***QUOTE***
Anonymous said:
SH: "I learn the concept of a “dog” by observation."
How so?
What if you saw a black lab. How would have the concept of "dog" from this?
If you saw a boxer, which doesn't look the same as the black lab (brown, cliped ears, etc), how could apply the concept "dog" to the boxer?
What is it about the dog that you "observe" which allows you to form a universal concept, dogness?
Do you "abstract" dogness? How so? What does an abstract "nose" look like? Nothing (or, some indefinable "stuff). So, is your concept of dog a concept of nothing, or a blob?
How is the concept formed? Break it down for us, please.
Hopefully this shows that Christian apologists should take the works of G.H. Clark more seriously. This empiricism should not be allowed to stand in Christendom.
(Yes, yes, I know you already posted stuff on Dr. Clark, though I've not seen where you've interacted with these particular type of objections.)
***END-QUOTE***
1. Are you operating with a universal concept of dog which you apply alike to a boxers and a black lab?
You yourself are using a canine category despite various differences between one dog breed and another.
2.There’s more to forming a concept of “dog” than what a dog looks like. One can observe canine behavior. One can observe canine breeding. Internal physiology. &c. &c.
3.One can also have an abstract concept of a nose, not based on appearance, but on the function of a nose.
4.A veterinarian or dog-breeder will have a more detailed concept than a two-year old.
5. It isn’t necessary for me to have a “universal” concept of dog. Human classification schemes don’t have to be infallible to be useful.
My concept of “dog” may be somewhat vague, provisional, and arbitrary. I may misclassify a marsupial as a mammal.
So what? It’s possible to generalize without being inerrant. Sometimes I may overgeneralize.
So I made a mistake. That happens. That’s a feature of our finitude.
6.In fact, there are times when we deliberately oversimplify a problem. Leave out various exceptions or borderline cases. Otherwise we couldn’t discuss it at all.
7. We have designed machines with pattern recognition programs. They pick out concrete objects that are roughly alike.
Is this based on a universal concept? No.
But within certain parameters, it works.
1. Yes, the concept "dog" is universal, even for you. That is, the concept "dog" covers labs, boxers, and basset hounds (so all dogs are subsumed under it).
ReplyDelete2. Okay, just multiply my example to cover those things. You're still obsrving a black lab who licks your hand and then you apply that to a white pit bull who bites your hand.
3. Well how does that happen by observation? Also, if it does, then you observe a few particular noses and then apply that to all noses? You do know there are some people whose olfactory system doesn't work right? Do they have noses?
4. The details don't affect my argument.
5. That's just the nature of the case. The concept "cup" includes all cups - e.g., big ones, small ones, even medium ones (and add plastic ones and styrofoam ones).
And as for the rest of what you said, I'm afraid it's something of a rabbit trail. I'm just asking how you form concepts by observation. Take me through the steps.
6. Okay. This still doesn't answer my question.
7. Kind of universal, no? The machine will pick out all objects that are "roughly alike" whatever.
The machine doesn't have a concept anyway. I think that's a poor analogy. A concept, for you, is more than pattern recognition, isn't it? When we say we understand the concept "dog," for instance, we're saying we know the essence of the thing, i.e., we know what "dogness" is.
Also, how would this apply to immaterial things? You form the concept "God" by observation? You form the concept "omniscient" by observation?
On dogs, 'fraid that experience you applied to the Labby and the Pit Bull (although you bring a pit bull over here and it'll get put down) is one children do rather have to learn.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, while we do form some concepts from observation, social convention, intuition and learned behaviour also play a part.
However, when it comes to guessing the function of a building, we do so by observation. I'll give you an example. I know that a certain village had a Baptist Chapel, which closed several decades ago. I want to find it.
ReplyDeleteI walk down the street it used to stand on, looking for it. What do I look for?
1. A building without a chimney, or a chimney that doesn't fit.
2. A building with an unsually grand facade.
3. A front wall or datestone.
5. A building that stands back from the road.
6. A large wall, or the traces of one, with a large gate.
7. A warehouse or store with unually fine brick or stonework.
Baptist Chapels do not always contain all these elements, but if I find a building that possesses enough of these characteristics, I know I've found my chapel. Similarly with vanished country houses, provided the site has not been totally re-developed, the site of the house can normally be discerned. Again, there are factors that Country house sites have in common.
Hiraeth: "However, when it comes to guessing the function of a building, we do so by observation."
ReplyDeleteWell, a building is a property-thing. You don't learn its function by observation but, rather, by what the creator created it for.
A dog is not a property-thing.
Also, I don't see how you gave an answer? It seems to me that you just told us that some concepts are formed by observation.
Yup, I didn't give an answer, I just noted that some concepts are formed by observation.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to learn the function of a building by observing it, albeit within limits. No chimney in an old building, for example, suggests that it was not designed as a dwelling-place, while the placing of windows is a good indicator of internal layout and the exterior gives a good indication of the status of the builder/owner.
Remind me, what was the question again?
"I learn the concept of a “dog” by observation."
ReplyDeleteWe do not learn concepts simply by observation. I suggest you sit down and try to figure out how your mind works, because if this is what you think, you're way, way off. Merely observing a thing is not sufficient. But I wouldn't expect much better than this from Christians.
I haven't read anything of this discussion except this post, so ignore me if this comment isn't relevant or has been covered elsewhere. The main reason is I'm not clear on where this discussion originates in previous posts ...
ReplyDeleteThere is genuine diversity and yet genuine similarity on display in creation. Let's suppose I'm looking at two creatures right now that look alot alike. I recall having seen other creatures that also looked very much like these two. I name these creatures "poodle." There is genuine similarity among these "poodles" (God created them and ordained that they should generate their own kind). That is to say, they share properties in common such as being four legged, having fur, etc.--a zoological taxonomist could tell you better what properties are necessary for a particular creature's being a poodle. Nevertheless, there is no universal "poodle" that exists. There are only particular real things with particular real properties that we inductively categorize to suit our varying purposes in thinking about or talking about them. In other words, universals with their corresponding essential properties are conventional categories. What I've just described is my idiosyncratic variation on metaphysical conventionalism, usually applied only to essential vs. accidental properties, but which I think also applies to the concept of the universal.
Or, is this discussion mainly about how we individual people acquire our concepts of different categories in actual practice?
Barrister,
ReplyDelete"We do not learn concepts simply by observation. I suggest you sit down and try to figure out how your mind works, because if this is what you think, you're way, way off. Merely observing a thing is not sufficient. But I wouldn't expect much better than this from Christians."
I think many non-Christians have said we learn concepts by observation as well. On the tabula rasa view, this is the ony way.
So, if both Christians and non-Christains have said this, then how are you concluding that this idea is somehow due to their being a Christian?
Why would you not "expect better than this" from a Christaisn but when an empiricist atheist does it you, I guess, "expect better from him?" This isn't clear, but I wuldn't expect any better coming from an atheist.
This dogeats her greens.
ReplyDeleteNow I think I've worked out what's going on.
ReplyDeleteWe do not learn simply by observation. We learn by tradition and from immersion in culture. Some concepts we do learn by observation, some we do not.
I learned as much by being told and reading as by observation. But some stuff, like how NOT to shut a car door, I learned by observation.
"On the tabula rasa view, this is the ony way."
ReplyDeleteThis is wrong. Observation plays a part, but it is not enough, even granting tabula rasa.
And no, I don't expect much better from Empiricists either. Most have been influenced by Christianity but typically do not realize it.
Barrister,
ReplyDeleteThe only info you have on a tabula rasa view is info from your senses. You observe and them form.
Also, there were empricists before Christians. Maybe the proto-empirictsts influenced the empirists. Or, maybe now you'll blame the Jews?
Oh, and you left the atheist part out. What about some atheists who believe this view of concept formation? Why would you not "expect better than this" from a Christaisn but when an atheist does it you, I guess, "expect better from him?" This isn't clear, but I wouldn't expect any better coming from an atheist.
"The only info you have on a tabula rasa view is info from your senses."
ReplyDeleteThis does not contradict what I have stated. As I pointed out, observation does play a role, but that's not enough.
"You observe and them form."
We do not observe concepts. And we certainly do not observe them before they've been formed.
"Also, there were empricists before Christians. Maybe the proto-empirictsts influenced the empirists. Or, maybe now you'll blame the Jews?"
I was talking about today's empiricists, since we were talking present tense. As you had said "when an empiricist atheist does it" - that's present tense.
"Oh, and you left the atheist part out."
Atheists are a mixed bag. They're anything but monolithic.
"What about some atheists who believe this view of concept formation?"
What about them? Do they worry you?
"Why would you not "expect better than this" from a Christaisn but when an atheist does it you, I guess, "expect better from him?"
How did you come to the conclusion that I would expect better from an atheist? I didn't say anything about what I might expect from atheists.
"This isn't clear, but I wouldn't expect any better coming from an atheist."
If it's not clear, then it may be that you're assuming something you don't know to be the case. Also, you might want to expand your reading list. There are thinkers who happen to be atheists who have written a lot on these things, but you won't find their writings in Christian bookstores.
Barrister,
ReplyDeleteIt does contradict what you said.
I didn't say we observe concepts before they've been formed. I saidf that on a tabula rasa view you observe and them form.
"I was talking about today's empiricists, since we were talking present tense. As you had said "when an empiricist atheist does it" - that's present tense."
I wasn't talking present tense. And, I said "empiriciat atheist," you said "most were influenced" by Christianity. So, "most empiricist atheists" have been influenced by Christians. That's news to them! Share your studies please. Or, did you just selectively rip parts of what I said out of context so you could bash Christians?
"What about them? Do they worry you?"
No, why would you expect differently from them?
Your dodge shows that you worried here, though.
"How did you come to the conclusion that I would expect better from an atheist? I didn't say anything about what I might expect from atheists."
Good, now your getting to what I asked in my *first response to you!* If you wouldn't expect different from them, then why the jab at Christians? What differentiates the two then? if you'd expect the same from both, then what the heck does being a Christians have to do with it? You've just been served.
"If it's not clear, then it may be that you're assuming something you don't know to be the case. Also, you might want to expand your reading list. There are thinkers who happen to be atheists who have written a lot on these things, but you won't find their writings in Christian bookstores."
The above had *nothing* to do with what I wrote.
You may want to work on your reading comprehension skills. Oh, I don't shop at Christian bookstores, btw. You may want to exand you view of Christians. or, do you think we're all stupid? In that case, you've just shown us your extreme bias and now we know just how seriously we *shouldn't* take you.
cheers
do you think we're all stupid?
ReplyDeleteChristians *are* stupid. Otherwise, they wouldn't have become Christians.
In that case, you've just shown us your extreme bias and now we know just how seriously we *shouldn't* take you.
Who's this "we" you speak for? How seriously do you think non-Christians take Christians in the first place?
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear that you think men like Augustine, Aquinas, Abelard, Occam, Calvin, Kepler, Owen, Edwards, Boole, Warfield, Machen, Van Til, Swinburne, McGrath, Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Alston, Helm and Craig, just to name *a few,* are "stupid."
I mean, many think they're "wrong," confused," or "mistaken;" but, "stupid?" You must ahve a really subjective defintion of "stupid."
You ask "who's we?" Well, it's everyone besides you. Thanks for making such a stupid claim and showing eveyone that atheists are every bit as prejudiced and dogmatic as theists are. Thanks for helping theism out, even though you didn't mean to. Bravo.
You ask "who's we?" Well, it's everyone besides you.
ReplyDeleteThis guy "anonymous" thinks he can speak for EVERYONE but Jim? That's very interesting. All against the one.
Well if you think that the above men were "stupid" then I retract. "We" are everyone besides Jim and Saty.
ReplyDelete