Behaviourismargued that it was unscientific to ascribe emotions, beliefs or thoughts to humans as we can’t directly observe these, which resulted in a greatly crippled psychology field.
Maybe they’re right (given their definition of science). Indirect observation, or subjective judgement, can also be important. (This probably requires more layers/data collection/experiment design around how people (verbally) ‘assign’ emotion labels.)
Wittgenstein wanted to argue that language is nonsense insofar as it failed to paint a picture or possible pictures of the world (in a particular technical sense). The only trouble was that this claim itself didn’t paint a picture of the world. The logical positivists belived that beliefs were defined in terms of the experimental predictions they made, however it is almost entirely false that just now a chocolate cake spontaneously formed at the center of the sun then dissolve and it isn’t clear how to define this claim itself experimentally or in terms of mathematics. Behaviourismargued that it was unscientific to ascribe emotions, beliefs or thoughts to humans as we can’t directly observe these, which resulted in a greatly crippled psychology field.
characterisation of good art as expressing that which is important, but which cannot yet be fully expressed.
“Was Wittgenstein an artist?”
Many communities have knowledge embedded in traditions
Evaluate based on action/recommendations rather than apparent epistem… which is “found to be correct” through said epistemological efforts.
Even if it were possible, it would almost certaintly be worse for your own well-being.
I’d say it’s hard to reason about impossible things, but impossible things might be better classified as nonsense.
The opposite of being naive is being too distrusting. It can be very easy to identify one or two circumstances when a particular person or organisation lied [to,] or [misled] you[,] and then refuse to ever trust anything they ever say again. This may be reasonable if [you can] avoid them without any significant costs due to our circumstances, but this isn’t always possible.
If it fails once, don’t use it. (Conduct your own investigation.)
Maybe they’re right (given their definition of science). Indirect observation, or subjective judgement, can also be important. (This probably requires more layers/data collection/experiment design around how people (verbally) ‘assign’ emotion labels.)
“Was Wittgenstein an artist?”
Evaluate based on action/recommendations rather than apparent epistem… which is “found to be correct” through said epistemological efforts.
I’d say it’s hard to reason about impossible things, but impossible things might be better classified as nonsense.
If it fails once, don’t use it. (Conduct your own investigation.)