I mean, think about it: what is scienctific knowledge and how does it present to me the moon as it is? One has to look not at the quantification, for this doesn't give us anything but relational structures in a system that is ontologically distinct from the presence of the moon itself. — Astrophel

Science can only describe what are observable. The hidden and unobservable parts of the world for them are same as metaphysics i.e. conjecture, inference and abstraction. Knowledge has limits, and all existence has both knowable and unknowable aspects which are the inherent properties of them.

Quantifications on the objects will make the knowledge more objective, but not absolute or ultimate.

Is it not the case that Wittgenstein believed that our language "is" our world, where the world is embedded in language through the hinge proposition? — RussellA

It is an interesting idea of W, but not sure if it is 100% correct. I feel the world has nothing to do with language or hinge proposition. The world is totally separate from us, existing on its own never saying anything at all. It is doubtful also if the world would listen to us if we said something to it i.e. the world has nothing to do with language. We just use language to describe it, and communicate with others.

If we lived alone like Zarathustra in a cave somewhere on the remote mountain, then we wouldn't need language at all, and still live ok hunting, cooking, watching the stars at night and enjoying the sunshine during the day.

But then, what contributions does "the mind" make to "the moon" being the moon when it encounters that out there we call the moon? Clearly the moon is not simply in one's mind, but nor is the moon simply out there. It is the simplicity that spoils this response, for to say the mind "just sees it" is to ignore the question of epistemic distance as if it didn't exist. Science may do this, for this is not the kind of thing it thinks about, but philosophy? This is where philosophy begins. — Astrophel

It is definitely the case that the Moon doesn't exist in me when I am seeing it.  It exists out there in space somewhere. It also is the case that the Moon causes the image to appear in my mind when I am seeing it, because when some nights it is raining or cloudy, the image of the Moon doesn't appear in my mind at all even if I try to see it.

A lot of processes happen physiologically, neurologically and chemically in the body and brain when we see an object.  It is not a simple event even if we say "I see it there" sounding simple.

The image of the Moon in our mind is not the biological, neurological or chemical substance in the brain or retina, but something immaterial which emerged from the brain as an abstract entity which is the same nature as concepts.

What are the implications? We can only understand the world using language. But if the world is our language, and language cannot understand itself, then this inevitably puts a limit on our understanding of the world. — RussellA

You need more than language for accurate understanding the world i.e. rational thinking and inferring with the observations on the reality.

Language alone can misled folks into the muddle rather than truths on reality. Think of the sad cases where some unthinking folks just read what the internet shady websites says, and accept whatever they say on the topics of even logic, and then just blindly trust them. and even taunt the others' correct ideas.

We need critical thinking and rational inference on the reality coming to our own conclusions on the world. Language is a representational and descriptive tool of the world. Language alone cannot reveal the whole structure of the world.

In other words, we use the language game to understand the world, and this world is nothing other than the language game itself. — RussellA

Like the formal logic cannot capture or cope with the whole reality, language alone cannot capture or understand the world. Free reasoning based on inference and sense perception must be accompanied for the full capture and proper understanding the world.

However, other thinkers offer up several different types of knowledge. For instance, a distinction between "knowing that" and "knowing how." Knowing how to ride a bike, for example, does not seem to reduce to propositional knowledge (at least not easily). Its justification is the ability to stay upright on a moving bike, which is not linguistic. It seems possible that someone who has lost their capacity to understand and produce language might nonetheless know the to ride a bike. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not sure if being able to ride a bike should be regarded as knowledge based on the theory of knowing how.   It should be regarded as an ability to interact or control the balance when on bike, hence an ability of riding a bike.

How would it be like to be a bat?  No one would know it unless he or she is a bat.  Whatever comments on that question would be a fictional description from imagination.

Knowledge is the rational beliefs on reality verified by sense perceptions, personal experience or logical reasoning.

True, but they don't doubt that they have the doubt as to whether the Earth exists. — RussellA

Problem with hinge proposition is vagueness of its definition. There are other propositions that I don't doubt at all, and they are not hinge propositions. For example,

If I won the lottery jackpot last night, I have 24 million pounds in my bank account today.
I didn't win the jackpot.
Therefore, I don't have 24 million pounds in my bank account today.

Above is not a hinge proposition, but it is the absolute true fact (which is verified via the logical reasoning and reality), and I don't doubt it at all. It is exempt from doubting.

There are many ordinary propositions such as above which are exempt from doubts, especially when verified by sense perceptions, personal experience or logical reasoning on the reality.

Or is it certain that the experience of me typing this discussion is happening, even if I can't be certain about it. — Kranky

Are you certain about the fact that you are not certain about anything?

I cannot doubt that I doubt, even if I am a simulation. — RussellA

There is your certainty. We don't normally make claims using hinge propositions in daily life. We only discuss about them in the philosophy games (as opposed to the language games).

True, but they don't doubt that they have the doubt as to whether the Earth exists. — RussellA

They believe that doubts are also simulation.

Where does Wittgenstein write that those propositions which are exempt from doubt are "lived truths"? — RussellA

I have heard about "lived experience", but not "lived truths". What is "lived truths"?

In order to doubt anything, one must rely on that which is beyond doubt. In other words, one cannot exit all language games and still be capable of doubting. — Joshs

Descartes doubted everything including even his own existence. But one thing he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting. The fact that he was doubting proved that he was thinking, and therefore cogito ergo sum.

I guess you could doubt them, you just exit the language game when you do. — frank

When we exit the language game, we are in the philosophical game where we discuss about all types of propositions if they make sense.

Any part whose meaning is exempt from doubt in your mind can be called a hinge proposition. — RussellA

Revisiting on hinge propositions, they could still be doubted in theory since doubts can be methodological like that of Descartes, or psychological.

A man who lost his hands in the war or work will doubt he has hands, even if he now has robotic hands.
Folks living in Paris in Texas USA could doubt if Paris in France.
Folks who believe life could be simulation could doubt if the Earth exists.

The whole point of a hinge proposition is that it is exempt from being doubted. Doubting a hinge proposition cannot even be considered. — RussellA

What are the philosophical / epistemological / logical grounds for hinge propositions being exempt from doubt?

:ok: :up:

No. That's why I have pieced together my own philosophical theory of how the primal Energy (causation) and Laws (information) of the Big Bang could evolve into living and thinking beings. :smile: — Gnomon

Isn't evolution from living biological species to the same living biological species but for the better adaptation for the survival in the given environment?

The primal Energy and Laws of the Big Bang is not living biological species, but it sounds like non-living force of some sort. How could the non-living evolve into the living?

How would you replace "exempt" by "impossible" in the above sentence? — RussellA

You don't. It was a suggestion for W if he used the word "impossible" rather than "exempt", it would have been clearer in the point.

"Exempt" is normally used for the situation where an object is free from liability, duty or restriction. Hence it seems not a proper word to use for doubt.

My idea is that you can doubt on anything and everything if you choose to do so. Even the fact "Paris in France." could be doubted under the simple syllogism.

Names of cities could be changed into some other name through time.
Paris is a name of the city.
Paris could be changed into some other name through time..

which implies Paris might not be in France sometime in the future. (weak doubt for the possibility in the future = still a doubt).

:ok: Seems to be delicate nuance in the uses, but the gist of the claim seems it is impossible to doubt?

FYI, USA has 23 towns and cities called Paris, and the French government folks could decide to change Paris to "Sartre" or some other names they feel more suitable one day. :)

"Exempt from doubt" has a different meaning to "cannot be doubted." — RussellA

What is the illocutionary difference between the two expressions?

True, but on a thread about Wittgenstein's On Certainty, the question is, how did Wittgenstein describe doubt? — RussellA

I understand W said that hinge propositions / certainties cannot be doubted or are not allowed doubting. I don't agree with that. Anything and everything can be doubted by the psychologically motivated minds.

If someone decided to doubt whether if the earth exists, or Paris is in France, then there is no way stop him from the doubting. Psychology overrides and takes precedence to reasoning.

Wittgenstein says "exempt from doubt" — RussellA

There are different types of doubts too i.e. rational doubts based on reasoning, and psychological doubts based on feelings, emotions and beliefs.

When a doubter is psychologically motivated by such as the groundless beliefs or Machiavellianism & Hyper-Competitiveness syndrome, he will not notice or understand the rational side of arguments or knowledge on the facts even with the clear evidence and rational explanations on the matter.

There would be no way to stop him from the doubting unless the causes for the psychological motivations for the doubts are resolved.

*6. The Big Bang Theory stands as the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe. — Gnomon

But it cannot explain the origin of existence of the Earth and life, can it?

this distinction between ‘I know’ as epistemological and ‘I know’ as hinge conviction, — Joshs

There are different types of "I know". I think I know, I feel I know, I believe I know, I am sure I know. I know I know. IOW, "I know" always comes with the hidden label in the front.

In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question. — an-salad

The big-bang theory must have had been inferred from the observations on the other galaxies with their old stars dying with the explosion, then the new stars being born. What intrigues me more is the existence of our solar system, and especially on the existence of the Earth with all the elements which make life possible. The Earth is a unique star in the universe so far, with all the lives and eco systems fragile they may be.

Phenomenological means in my opinion that phenomenons are directly observable (possibly with the help of equipment). Fundamental reveals that there are underlying - not directly observable - causes. — Ypan1944

Excellent explanation. :up:

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence. — MoK

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Sylbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~

You need to read this post to understand the concept of coherence.
Anyhow, I am stalked by the emotionally motivated poster here, so I am not going to contribute anymore points in this thread. All the best & good luck.

OK, it is up to you, whether accept it or not. Just pointed out the unclear use of the concept "coherence". Carry on~ :)

That's not what "coherent" means at all. That's just a bidirectional implication. — flannel jesus

You need to read some basic philosophical logic books.

I asked for examples. — MoK

Please refer to the book on "coherence theory of truth" by by Cybil Wolfram, Philosophical Logic (London 1989)

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent? — MoK

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here.

Huh? — MoK

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points.

Why don't you ask people for help? — MoK

I don't need help. You do need help. :D

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case. — MoK

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity.

In contrast, a statement such as "A bachelor is an unmarried man." or "1+1=2" has truth value with no need for anyone witnessing or agreeing.

What else could "magic" be anyway? — Quk

Magic is the created illusion. As long as the illusion exists, magic exists.

I don't think that I am distorting the facts. — MoK

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument.

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly. — MoK

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll:

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.
— Corvus
No, I don't mean that. — MoK

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis.

You are the only person who is trapped in P1. Other people understood P1 and asked other questions. To be honest I don't know how I can help you. Perhaps others can help you. — MoK

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts.
I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. Because of the misconception and misunderstanding of the concept in P1, the rest of the arguments seem to be unclear and muddled.