Epistemology Part 1: Quine, Sellars, Gettier, and Putnam 

Im so glad you are covering philosophy Dave, i see too many people just erroneously dismiss it like a flat earther does the shape of the earth, and its really annoying. I hope this encourages people to read it before criticizing something they don't understand

Dave you encouraged me to start a band and play drums. Your videos also convinced one of my creationist friends to take a more rational position. Thank you for spreading knowledge. I have seen it shield people from misinformation already.

I'm quickly becoming an absolute fanatic for this channel. Like suddenly getting prescription glasses after a lifetime of blurry vision.

Thank you for covering epistemology Dave, I'm looking forward to this series!

Popular philosophy are just getting into my nerves from depicting philosophers as something get high or oversimplications of big concepts. Academic philosophy is way different and a real and true way of doing philosophy.

It feels weird hearing Quine's name without the middle two ones.

Excellent video. Thank you, Professor Dave.

Perfectly timed given the new age of Howardism

Quine was far ahead of his contemporaries in every respect, which corresponded to his view of language and reality. I gravitate toward to esteem his holistic approach to language and reality. His philosophy emphasiszd the interconnectedness of language, meaning, and reality. He rejected the traditional analytic-synthetic distinction and reductionism, instead advocating for semantic holism and ontological relativity. This perspective challenged the dominant logical positivist views of his time.

I've been putting off learning about this so glad im subbed

I really appreciate this series!❤

Thank you, I'm getting there.

Would you ever be down to make a series on first order logic and set theory? I know you have a couple of videos up, but the series would maybe include things like formal proofs and translations. I used to watch you for chemistry and physics and really enjoy your style of videos!

Yes! I was reading quite a bit of Wittgenstein and this drops. 👏🏻

Perfect timing, was just wondering about this

Oooh, I would love to see more philosophy (of science)!

If you are going to do epistemology please do infinitism as well! Pretty please??

I'm working on a picture of two guys playing catch. If I post the picture on my channel, can I get your opinion on the geometrical direction of the two throwers and the ball in between?

I was in an anti-intellectualism, fundamentalist Christian church. Now I don't know most of this vocabulary and I can't grasp any of the concepts. It's very frustrating.

"Hillary Putnam, one of Quine's most famous students, attuned much of his work with the second Wittgenstein and the current discussions on epistemology toward what he cslled 'the death of ontology,' or of metaphysical theories of language and knowledge. Going beyond the coherentist aantifoundationalist Quinian perspective of truth and meaning, Putnam brings nathematics and physics to thoroughly criticize Heidegger and metaphysicians in general. He does so by claiming that any concept can be associated with other concepts as freely as we want, as long as we can communicate with others using them. Any concept then, broadly speaking, can represent anything without requiring a metaphysical anchor to support it. If you take a shoe and the Eiffel Tower, both share concepts such as "left", "solid", and others, even though they seem utterly different. Thus, meaning does not need to have any sort of ontological foundation, and it is a useless tool which is dead, according to his interpretation, and succeeding in the original intent of Mach and the Vienna Circle. He even criticized some formulations of Quine's philosophy of mathematics as having a metaphysical approach, however faintly. This anti-metaphysical linguistic perspective of epistemology is what is called 'conceptual relativity,' where optional languages describe objects by convention of the given group dealing with it in specific contexts. And again similarly to Quine, this process would develop in a coherentist manner, as our conceptual resources would interact with our capability of describing the world toward enhancing each other and thus allowing for greater knowledge of the world."

Could you do a Video on Trope theory?

Can professor Dave debunk the "Be inspired "s videos on RU-vid because wow they are something else

Thanks

Interesting!👍

Have you read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"? Anybody thoughts?

Like the philosophy thing?

Yayyy

Just trying to get some traction. We are a group of atheists/ex-muslims. We talk about religions but mostly Islam and challenge the fundamentals of religions through rational and philosophical arguments. Looking to get some support from western audience on what we do.

Basically, to do metaphysics, means to find forms that exist or to find arguments that they exist that are u shakable, more or less, not exactly precise but it will do. Yeah so there is no logic that can take you to any of that without in some sense assuming your conclusions, if you don't assume them through principles and axioms logic is just not a thing to apply, independently of the rigour of showing the self consistency of logic without any assumptions of a similar kind. So coming up with a principle or an idea about structure or whatever else is always at some level a guess, and then we can run out and see if our guess reflects our experience in ever more intricate ways. It has to be this way, logic is just not something that can do ground level truth, in a naive perspective, ground level truth is only what conditions experience, we can say anything definitive about it other than that it shapes what happens and so on, and o ly because that it is what happens in all cases of stuff happening is the definition of the term, it is not something directly dependent on any observation, it is just obvious, but of course unknown in form, therefore it cannot serve as a basis for carrying on with logic to derive anything non trivial about what ought to happen and what patterns ought to exist in nature, we can only observe the patterns of experience and try to guess as ways to model it in a comprehensible and usable way. So the only real way to do metaphysics is to guess and test, and then we also have to be careful to remember that the implications of the experiements we have done can change meaning depending on what experiments we do later, simple linguistic descriptions of what the experiments mean, outside the pure recollection of what actually happened in your experience, are tenuous and cannot be shown to derrive from the result. We can only identify a deviation from our ideas that is noticeable, and the unknown possibilities of what nature could be like that would still produce the results we see and have seen, are endless and most importantly unknown and so the only productive kind of metaphysics is to try to guess at and formalize principles and forms of dynamics in as broad a context as possible and to understand the options as best as possible, even if no a priory facts about ontology can be derived in a correct form.

A group of pathological postnominalists that needed desperately a bunch of psychedelics to unautist their minds but sadly no one gave those to them so here we are

Save Bangladeshi students. Our dictator killed 160+ students all aged under 20 and our dictator blocked the internet for 5 days. Human rights are being violated. Please spread the word on your internet. Social Media in our country is still blocked. We desperately need the international community's help. #savebangladeshistudents 🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩

Heck ya, now this is more my bag baby (to quote Austin powers)

Terrance Howard is watching

💯👍

Please save Bangladeshi students.

You need six hammer the ice cream to monkey of eleven dizzy!

he look like palpatine hhhh

Analytic philosophy is a waste of time