Jüri Eintalu

Tõde või eimiski [= Truth or Nothingness]. A collection of philosophical essays 1990-2021. In Estonian. Kogumikku hoolikalt valitud tekstid on ühelt poolt loomingulised, lugejat intrigeerivad ning interdistsiplinaarsed – kõige rohkem põimitakse filosoofilisi arutlusi psühholoogilistega. Kuid teisest küljest on esseed filosoofiliselt ranged, demonstreerides oskust jääda ka rakenduslikes teemaarendustes üdini filosoofiks. Raamatus leidub nii filosoofia olemuse üle arutlevaid tekste, kaasahaaravaid filosoofia suurkujude tõlgendusi, põhjalikult käsitletakse ka praktilise filosoofia alla kuuluvaid teemasid kuni meie kaasaja poliitilise olukorra diagnoosi ja kriitikani välja. Raamatu lõpus on intervjuu väljaandjaga.

Many attempts have been made to solve Hume's problem. However, the assumptions leading to the problem have remained largely unnoticed. Moreover, since Goodman introduced the predicate "grue", philosophers without relevant mathematical education have been confused. In addition, various delusive arguments from convergence have been presented. In this book, it is maintained that knowledge has to be feasible and relevant and that several solutions fail to meet that demand. It is argued that the crucial presupposition of the problem of induction is that clairvoyance is impossible and that this presupposition is unproven. Generalized Goodman predicates are introduced. To criticize arguments from convergence, the notion of "undecided game" is introduced. A relationship between Zeno's paradox and the problem of induction is revealed. A distinction between "do not know" and "cannot know" is consistently held. It is concluded that, as yet, we do not know the future and that it is impossible to prove that it is impossible to know the future. This book should be useful to professionals in epistemology and philosophy of science, and might be of interest to logicians and mathematicians.

The scientificity of the research should be evaluated according to the methodology used in the study. However, these are usually the research areas or the institutions that are classified as scientific or non-scientific. Because of various reasons, it may turn out that the scientific institutions are not producing science, while the “non-scientists” are doing real science. In the extreme case, the official science system is entirely corrupt, consisting of fraudsters, while the real scientists have been expelled from academic institutions. Since 2016-2017, there has been much talk about the “post-truth era” and the politicians who are “denying science”. However, simultaneously, many complaints about the corruption of science appeared. The outsider cannot tell who is telling the truth as it may be the case that the science fraudsters are defending themselves and these politicians are aware of the corruption. It is also untrue that the censoring or suppression of science started from 2016-2017. Suppression of science because of political and ideological reasons was present already long ago, and during the last few years, it has been increasing. The picture is highly complicated as there are many pretenders, false accusations, etc. For example, because of political reasons, someone may be set up as a pseudoscientist, the real scientist may be expelled using political accusations, justified criticism may be labelled as political pressure, etc. There is something like an inner information war ongoing in and around science. The classical philosophy of science seems unable to handle it because every formal rule can be misapplied. Science, as a whole, may be unable to persist.

Since Popper and Lakatos, the demarcation line between science and non-science has been considered one of the fundamental issues of the philosophy of science. According to Lakatos, pseudoscience is a non-science, which appears as science, using science's public authority. Since then, mountains of texts have been published on how non-sciences, such as astrology, are not sciences. But the enemy is not on the other side of the border. The enemy is in our midst. Science has been institutionalized. The best way to do the pseudoscience is to fuss inside the big enterprise recognized as a science.