Knowledge: justified, true, belief?

[2ndRateMind]

Is faith knowledge? Is non-faith, knowledge?

Does our choice in the matter amount to a claim of knowledge?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[BeHereNow]

Do I get to decide if you have sufficient justification to claim knowledge?
If so, I can deny any bit of knowledge you might claim, saying it lacks justification - assuming that is what I truly believe.
You might object, for any number of reasons. I would not expect otherwise. Of course you believe you have justification. I understand that. You are mistaken. It is that simple.

But who are you to decree that someone else is mistaken and then say, "It's that simple."

I asked a question, I did not make a claim.

It's not that simple at all. They would present their evidence, and you would need to present your case for why it is that you reject that evidence. In the end, if no "reasonable consensus" can be achieved. Then all we end up with is two philosophers who hold different opinions. To say that either one is "mistaken" is nothing other than pure arrogance on the part of the one who make that assertion.

So if I claim sufficient justification for knowledge of the existence of god, and you can not show that is not a true claim, we simply have a difference of opinion. In the end, you may not accept my justification, but you are in no position to say it is too weak for knowledge.
I think I understand. Thanks.

For example, macro evolution lacks sufficient justification to be considered knowledge. If you claim to have knowledge that macro evolution is true as presented, clearly you are mistaken. That belief lacks sufficient justification to be considered knowledge.

I simply disagree with your assertion that macro evolution lacks sufficient justification to be considered knowledge. I argue that our current understand of how genetic evolution actually works, and because we can show overwhelming evidence that various macro biological entities (i.e. plants and animals) are clearly related genetically in undeniable ways, along with fossil records that even show the history of macro evolution, that there can be no doubt that macro evolution is indeed true.

Therefore the rational and reasonable conclusion of the knowledge of macro evolution is more than justified by the overwhelming evidence for it.

Fallacious argument.
Hasty conclusion. I am sure creationists have offered explanations for all of that.
I understand you do not like their alternatives. There is no mutually agreed evidence they are mistaken. It is that difference of opinion you mentioned.
You say "there can be no doubt", yet millions do doubt. Probably hundreds of million worldwide.
Whether or not it is true is not the issue, not at all, far from it. I am disappointed you even bring that up.

Moreover, there doesn't current exist an alternative explanation. "Intelligent Design" fails miserably on many levels. Not the least of which is that many biological entities can be argued to not be "intelligently designed" at all.

More fallacious arguments. You are stuck on that "it is true" red herring.
Other theories being false is hardly justification for believing your theory is true. There may be 20 theories, all clearly mistaken, that is no justification for accepting your pet theory.
The lack of a better explanation may add strength to your claim. You may even have justification to claim they are false, but that is hardly justification for claiming knowledge yours is true.

This would then lead into a side-discussion of what constitutes "intelligence", of course. For example, if an engineer designs a car that will only work if he is personally nailed spread eagle to the hood of the car. Is this an "intelligent" design.

One could argue that it took technological know-how to design this wretched car, and therefore it was indeed "Intelligently Designed", even though everyone would agree that an engineer would need to be extremely stupid (in terms of wisdom) to have designed such a situation.

So rejecting the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution is not an intelligent thing to do, especially when there doesn't even exist a meaningful alternative explanation.

This is more of the same. You seem to want me to believe you have justification, because ToE is true. It does not work that way.
If you have justification, and it is true, then you can claim knowledge.
You can not say "I have justification because it is true." .
That is what I am seeing.

So I hold that our understanding of macro evolution is sufficiently justified knowledge. It's also the only rational knowledge in town.

You offer fallacious arguments as justification.
Then you claim it is rational. That is more than a difference of opinion.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 11 by BeHereNow]

The problem is BeHereNow, according to your arguments, philosophy amounts to nothing more than arguments about personal opinions. And philosophy cannot be used to determine who's opinion is better. Therefore philosophy is useless.

We may as well have both stayed home and watch Looney Tunes. Because having a philosophical debate amounts to nothing more than proclaiming that we each have different opinions and there is no way to determine who's opinion amounts to truth.

So philosophy is a useless discipline.

I suggest that humanity has already decided that this is useless. This is why we now have "Science" which is recognize as having far more credibility and evidence than mere philosophical pondering that cannot be shown to be true.

This is also why religions have been recognized as being "faith-based" belief systems which have no credible or compelling evidence. For if they did, they would no longer be referred to as "faith-based" systems.

Science is not a faith-based system, it's an evidence-based system. There is evidence for macro evolution, there is no evidence for an imaginary invisible and undetectable intelligent designer.

This is why the very hypothesis of an intelligent designer does not merit science. It's not testable, observable, or falsifiable. It's just an arbitrary guess that has no more value than the guess that "The Boogieman Did It".

And I'm not using the boogieman in a derogatory way. There truly is no difference at all between a so-called "God" and a "Boogieman". There is precisely the same evidence for both. And that amounts to absolutely no evidence at all. Period.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Science has no way to answer the question "What is knowledge?"
It is beyond the capability of Science. Many things are beyond the capability of Science.
So, there is that.

Science can not answer the question "What is evidence?"
Science depends on philosophers to know is real, what is natural, what is supernatural.

Such things are answered by Philosophers, who may or may not be scientists.

Science is amoral. Scientists are moral, or immoral, depending on their philosophy.
Experiments that are to be performed for science are moral, or immoral, as answered by philosophy.
Philosophy oversees the actions of scientists, concerning ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.
There is that.

[Divine Insight]

Science can not answer the question "What is evidence?"
Science depends on philosophers to know is real, what is natural, what is supernatural.

Such things are answered by Philosophers, who may or may not be scientists.

What you actually mean is that philosophers offer their opinions. And different philosophers disagree on what the answers should be.

So once again we're right back to philosophy as being nothing more than a big "Opinion Party" where it can never be determined who's opinion should be accepted as being "True".

So nothing has been gained here. All we have managed to do is allow people to lay claim to having "Philosophical Opinions" that basically have no more credibility than the opinions of the Scientists that you claim that Philosophers should "rule over".

Why should a philosopher's opinion rule over the opinion of scientist? Especially when it come to questions like, "What is evidence?"

The scientific community has actually asked this question and answered it. They now speak in terms of "observables". In order to claim to have evidence for anything in science, you must first show that you have something that is observable to offer.

If you can't provide an "observable" then you're tossed right back into "Philosophy" where philosophical opinions don['t need to be backed up by anything more than the opinion itself. Just like the boogieman.

In philosophy, you can speak about the boogieman. In science, if you can't provide observable evidence for the boogieman, then you have nothing to offer.

So science has already answered their question of "What is evidence?" and they didn't need to turn to philosophers to obtain this answer.

So your assertion that philosophy "oversees" science, is simply wrong. Where did you get that idea?

[BeHereNow]

Science can not answer the question "What is evidence?"
Science depends on philosophers to know is real, what is natural, what is supernatural.

Such things are answered by Philosophers, who may or may not be scientists.

What you actually mean is that philosophers offer their opinions. And different philosophers disagree on what the answers should be.

So once again we're right back to philosophy as being nothing more than a big "Opinion Party" where it can never be determined who's opinion should be accepted as being "True".

So nothing has been gained here. All we have managed to do is allow people to lay claim to having "Philosophical Opinions" that basically have no more credibility than the opinions of the Scientists that you claim that Philosophers should "rule over".

Why should a philosopher's opinion rule over the opinion of scientist? Especially when it come to questions like, "What is evidence?"

The scientific community has actually asked this question and answered it. They now speak in terms of "observables". In order to claim to have evidence for anything in science, you must first show that you have something that is observable to offer.

When they do, they are acting as philosophers.
Epistemology:the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

You can not claim to know the difference between knowledge and opinion, without philosophy.

However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science.
Despite its straightforward name, the field is complex and remains an area of current inquiry. Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:

What is a law of nature? Are there any in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?
What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?
How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?
Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?
Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy

If you can't provide an "observable" then you're tossed right back into "Philosophy" where philosophical opinions don['t need to be backed up by anything more than the opinion itself. Just like the boogieman.

In philosophy, you can speak about the boogieman. In science, if you can't provide observable evidence for the boogieman, then you have nothing to offer.

So science has already answered their question of "What is evidence?" and they didn't need to turn to philosophers to obtain this answer.

So your assertion that philosophy "oversees" science, is simply wrong. Where did you get that idea?

Philosophy of science 101

This might help.

Hi, my name is Caspar Hare. I'm a professor at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Today we're going to talk about science. Can it teach us everything[br]there is to know about reality? Science is an impressive thing. Scientists have, for hundreds[br]of years, been able to predict the movements of comets,[br]the eclipses, and the like, decades in advance. In the 20th century, scientists were able[br]to transplant hearts, to send people to the moon, and do all kinds of extraordinary things, of which we can hardly even imagine what they'll be able to[br]achieve in the 21st century. There's an issue though. Just how impressive,[br]or how good, is science at describing the world that we live in? One strong claim that[br]we might make is that science can give a complete[br]description of reality. It can describe everything that there is to know or be known about the world. Now, at various points in history, people have disputed this. They've thought however[br]impressive science was, there would be no way that it could give a complete description of reality. There would be things like[br]angels, spirits, and the like that could not be described[br]in the language of science. Today, what we'll do is we'll[br]look at a modern argument to this effect. To the effect that are aspects of reality that cannot be described[br]in the language of science. Our first job is to explain what it is for a description of an aspect of reality to be complete. https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... everything

[2ndRateMind]

Would this be "acquaintance knowledge", since we are talking about having been acquainted with a particular story?

I think so.

I am tempted to add a further type of knowledge: 'Soul Knowledge'. Knowledge so complete that it fulfills a human utterly. But, since you need to believe that God exists to obtain this knowledge, and those that don't can't access it, perhaps this only counts as acquaintance knowledge, after all.

However, this is by way of an aside. I have a different agenda for this thread, which I hope to reveal as the conversation proceeds.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

You can not claim to know the difference between knowledge and opinion, without philosophy.

Sure you can. The only problem is that when you do this your system of making this determination is also called a "philosophy". In other words, it actually turns out that all "opinions" whether they can be shown to be true or not, are considered "philosophies".

So this is kind of like a result of the mere semantics of the term "philosophy". If you have an idea for a system of thought, that system of thought will automatically be labeled a "philosophy". This is just a result of semantic necessity.

The real question isn't whether we consider a specific opinion to be a "philosophy". The real question is whether or not the opinion (i.e. philosophy) in question has any merit.

Currently the academic subject that has been labeled "Philosophy" has not been able to determine which philosophical opinions are true, and which are false. Only science has been able to achieve this result. This is why science as "surpassed" the other philosophies. Science results in verifiable TRUTH.

However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science.
Despite its straightforward name, the field is complex and remains an area of current inquiry.

Exactly. (see the above bold red) In other words, pure philosophy has not been able to produce a single solitary dependable truth. They are still just asking questions without producing any credible or compelling answers. When are they going to realize that they will never be able to reach any concrete answers?

Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:

What is a law of nature? Are there any in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?
What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?
How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?
Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?
Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!

And again, what have you done? All you have done is demonstrate that philosophy has been unable to reach any credible or compelling answers to the questions they raise.

So once again, what's the value of philosophy if all it can do is ask questions and not be able to answer them in any compelling or meaningful way?

In fact, I have my own "philosophical opinions" on the questions you've posed above.

Allow me to share them here:

What is a law of nature?

My philosophical answer to this question:

A law of nature is nothing more than our description of how natural objects naturally behave. These objects are not "following any laws". They just do what they do because of what they are and what environment they are in. So the idea that there actually exist "laws of nature" that objects in nature obey, is a misguided idea to begin with. Objects simply do what they do because of what they are. They aren't following any imagined preset laws. So there really are no "laws of nature". All that exists is nature and it just does what it does. When we describe what it's doing we call those descriptions the "laws of nature".

Are there any (laws) in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?

My philosophical answer to this question:

To begin with biology is not a non-physical science. This may even be true of psychology for all we know. The idea that psychology is a non-physical science presumes that we have total free will to be able to think and do whatever we like without any dependency on the physical status and configuration of our physical brain. But we don't even know if that presumption is true. So at this point in time we can't even say that psychology is non-physical.

I might add that psychologists have discovered (using the scientific method of rigorous observation) that many psychological behaviors of humans can be traced back to various physical factors. Such as being abused as a child, or due to previous social environments, etc. Even the psychology of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" does not occur unless a person has previously been through a very traumatic experience. So to say that psychology is non-physical doesn't line up with much of what we know about the study of psychology.

What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?

My philosophical answer to this question:

This question isn't very clear to me. How are accidental regularities not "real causes"?

How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?

My philosophical answer to this question:

A scientific hypothesis only needs to be falsifiable. It doesn't even necessarily need to be true. Keep in mind that a hypothesis is not a conclusion.

When we have an actual "theory", (an explanation of something) that theory is tested based on how well it explains the phenomena and especially whether or not it can predict currently unknown phenomena.

For example, Enstein's Theory of Relativity predicted Time Dilation. Time Dilation has since been observed, measured precisely, and verified to exist. Therefore this theory can be said to at least be correct in terms of what it has predicted. Further descriptions of what causes Time Dilation may someday override Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But Time Dilation is here to stay. It's been observed to actually occur.

Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?

My philosophical answer to this question:

This is an easy one. The simpler mathematics still produces usable results when speeds are small compared with the speed of light and gravitational fields are small.

In short, Newton's laws of motion and gravity were not exactly mathematically "wrong", they were simply limited in scope. They still work for practical engineering projects. So why not use them? Why use a more complicated mathematics when it's not going to give a noticeable difference in the answer when all is said an done?

Philosophy of science 101

This might help.

Hi, my name is Caspar Hare. I'm a professor at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Today we're going to talk about science. Can it teach us everything[br]there is to know about reality? Science is an impressive thing. Scientists have, for hundreds[br]of years, been able to predict the movements of comets,[br]the eclipses, and the like, decades in advance. In the 20th century, scientists were able[br]to transplant hearts, to send people to the moon, and do all kinds of extraordinary things, of which we can hardly even imagine what they'll be able to[br]achieve in the 21st century. There's an issue though. Just how impressive,[br]or how good, is science at describing the world that we live in? One strong claim that[br]we might make is that science can give a complete[br]description of reality. It can describe everything that there is to know or be known about the world. Now, at various points in history, people have disputed this. They've thought however[br]impressive science was, there would be no way that it could give a complete description of reality. There would be things like[br]angels, spirits, and the like that could not be described[br]in the language of science. Today, what we'll do is we'll[br]look at a modern argument to this effect. To the effect that are aspects of reality that cannot be described[br]in the language of science. Our first job is to explain what it is for a description of an aspect of reality to be complete. https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... everything

I hate to break this to this professor, but there is nothing in science that has ever claimed to be giving a "complete" description of reality.

All that science claims is that we can only say things about things that we can observe, measure, and interact with.

Science does NOT say that things like angels and spirits do not exist. All science says is that if they do exist there is no observable evidence for their existence. Period.

So if this professor is trying to argue that science cannot give a "complete" description of nature, then this is an utterly silly course, because science never made that claim to begin with.

Moreover, if anyone wants to claim that something might exist "beyond science" then they would need to provide some sort of evidence for the existence of whatever it is that they claim exists.

Thus far no one has ever been able to provide evidence for the existence of anything that is "beyond science". In fact, that would basically be impossible to do since science covers everything that can be observed and/or detected. And if you can't observe or detect the thing you claim exists, then how in the world can you expect to provide evidence for the existence of thing you claim exists?

On the other hand, if you can provide an observation or detection of the thing that you claim exists, then it automatically becomes within the realm of science.

So to even claim that anything exists that is "beyond science" is a nonsensical claim to begin with.

Sure, it "might" exist. But there's certainly no way that a philosopher could show that it exists. And claiming that things "might" exist, is basically worthless. Anyone can imagine things that "might" exist. Showing that it actually exists is a whole other ballgame.

[Divine Insight]

Would this be "acquaintance knowledge", since we are talking about having been acquainted with a particular story?

I think so.

I am tempted to add a further type of knowledge: 'Soul Knowledge'. Knowledge so complete that it fulfills a human utterly. But, since you need to believe that God exists to obtain this knowledge, and those that don't can't access it, perhaps this only counts as acquaintance knowledge, after all.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on your conclusions about needing to believe in a God.

I have always felt from my earliest memories up to and including today that I have always existed. I feel totally that I had existed prior to being born (even though I have no specific memories of those previous lives) and I intuitively feel completely that I will never cease to exist. This has been how I have always felt from my earliest memories as a child. And I still feel this way today on a purely intuitively level.

Yet, there is no need to associate a believe in an God to feel this way.

Would I call this "Knowledge"? Nope. It's simply how I have always felt. That doesn't mean that it needs to be true. For me to say that I have knowledge of having existed prior to being born, and that I will never cease to exist would be wrong. I simply feel this to be the case. But feeling something to be the case is NOT knowledge.

However, this is by way of an aside. I have a different agenda for this thread, which I hope to reveal as the conversation proceeds.

The overall subject certainly has my attention. It will be interesting to see where you plan on taking this.

I'm all for discovering TRUTH. But I'm not about to accept mumbo-jumbo philosophical arguments that don't have any genuine merit as "knowledge".

For example, I already reject your notion of "Soul Knowledge". Just because you strongly feel that something is true is no guarantee that it actually is true.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

You seem to have a difference of opinion with an MIT prof and a Kahn Academy instructor.
I wonder which a reasonable person would believe.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

You seem to have a difference of opinion with an MIT prof and a Kahn Academy instructor.
I wonder which a reasonable person would believe.

A reasonable person can read my objections and decide for themselves.

Do you think that just becasue someone is a professor at a major university this makes their views and position on things perfectly true and correct?

You are making the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

Not only this, but if you watch very many academic documentaries you'll quickly learn that even the most prestigious professors often hold major disagreements with each other's position on things. Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that their positions are based far more on personal opinions rather than any absolute truth upon which they must all agree.

I point out that the quote you posted by the professor is complaining that science may not be able to give us a complete picture of nature. So? Where does science ever claim to have done so, or even claim that it will ever do so?

Yes, it's true that many scientists dream of a "Theory of Everything". But, let's face it, that dream is not a claim of science in general. In fact, many scientists have pointed out repeatedly that nature is under no obligation to pacify the dreams of men.

Science simply strives to know what "Can be Known". Period. If that turns out to be a complete picture of nature, then so be it. If it doesn't, then this is a limitation of human knowledge, not a limitation of science.

Why?

Well, because there simply is no other means by which we could ever discover anything that is "beyond science". It's really that simple. If it's beyond science, then it's beyond observation, detection, and our ability to experience it. Therefore, it would be impossible for us to ever detect it. And thus any "Philosophical guessing" concerning what the totality of nature might be like is precisely that, - a guess.

Philosophy is most certainly guaranteed to never be able to provide us with a complete picture of nature. In fact, pure philosophy has failed to even provide us with a correct picture of nature. It's took science to do that.

Keep in mind also that I'm in agreement with Stephen Hawking:

During his presentation Stephen Hawking said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research.

"Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," he said. "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."

Prof Hawking went on to claim that "Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." He said new theories "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".

So if you want to get into a war of appealing to authority I think there will be plenty of professors on both sides of this issue. Thus leaving it unresolved at best.

By the way, it's actually quite easy to prove that philosophy is dead. And actually always has been.

Here are some examples:

Philosophically we can premise that the world is flat.
But scientifically when we actually make careful observations and experiment we discover the TRUTH that the world is a sphere.

Philosophically we can premise that the Earth is the center of the universe.
But scientifically when we actually make careful observations and experiment we discover the TRUTH that the earth is not the center of anything.

Philosophically we can premise that the universe always existed pretty much as we currently see it.
But scientifically when we actually make careful observations and experiment we discover the TRUTH that the universe has changed dramatically over the last 14 billion years, and that we can't say anything about what state it might have been in prior to that point in time.

Philosophically we can premise that demons and angry Gods are responsible for disease and natural disasters.
But scientifically when we actually make careful observations and experiment we discover the TRUTH of the natural causes of diseases and natural disasters.

The TRUTH is that philosophical methods have been arriving at the wrong conclusions for centuries and that TRUTH hasn't been known until the emergence of Science.

That's just the facts of life.

Clinging to philosophy at this point in time is to cling to a discipline that has been proven to be ineffectual for thousands of years.

Philosophy is dead. And actually always has been a misguided approach to trying to discover TRUTH.

Stephen Hawking is obviously correct. Philosophy professors who try to keep philosophy alive, are the people who are obviously wrong.

It's understandable why they might want to keep philosophy going in academia, especially if they have invested a great amount of time and energy studying the subject. To renounce it would be to renounce the profession that maintains their livelihood. So of course, they are going to continue to support this useless academic subject. And they will especially continue to support it for as long as university's continue to write paychecks to philosophy professors.

And the universities themselves have entire philosophy departments complete with students who have graduated with degrees in philosophy. So they have no incentive to shut down that lucrative academic business either.

So as long as they can continue to hold philosophy up as a meaningful academic subject they will most likely continue to do so. Never mind that it's actually a quite useless subject of study. And long since proven to be ineffective and devoid of ever providing us with any actual TRUTH, save for the rare occasions when philosophers just happened to guess correctly. But it actually took science to show that those guesses just happened to actually be correct.

Philosophy is indeed dead. Steven Hawking wasn't joking. As a great scientist he actually made this observation of TRUTH.

Science is in no way in competition with philosophy. And philosophy does not "oversee" science. Social opinion may dictate through legislation what a society may or may not permit science to do. But that's not philosophy "overseeing" science. In fact, in the case of stem cell research it's actually nothing more than social opinion holding back medical progress.

There is nothing in philosophy that can demonstrate that stem cell research is objectively immoral. That's nothing more than public opinion, actually influenced by a belief in an archaic superstitious religion, not by philosophy anyway.