plane. Other local experiments such as the laser interferometer experiments and George Airies telescope experiment provide local evidence for a stationary Earth. Galileo Was Wrong details the many pieces of evidence from science and divine revelation which are incorporated into a stationary Earth model of the universe. If modern science was taken seriously on the issue of the Earths location and motion, the stationary Earth model would win quite easily. The ongoing ignorance generated by those who assume the Earth moves is one reason among many why science in the area of the Earth's motion/stagnation is usually ignored or explained away, or re-interpreted.
Some questions/statements on the above matter of the moving Earth relevant to the modern age. The questions need not be answered but are provided as an occasion to generate thought on the matter. What scientific evidence are we to use to come to the conclusion that the Earth is moving, rather than stationary? Similarly, what scientific evidence are we to use to come to the conclusion that the Earth is not in a central location in the universe when modern science (WMAP, Sloan) has produced evidence showing the Earth is at a central location in the universe? Why believe in the standard Heliocentric model, when the model is based upon Newtonian mechanics, which assumes the very problematic mechanism of gravity is caused by instantaneous mass attraction over any distance without a medium? If we are to accept the Newtonian mass attraction as an explanation for gravity, how are we to answer the objection that scientists also accept gravity as modelled by the bending of the space-time continuum, gravity as a pressure caused by space modelled as a fluid and so on. The problem here is that if we accept several competing versions of the gravity model, then modern science is, in fact, advertising a great weakness of ignorance regarding the true nature of gravity. So if the mechanism of gravity is really only ever unknown and speculatively presented under diverse mechanisms, then the Heliocentric model is only ever based upon a highly speculative mechanism which is together accepted and rejected by the same academy. The speculative nature of the mechanism for gravity provides ample room to doubt the current Heliocentric model and permits an enquiring mind to investigate the weaknesses and strengths of competing models. I still maintain the position that the philosopher is only bound to believe what has been proven. Other levels of belief are also permitted which include well-founded and none well-founded opinions and experiential-based opinions. Yet so, if a position is only an opinion then others are not bound to follow the same opinion. If the earth has not been proven through experiment, or reasoned argument to move, or remain stationary, then no philosopher is bound to believe either outcome is true, or false.
One more thought on the above lecture. The lecture was informative and worthy of engagement. Yet the philosophy of Descartes and other Rationalists of the Enlightenment is based upon the error of rationalism, which affirms knowledge is only obtained through reason alone, and denies the truth value of divine revelation as recorded in the bible, church councils, church fathers, and doctors of the church. In short, the Enlightenment was, in general, an attempt to understand the natural world without any reference to a transcendent divinity who has revealed many truths about the universe and realities that are beyond reason. Much of the discussion in the modern academy surrounding the Gallileo incident seems to avoid the errors of the enlightenment, such as the rationalist basis of understanding the world. As rationalism is false, (for rationalism rejects faith, when in fact faith is true) then the rationalist based Enlightenment is in principle false, even though there are many insights gained by the Enlightenment philosophers. The falsity built into the Enlightenment is one aspect overlooked in the Galileo incident. For many moderns look back at the church's handling and condemnation of Galileo through rationalist eyes, which ignore the very real truth that the church is not a rationalist based organisation. The church embraces both reason and faith and teaches everything revealed by the creator of the universe is true, including the many references to the stationary earth in the old testament. This is the real reason why Galileo was condemned for his moving earth theory. Galileo knew the creator had revealed the Earth was stationary in the Old Testament, but he proceeded to push his moving Earth model anyway. Hence the church condemned his model, as it should do within the church's framework of the moderate realist world view of faith and reason. Note - because the enlightenment is a rationalist system, the system inevitably leads to a form of skeptism. For reason alone is weak/strong, whereby many truths can be known with varying degrees of certainty, but many truths are only known with little certainty. The lack of certitude inbuilt into the rationalist world view always leads to a near-universal denial of the value, or certitude obtained via reason alone. There are very good reasons to reject the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Thank you Adam for engaging my previous comments.
I love Philosophy and Descartes it is mind blowing.
30:20 "Ramblings of a mad man... or you know just a metaphysician" 😂
TY much for putting it out there Cat. "daN"
It seems to me that Descartes has not really used zero premises to prove that he exists. He says (at least in the version I found): "But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me...I am, I exist..." So he says "If P then Q" and also "If not P then Q" implies that Q, where P is that he is being deceived and Q is that he exists. If he is being deceived, he must exist, if he is not being deceived, that he "obviously" exists. Either way, he's making use of many assumptions about logic to prove his conclusion: the law of the excluded middle, modus ponens, etc. Even the fact that he says "I think, I exist" rather than "I think therefore I am" is not really important---his language may not include the logical implication explicitly, but it's still there, otherwise the sentence makes as little sense as the nonsensical logical proposition "P Q". There must be some connective.
Even if we just say "I think", it still requires assumptions. When I say that thinking means I exist, I've defined two concepts, and then said that one is the same as the other. Certainly I may choose to define things however I like, but this argument becomes "Assume I think", and then allowing me to say I've proven "I think" because I've assumed that "I think" still requires an assumption.
Descartes did say "ego cogito, ergo sum" in his Principles which were written in Latin and in a posthumous work...not that it really matters. Enjoyable lecture, but no clear separation between epistemological and metaphysical doubt was expressed even though you did say he was "still eating" and do call his doubt "methodological". Still, I don't see how to get to solipsism through epistemological doubt... it seems this muddies the water between epistemology/metaphysics which Descartes couldn't (and didn't) do.
Holly shit
55:15 interesting thing you did there, but it won't work in most indo-european languages, at least in french, portuguese, spanish, italian, and even latin. "Cogito" just means "I think", in the present tense. you can (and in some cases it's better to) translate it to "I am thinking", but in english this version of the verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb. similarly, "I will study" originally means "I have the will to study", but now we use it to express futurity in relation to the main verb.
specially in portuguese and spanish, the translation would be really weird, because the verb "to be" in these languages is divided into two verbs, "ser", which is originally from the latin "esse", meaning more stable statements, like "I'm a doctor", and "estar", which is a form of the latin verb "stare", "to stand", that is, it's the version of "to be" related to more immediate states, like "I'm sick" ("estou doente"/"estoy enfermo"). the thing to point out here is that one should use the second version for auxiliary verbs, so "I am thinking" would not be the same as "I am and I think"
I am thinking, I exist.. What about the evil deceiver putting that thought into your head? How do you know you exist? You could be the product of someone else's dream, (similar to the matrix, or Putnam's "brains in a vat")
But don't I have to exist for the evil deceiver to put something in my head? Don't I have to exist in order to be wrong about whether or not I exist?
41:41 - 41:47 I think this guy's an atheist 😂
As a philosopher, Adam should hold to binding belief as equated with proof. If something is not proven, then the philosopher is not bound to believe what is not proven. If the Earth's motion or the sun's motion is not proven, then the philosopher is not bound to believe either object moves. The Galileo episode as presented in this video has a bias which is science has proven the Earth moves around the sun, when in fact science only has models which can be modified according to underlying assumptions. There are different variants of both the heliocentric and geocentric/geostatic models which claim to account for all that is observed with varying degrees of accuracy and explanatory power. In short, there is no scientific proof that the Earth is moving, nor is there any proof the Earth is not at the centre of the universe.
The modern approach to the Galileo incident assumes the victory of the moving Earth theory as part of the assumed Enlightenment based victory of science over religion. Such an assumption is in general only the promotion of a modern myth.
You start by assuming that all philosophers require a standard of undoubtable proof in order to believe something. I"m not sure that's a safe assumption.
It is far safer for the professor of philosophy to remain agnostic about the motions of planetary bodies, rather than take a side by assuming the Heliocentric/moving Earth model is either true, or more likely to be true. For all the philosopher knows, the Catholic church was correct to condemn Galileo and the moving Earth theory, even though many in the post Enlightenment society accept the Earth's motion as a fact, or near proven fact.
The professor would be doing the students a service by providing a clear statement about the philosopher's role in the issue of the moving/stationary Earth problem (or any physics-based problem), rather than simply taking a position on the problem and assuming one side of the argument is almost certainly true. The professor's current position as stated in the above lecture may be indicative of a fallacy of subjective bias, or confirmation bias to encourage the students to see the moving/stationary Earth issue the way the professor currently believes the issue has been resolved.
A more balanced approach would be to investigate the issue as a philosopher of science and evaluate the truth value of physics models and the conclusions contained within those models. Then evaluate the reasons why scientists prefer one model over several other models. Then the professor could make clearer and more balanced judgements about historical incidents such as the Gallileo case.
The current, standard approach in the academy, in general, is to approach the Gallileo case and the Catholic church in a fallacious way which avoids critical thinking on the issue. The standard approach assumes the moving Earth model has won the day and must be assumed to be true, when in fact there are many experiments that are consistent with a stationary Earth located in a special place in the universe. WMAP, and the Sloan digital survey provide evidence for the centrality of the Earth in the universe, with the symmetrical universe having an axis of symmetry along the ecliptic plane. Other local experiments such as the laser interferometer experiments and George Airies telescope experiment provide local evidence for a stationary Earth.
Galileo Was Wrong details the many pieces of evidence from science and divine revelation which are incorporated into a stationary Earth model of the universe. If modern science was taken seriously on the issue of the Earths location and motion, the stationary Earth model would win quite easily. The ongoing ignorance generated by those who assume the Earth moves is one reason among many why science in the area of the Earth's motion/stagnation is usually ignored or explained away, or re-interpreted.
Some questions/statements on the above matter of the moving Earth relevant to the modern age. The questions need not be answered but are provided as an occasion to generate thought on the matter.
What scientific evidence are we to use to come to the conclusion that the Earth is moving, rather than stationary?
Similarly, what scientific evidence are we to use to come to the conclusion that the Earth is not in a central location in the universe when modern science (WMAP, Sloan) has produced evidence showing the Earth is at a central location in the universe?
Why believe in the standard Heliocentric model, when the model is based upon Newtonian mechanics, which assumes the very problematic mechanism of gravity is caused by instantaneous mass attraction over any distance without a medium?
If we are to accept the Newtonian mass attraction as an explanation for gravity, how are we to answer the objection that scientists also accept gravity as modelled by the bending of the space-time continuum, gravity as a pressure caused by space modelled as a fluid and so on. The problem here is that if we accept several competing versions of the gravity model, then modern science is, in fact, advertising a great weakness of ignorance regarding the true nature of gravity. So if the mechanism of gravity is really only ever unknown and speculatively presented under diverse mechanisms, then the Heliocentric model is only ever based upon a highly speculative mechanism which is together accepted and rejected by the same academy.
The speculative nature of the mechanism for gravity provides ample room to doubt the current Heliocentric model and permits an enquiring mind to investigate the weaknesses and strengths of competing models.
I still maintain the position that the philosopher is only bound to believe what has been proven. Other levels of belief are also permitted which include well-founded and none well-founded opinions and experiential-based opinions. Yet so, if a position is only an opinion then others are not bound to follow the same opinion. If the earth has not been proven through experiment, or reasoned argument to move, or remain stationary, then no philosopher is bound to believe either outcome is true, or false.
One more thought on the above lecture.
The lecture was informative and worthy of engagement. Yet the philosophy of Descartes and other Rationalists of the Enlightenment is based upon the error of rationalism, which affirms knowledge is only obtained through reason alone, and denies the truth value of divine revelation as recorded in the bible, church councils, church fathers, and doctors of the church. In short, the Enlightenment was, in general, an attempt to understand the natural world without any reference to a transcendent divinity who has revealed many truths about the universe and realities that are beyond reason.
Much of the discussion in the modern academy surrounding the Gallileo incident seems to avoid the errors of the enlightenment, such as the rationalist basis of understanding the world. As rationalism is false, (for rationalism rejects faith, when in fact faith is true) then the rationalist based Enlightenment is in principle false, even though there are many insights gained by the Enlightenment philosophers.
The falsity built into the Enlightenment is one aspect overlooked in the Galileo incident. For many moderns look back at the church's handling and condemnation of Galileo through rationalist eyes, which ignore the very real truth that the church is not a rationalist based organisation. The church embraces both reason and faith and teaches everything revealed by the creator of the universe is true, including the many references to the stationary earth in the old testament. This is the real reason why Galileo was condemned for his moving earth theory. Galileo knew the creator had revealed the Earth was stationary in the Old Testament, but he proceeded to push his moving Earth model anyway. Hence the church condemned his model, as it should do within the church's framework of the moderate realist world view of faith and reason.
Note - because the enlightenment is a rationalist system, the system inevitably leads to a form of skeptism. For reason alone is weak/strong, whereby many truths can be known with varying degrees of certainty, but many truths are only known with little certainty. The lack of certitude inbuilt into the rationalist world view always leads to a near-universal denial of the value, or certitude obtained via reason alone. There are very good reasons to reject the rationalism of the Enlightenment.
Thank you Adam for engaging my previous comments.
There are proofs about Heliocentrism.