Looked up The Trilemma. It's an economic theory. — god must be atheist
Here we go again.The short version is: instead of saying that people should reject every belief until it can be justified from the ground up -- which as this trilemma shows either results in infinite regress, circularity, or appeal to something entirely unjustified being taken as unquestionable -- we should merely permit tentative belief in anything that has thus far survived falsification — Pfhorrest
If one is possibly right, they are possibly wrong at the same time. To be right, one must make all possible wrongs and learn from them.So in a disagreement, neither side is wrong by default until they can prove themselves right. Either side is possibly-right, until the other side can show some reason why they must be wrong. — Pfhorrest
Relying on sense perceptions for a theory of knowledge, the realist has to argue, “apples are red if I perceive them to be red, and I perceive the apple to be red; therefore, apples are red”. This is circular reasoning, as it appeals to sense perception to verify something found in sense perception. — WHAT IS THE MÜNCHHAUSEN TRILEMMA?
If one is possibly right, they are possibly wrong at the same time. To be right, one must make all possible wrongs and learn from them. — Harry Hindu
If the triemma shows something, it justifies something. Therefore the trilemma is a justification for believing that there are no justifications for beliefs.
I still don't understand these philosophers that just don't get the contradiction they make in asserting that knowledge is inherently flawed. — Harry Hindu
If the triemma shows something, it justifies something. Therefore the trilemma is a justification for believing that there are no justifications for beliefs.
I still don't understand these philosophers that just don't get the contradiction they make in asserting that knowledge is inherently flawed. — Harry Hindu
To be right, one must make all possible wrongs and learn from them. — Harry Hindu
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. By default everything and its negation might be right and might be wrong; then knowledge comes from determining which things are definitely wrong, and thus narrowing the range of things that might still be right. — Pfhorrest
You can show something is wrong regardless of external premises, via reductio ad absurdum. If assuming the thing itself leads to contradictions, then you have reason to discard it, without appeal to anything else. — Pfhorrest
Are you claiming that what is 'wrong' is synonymous with what you personally find absurd or objectionable? — Isaac
you should know that already, because we've been around this merry-go-round many times before and if it didn't sink in the first million times — Pfhorrest
I don't think it has a refutation. But it does not need a fefutation for humans to continue operating with reason. — god must be atheist
As long as we have assumptions that we say are given; in other words, there are things we accept as true, whether they are or not; we have a mode to operate, and to apply our reason. — god must be atheist
Are you referring to the discussion in which literally everyone involved was pointing out how you were wrong but you insisted you were right regardless? — Isaac
So how come it's the case that it's me who doesn't 'get' your argument and not you who doesn't 'get' everyone else counter argument? — Isaac
Tell me, what's most likely - that you're a unique genius who nobody understands, or that you've made a mistake which you don't understand? — Isaac
I'm referring to many previous discussions in which you repeatedly, and I think willfully, misinterpret "reductio ad absurdum" as "reducio ad something-I-subjectively-don't-like", rather than the technical meaning in which "absurd" means "self-contradictory". — Pfhorrest
you seem to be referring to one specific discussion in which everyone kept bringing up things I didn't disagree with and then acting like that somehow proved something against my position that already included within it the things that they were saying. — Pfhorrest
Almost all of my positions are ones that much better-credentialed people than me also support. In this case, aside from the obvious philosophers like Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, and Hans Albert, you've also got legal scholars like Reinhold Zippelius, physicists like David Deutch, biologists like Hans Krebs, and the one I expect you'll like most, neurophysiologists like John Eccles. — Pfhorrest
when it comes to discussing a topic in which I majored summa cum laude with easy straight-As, putting me in the top twentieth of people who have BAs on the topic, on an anonymous internet forum where over two thirds of people don't even have a BA in it at all, yeah I'm leaning statistically toward it being other people not understanding me rather than vice versa. — Pfhorrest
Then why did you direct me to a Wiki definition in which the first paragraph states reductio ad absurdum to be "the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction"? I've bolded the 'or'. One or the other, not that the two are being treated as technically the same thing. — Isaac
Proof by Contradiction
An indirect method of proof that attempts to prove a claim by proving that the opposite will lead to a contradiction. For that reason, the method is also known as “reductio ad absurdum” — or “reduction to absurdity” in Latin. — The Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon
If you want to use that BA of yours to teach me something about the technical meaning of philosophical terms, then it would help if you directed me toward definitions which actually support the claim you're making.
No. You think your positions are ones that much better-credentialed people than you also support. — Isaac
Yeah, it is sometimes used more loosely than that (as the second reference in the Wiki article states) — Pfhorrest
should be clear from context to anyone fluent in English who isn't looking to maliciously misinterpret me that I'm meaning the sense equivalent with proof by contradiction — Pfhorrest
Are you claiming that what is 'wrong' is synonymous with what you personally find absurd or objectionable? — Isaac
Both absurdity and contradiction are senses which you personally might have of two propositions and which others might disagree with. — Isaac
Are you suggesting that logical contradiction or consistency is only a matter of subjective opinion? — Pfhorrest
merely that people can sometimes wrongly assess whether or not something is contradictory — Pfhorrest
Things either are contradictory or they're not. People can assess whether they are or not incorrectly, but "you might be doing it wrong" is the most inane argument against anything that I can imagine. Get back when you can point out a specific thing someone's doing wrong. Meanwhile, the mere possibility of doing it wrong doesn't make the entire endeavor pointless or futile. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.