Rambling about Sorites • Zettelkasten Method
Rambling about Sorites • Zettelkasten Method
Another example of anchored model layering: a meta-model anchored on the freedom scale and on consciousness. Why interdisciplinary frameworks belong in your Zettelkasten, and what the Sorites paradox teaches about drawing conceptual boundaries.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3K All Categories
- 153 Research & Reading
- 708 The Zettelkasten Method
- 12 Knowledge Work
- 102 Writing
- 474 Software & Gadgets
- 161 Workflows
- 734 The Archive
- 16 Plug-In Showcase
- 88 Resolved Issues
- 225 Projects Logs and Journals
- 86 Project: Zettelkasten.de
- 53 Critique my Zettel
- 179 Random
- 375 Introduce Yourselves!
Comments
The "rambling" contains an interesting two-part question:
I think the question confuses research with philosophical speculation.
The second part of the question talks about an individual's "understanding" of a "concept" and the "intuitive use of words". That's the domain of paradoxical sand heaps1 and three-legged horses2. :-) I enjoy lofty debates about philosophical questions. I enjoy to think deeply about questions like: what is happiness? But I wouldn't call such thinking "research".
I consider research a more practical domain than philosophy. The first part of the initial question asks how we can do something. How can we do research on happiness?
Our beloved Niklas Luhmann once wrote: "if it's not even clear what subject is supposed to be examined, you can't even start researching."3 So before I research something, I define what I want to research. I don't philosophize vaguely about the concept of happiness. I draw a clear boundary ("Abgrenzung") and define the subject of my research: "For the purpose of this research project I define happiness as …".
I find research without clear definitions pointless. For example, when I read in the rambling that people "can be wrong about being happy" and "wrong" about assessing their own happiness, I wonder:
So, how can we do better research? By not being vague; by clearly defining the subject, scope and methodology of our research.
The Sorites paradox is also concerned with language. What do we call a "heap"? What do we call a "grain"? Where do we draw the lines? ↩︎
The topic of the post Don't Dehorsify the Horse is more commonly known as family resemblance. What do members of the same family have to have in common in order to be considered members of the same family? ↩︎
Machine translation. Source: Luhmann: Soziologie des Risikos. "Generell gilt zwar als ausgemacht, daß man Definitionsfragen nicht allzu viel Aufmerksamkeit schenken sollte; denn sie dienen nur der Abgrenzung, nicht der angemessenen Beschreibung (geschweige denn: Erklärung) der Gegenstände. Immerhin: wenn nicht einmal klar ist, welcher Gegenstand überhaupt behandelt werden soll, kann man gar nicht anfangen zu forschen." ↩︎
Your post doesn't seem to support this. So: How exactly?
If your thinking doesn't deserve the label "research", it doesn't deserve the label "deep" either. (Sounds a bit harsh, but I can't think of another good formulation of my point).
This is a wrong dichotomy. Philosophy is research.
I am a Zettler
Let me try a different approach.
You wrote that "the majority of happiness research is based on self-reports, which are very unreliable—based on reliable research".
It sounds like a judgement. The verb deserve seems to imply a value judgement.
This also sounds like a judgement. I'm curious on what basis you judge.
I was curious how others think about the topic, so I wrote a prompt for my chatbot: "Make a short literature review. What are commonly referenced authors and publications that examine the relationship between philosophy and research? Where do philosophy and research overlap? How do they differ? Who says that philosophy is research? Who contrasts philosophical speculation with methodological research?"
What I care about here is the difference between "rambling" vaguely about philosophical questions and designing a psychological study so that it can be replicated.
I was dubious, but of course it depends on what you mean by "research". Here's Merriam-Webster on-line:
And here's a page from the American Philosophical Association that very much wants to call philosophical reflection "research":
>
from https://www.apaonline.org/page/research
Clearly the APA doesn't regard "philosophy" in general as identical with "research".
Yepp. That's why I prefer asking "What does … mean by …?" to "What is … ?"
Interesting! This opens up new questions. What kind of research does the author mean when he asks in the original post: "How can you do research about happiness when your understanding of the concept of happiness remains bound to the intuitive use of the words in the self-reporting of the subjects of your research?"
Another APA (American Psychological Association) has Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation that address psychological testing. That's the kind of standards I had in mind.
Some philosophers use the image of an armchair to illustrate the purely theoretical nature of some kind of thinking. The armchair philosopher sits in an armchair and contemplates concepts.
The difference between armchair theorizing and empirical science is a topic of philosophical debate. I share Hilary Kornblith's view1 (emphasis added):
"Individual theorists may pursue their work in constructive ways from the armchair, so long as they are part of a community which keeps them in touch with real epistemological phenomena by way of experimental work. We misunderstand the role of armchair theorizing, in my view, if we think that it is possible to make progress in epistemology without experimental work playing this important role."
One such community are the psychologists who design, run and publish peer-reviewed observational and experimental studies according to the standards of their professional body.
It's fun to sit in the armchair and ramble about the nature of things. But is it the same as doing "reliable research"? Not everything that sounds scientific is scientific. The SEP warns in the article Science and Pseudo-Science2 (emphasis added):
"Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide range of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas."
Other philosophers and scientists have other views. The SEP notes in the article Concepts3 (emphasis added):
"Some of the deepest divides in contemporary philosophy concern the limits of empirical inquiry, the status of conceptual analysis, and the nature of philosophy itself (…). And concepts are right at the center of these disputes. For many, philosophy is essentially the a priori analysis of concepts, which can and should be done without leaving the proverbial armchair.
Who's right? I don't know. :-)
Pages 179 to 180. Is there room for armchair theorizing in epistemology? in: Second Thoughts and the Epistemological Enterprise. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/second-thoughts-and-the-epistemological-enterprise/is-there-room-for-armchair-theorizing-in-epistemology/2043CDAFEB089662A4729A25CEE05249 ↩︎
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/pseudo-science/ ;↩︎
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/concepts/ ;↩︎
Every thoughtful person should know by now that the use of argument and logic alone will lead one astray if it isn't checked against ground truth from time to time.
By the scientific standards. Here: Self-reports for happiness lack validity. Self-reports don't measure happiness, but the reporting of being happy. So, you have all the biases, delusions, psychological defense mechanisms, and more obscuring the picture.
No. But there are good studies out there that don't rely on self-reporting
I am resolving the inconsistency I see: You contrasted "deep thinking" with research. You also seem to contrast philosophical inquiry with "science".
On logic.
I am a Zettler