Putnam on The Fact Value Dichotomy and Bad Philosophy

[@Semiosphere]

Loving the fact that this video is again available on youtube. Important stuff.

[@garz05]

This videos are helping me a lot, I'm reading their text and my comprehension in english is not the best, so this videos are helping me to understand more about the author and their thesis (sorry for poor my english)...

[@Dreadtheday]

Your English is not as bad as you think. Good job.

[@letdaseinlive]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXywfJ6grLuiZsk

[@ryguillian]

What an excellent view of philosophy.

[@Robinson8491]

this is a great video, thank you. I love Putnam he is SURELY missed these days

[@americanphilosopher]

He was a dear man and a pleasure to interview. Thank you for watching.

[@letdaseinlive]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXywfJ6grLuiZsk

[@anthonybeervor2265]

R.I.P.

[@thomaskilroy3199]

Heartening to hear a heavy hitter like Putnam say these things. Big egos are constantly trying to push common sense out of philosophy so as to acquire something other than intellectual authority in the eyes of prospective followers. May we ever grow more fallibilisitc I our thinking.

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

It's at least encouraging to be optimistic.

[@mitchellkato1436]

So for Putnam fact is not a problem. For Putnam value being subjective (opinion) is a problem. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Dewey are the examples of philosophers who made rational arguments for values. How can that be possible. We see human beings share common constitution. This is true in all levels of society. Therefore language has actual objects. And we can talk about many features of human life, which of course includes social laws and builds up to discourse of values.

[@Dreadtheday]

The varigation of value within our social structure lends issue to abate advantage issues. A system based on subjective value which is extended by way of a majority gives little consistancy, seldom stability. It is unreliable, if not fickle.

[@mitchellkato1436]

@@Dreadtheday If you understood you right. You are arguing against the subjective. Exactly what putnam refuse.

[@matthewa6881]

excellent, excellent, excellent

[@Manx123]

Wrong. Still can't derive an "ought" from an "is."

[@paddleed6176]

Can you say why or are you just repeating what others have said?

[@Manx123]

​@@paddleed6176 Needs to to be reiterated. Theism is a joke among academics, but there are still theist philosophers, so there's value in reminding people there's not a rational basis to believe in God. Same thing when believing in objective normativity.

[@paddleed6176]

@@Manx123 Theist philosophers are a small minority, so are moral anti-realists. The same way some scientists believe vaccines are bad, the same way some philosophers agree with concepts like moral relativism. You're on the losing side because your arguments are weak.

[@Manx123]

@@paddleed6176 I could not care less about being on the "winning side," only about the truth. No moral realist has even come close to deriving an ought from an is. Truth isn't a matter of consensus.

[@plekkchand]

@@Manx123 Bravo...

[@Dreadtheday]

I agree. The varigation of value within our social structure lends issue to abate advantage issues. This, in regard to subjective value. A system based on subjective value which is extended by way of a majority grants little consistancy as it is seldom stable. It is unreliable for a variety of reasons. It is too fickle.

[@josephbuccati2369]

Speak like a normal human being, not a wanna-be intellectual

[@mitchellkato1436]

How about this: "A is B" is a fact statement. All other statements are statements of values. For example, Mr.K is good. That seems like a safe fact statement Or is it not? With my theory we have a very large claim to facts. The sentence "you should not stand up or I will kill you" seems to be a value statement. How about: killing is bad? This sentence is "A is B". And it does seem like a value statement. Perhaps we could wrestle with it. How about saying that there is a writing "killing is bad"? That will dodge the immediate problem. Because writing "killing is bad" is not a bad thing. But maybe all it does is to make the writing a step back: objective? What is the question here? There is the world out there(experience) and there are the writing (objective) or even just language.

[@TheMitso]

Mitchell Kato the point is that there are value judgments implicit in scientific facts. Some may call them epistemic or cognitive values, but they are values none the less. Putnam’s instinct is that it’s wrong to draw the conclusion that there’s no objective knowledge as a result. It just means that meaningful dialogue about values actually is possible.

[@mitchellkato1436]

'Mr.K is good' is a value statement? Of course because 'good' is a value quality. But we could have a statement 'Mr.K is six feet tall'. That won't be value statement at all. Even though it may be the case that being tall might be a better thing. And the measurement may be rigged because of that. But that may be far fetched. Perhaps we need a philosophy of far fetchedness.

[@mitchellkato1436]

@@TheMitso I think I was thinking of the correspondence theory of truth with the "A is B". Because A corresponds with B. Some how that seems to convince me of a description (factual). But perhaps "A is B" is a too small a pool of language for social science (coherence language) such as anthropology, sociology, etc...

[@TheMitso]

Mitchell Kato no not just that. It gets problematic in the natural sciences too, especially biology. Lots of judgment involved there, under what we know as epistemic and cognitive values (without which it would be very difficult to know how to interpret findings given Duhem-Quine problems especially). What may help: the correspondence theory of truth is not an epistemological theory - a theory about what knowledge is. Rather, it is a theory about what makes a proposition true, in this case through a correspondence with states in the world. Philosophers in philosophy of science are less likely to endorse it than those working on semantics (but that’s more of a tangent). The issue is that the correspondence theory of truth results in many questionable cases. Take mathematics. Much of mathematics would not be “true” unless you posit some platonic realm of forms (which some do, but I think it’s fair to say most find that a far-fetched idea). The issue of the fact-value dichotomy takes the many difficult cases in actual inquiry (away from simple hypotheticals) and shows how human judgement (which is a value judgment of some sort) underlies all meaningful inquiries. Occam’s razor is a well-known formulation of one such value.

[@mitchellkato1436]

@@TheMitso Ok you may be right about theory of truth. i am not really want to talk about sentences. I want to talk about objects. How objects corresponds with words (and vice versa). The original idea about correspondence. I think this is appearent in earlier empiricists. Words itself does not have truth value. Words, say, "car" do not have a truth value but will have a relation with actual objects. You may be right about natural science too. I was only interested in an ideal science. Where we have description of objective world. My motivation here is that I want to make the divide with correspondence and coherence clearer. Perhaps I am not defending the fact value dichotomy, but trying to defend dichotomy at its heart.

[@andrewfeist514]

we are deluged in nonsense

[@nat-moody]

kekw

[@evinnra2779]

Value judgements are not outside the scope of rational arguments, because as far as I can understand this claim it self presents an oxymoronic stance; values are not valuable. In philosophy the one rule that must remain is to avoid claiming something that contradicts it self, like for example bachelors are married men. Love Hilary Putnam, he was one of those philosophers who never 'took his eyes off the ball'.

[@oamiry]

: Lady, they all know which kid.

[@jafco9]

I'm very disappointed. He said virtually nothing about the fact value dichotomy

[@firstal3799]

I find this video not very sensical

[@oneshot2028]

I sometimes wonder whether philosophers can say anything for "sure" (as compared to science) al all. There is just one "science" but dozens of different philosophical thought. Surely not all can be right. So who is right and and who is wrong?? Philosophy seem to be mostly just "opinion" (compared to science). Source: 2:42 (I THINK), 2:48 (I THINK), 3:20 (I THINK), 3:39 (I BELIEVE), 3:52 (I THINK). Compare this to a "scientist" who will always say WE KNOW electrons exist. WE KNOW gravitational waves exist etc. NOTICE also how philosophers always say "I" while scientists always say "WE".

[@oneshot2028]

@Mitthenstein Of course anybody can say lots of things "for sure". Your computer that you typed this comment using exists for sure. If not you are a solipsist.

[@oneshot2028]

@Mitthenstein Science does not have "assumption". Science is all about telling things as it is. Can you give some assumptions you say that is in "science"?? Give us some examples.

[@oneshot2028]

@Mitthenstein You did not answer my very simple question. I will ask again. Do you know for sure that your arms exist?? Are you not sure about that?? Scientists can say things with extraordinary precision. See the article "CERN now 99.999999999% sure it has found the Higgs boson". What is this precision for philosophers?? They can't give any value for their precision. So even if you argue that scientists can't say things for sure, then for philosophers their predicament is very much worse.

[@oneshot2028]

@Mitthenstein Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. So there you go. I just gave you an example of one thing that we know for sure. 🙂

[@oneshot2028]

​@Mitthenstein So are you saying are brains are fallible ALWAYS?? Do you know this for sure?? If not then that implies that there are times where brains are NOT fallible. So that means , according to your own argument that our brains sometimes can can be infallible, which means "know things for sure" sometimes. Of course I know that no scientists can say things FOR SURE. Science use 5-sigma confidence levels. I am also aware that science cannot do without philosophy. Logical positivists tried to do that but failed, right? What I meant in my OP was that scientists are very much more sure about things that they talk about than most philosophers. Quentin Meillassoux is one philosopher I really like who "proves" things, instead of saying "I think", like he did in After Finitude. Can a philosopher say that he can make a statement with 99.999999999% accuracy? No. Also, I did NOT move the goalposts. You challenged me to show a thing that you know for sure and I gave an example: Your own mind. You know for sure that you exist. Even if you are a computer simulation you still exist. I.e. Your consciousness is at least one thing you know that exist for sure.

[@arvidbave]

Putnam is deservedly famous for his philosophical works from the 60s until somewhere around the 80s, but in recent decades, his philosophy changed radically toward a less focussed, pragmatist-Wittgensteinian, perhaps even continental type of philosophy. Had his oeuvre covered only the latter, he would not have been nearly as influential. Still, now that he has died, it is often his later views that are being held up as his legacy, including the present clip. That is regrettable to all the analytic philosophers who feel that he lost his ways toward the end. His reasoning about the fact-value distinction in this clip, for instance, seems to me confused. Early on, he runs together the fact-value dichotomy with the view that value is subjective, but these are two completely different views. I read the whole essay he wrote about this matter and found it severely lacking in rigor. Given the exceptionally high quality of his early writing, I simply find this extremely puzzling. What on Earth happened?

[@BareknuckleBill]

"His reasoning about the fact-value distinction in this clip, for instance, seems to me confused. Early on, he runs together the fact-value dichotomy with the view that value is subjective, but these are two completely different views." The reason why there is a fact-value dichotomy is the subjective nature of values. To claim such a dichotomy presupposes the view that values are subjective.

[@arvidbave]

No, there is no such presupposition: it's perfectly consistent to say that values are objective and that there is a fact-value dichotomy. Since this is consistent, it also can't be that the dichotomy exists BECAUSE values are subjective.

[@BareknuckleBill]

Arvid Båve Where is the dichotomy if both values and facts are objective? Values would be facts if this were the case. Facts are not debatable, values are.

[@arvidbave]

Yes, good point, but it only shows that we shouldn't call it a fact-value dichotomy, but rather something else, e.g., the "descriptive"-value dichotomy. Also, surely facts are debatable, i.e., factual or descriptive matter such as whether the Earth is round, etc.

[@mareksicinski3726]

But both fact-value and the necessary subjectivity of value are given?

[@plekkchand]

I'm having difficulty imagining Dewey as a "hero".

[@coolvids841]

Why?

[@Metaphist]

I am deluged in nonsense tbh.

[@mareksicinski3726]

Values *can necessarily only be* subjective. EDIT: Much more importantly he was lead into the woods thinking it has practical pplication either way, sorry for him

[@JeremyHelm]

'That rests on a whole bunch of debatable or false assumptions'

[@Catholictomherbert]

I can claim all fried beef is evil because you didn’t cook it the right way

[@paddleed6176]

What's your argument for this?

[@mareksicinski3726]

@@JeremyHelm ''

[@tesfuweldemikael2902]

@@paddleed6176 There is none. It's a cultural institution.

[@kaimarmalade9660]

Man I thought Hilary Putnam was a girl this whole time. Lol.

[@myothersoul1953]

Bad philosophy is every where and we are deluged in nonsense. Maybe more philosophy isn't the answer. Don't get me wrong, I think philosophy is important, people should know some philosophy, consider various fundamental ideas and be as clear as they can in their thinking. But for philosophy to be a profession requires the production of ideas, you've got to wright, talk and give lectures about some new idea you've had otherwise you're just an historian*. Not all those ideas are going to be good. The bigger that deluge the more nonsense will be produced. However, someone has got to teach philosophy to the kids so that might justify some nonsensical waste products. *I don't mean to disparage historians, they're great. And, unlike some fields, the more they get into the weeds, the more details and *facts* they muster the more likely they will have something truly interesting to say. (The above comment may contain some hyperbole)

[@philosophyofwhy3557]

Dear Soul, Although I agree with what you say on one hand I am also thinking more the opposite now and that is I think the more professional philosophy enters practical occupations such as hospitals and even engineering I think will be better at solving stubborn problems. I think non- philosophical lay people cannot stretch their mind, unless they are an exception to the rule, but generally we need great thinkers out in the real world.

[@Dreadtheday]

So is poor grammar. . . 😂

[@clementdato6328]

I tried several times but I don’t think he is talking about stuffs in a meaningful way... He just put an example of anti-redistribution economist and didn’t even expand on that, e.g. why is that problematic. Putnam is really a boring and uninspiring philosopher in my impression. A disappointment.

[@pashakostin2580]

Haven’t you tried reading anything on the matter? Even though he doesn’t explain anything in this particular piece, you could easily find a lecture of his here on KZbin, where he explains in length what precisely is wrong with the views of the economist he mentioned, and the fact/value dichotomy in general

[@paddleed6176]

Sometimes reality is boring and uninspiring. Just because you resonate more with other things (like subjectivity) does not mean they are true.