If the conclusion is that, for any given conclusion that is not self-contradictory, we can always adopt some premises from which it can be deduced, then that's just basic logic, and not subject to controversy at all. I don't see why anybody would seek to refute that. I'm not sure it would even count as philosophy.This is why I said I expected people to try to refute P4 — khaled
then by modus ponens you have both 3+3=6 and 3+3 does not equal 6
— tim wood
How? By modus ponens if 2+2=7 and you replace the premises as I did accordingly in my last comment then it can be inferred that 3+3 does not equal 6 — khaled
'False' is a concept of semantics, not logic. We need to be clear whether we're discussing logic or semantics. Semantics is about interpretations of logic, and is not logic itself.Doesn't it extend to self contradictory conclusions? Because you'd have to accept the premise "Self contradictory conclusions are false" for you to say they are and there is no reason to do so. — khaled
I am a relativist in most things, but not a nihilist.Do you happen to be a nihilisitic relativist? — khaled
But the nihilist adopts a worldview whereby they decide that nothing is true for them and nothing has value for them. — andrewk
What a hypothetical 8-year-old believes about the existence or lack thereof of a cup on a table does not stand as proof neither for nor against the premise: "Visual input is reliable". Giving me an example of someone accepting said premise and using that as proof of the premise's truth value is absurd and logically flawed. It's like me saying: "The premise "The earth is flat" has no proof" and then you rebutting by saying "So you're telling me that if a flat-earther says the earth is flat, that he does not know that statement is true?"
I said that the premise "Visual input is reliable" is based on nothing and so, upon further examination, anyone would see that it is not necessarily a true premise. Also, the fact that you had to include "average" 8-year-old suggests that this isn't even that absurd. Ask the kid later "Do you KNOW that to be true?" once or twice and they'll start to doubt. If you want to tie truth to the beliefs of 8-year-olds then go ahead but I wouldn't do that.
It is not known if it is not reasoned, which is why it doesn't take that long to convince a kid that external reality is fake if you're the parent you could do that. I mean, people can convince their kids that there is a giant bearded man in the sky that knows and sees everything they're doing so.... — khaled
Thought/belief and statements thereof are long prior to logic. Logic is meant to take account of them — creativesoul
...if it is not reasoned, it is not known. — khaled
If you want to tie truth to the beliefs of 8-year-olds then go ahead but I wouldn't do that. — khaled
It is not known if it is not reasoned, which is why it doesn't take that long to convince a kid that external reality is fake if you're the parent you could do that. — khaled
Knowing what "the cup is on the table means" is talking about does not require metacognition. — creativesoul
There is no reason whatsoever to deny that the kid can know something simply because it's still in the beginning of it's worldview development — creativesoul
Denying that eight year olds have true belief is outlandish — creativesoul
I am not avoiding anything, you're missing a distinction between knowledge and belief. All of the examples you have cited so far are examples of beliefs. Unreasoned thoughts. I maintain that knowledge requires metacognition as you defined it and that a strong belief that does not use metacognition is nothing but that, a belief. — khaled
There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise. — khaled
Knowing what "the cup is on the table means" is talking about does not require metacognition.
— creativesoul
Yes but knowing what it means has no bearing on it's truth value. Yes the kid knows what "the cup is on the table" means but that doesn't mean there is a cup on the table. A flat-earther knows what "the earth is flat" means but that doesn't make the earth flat — khaled
Nor does it need to in either case in order for the person to have knowledge prior to thinking about their own thought and belief — creativesoul
Of course I've provided you examples of belief... The distinction between belief and knowledge is irrelevant here. — creativesoul
Thus, your criterion for knowledge is inadequate, for it cannot account of knowledge that you yourself have admitted to here. — creativesoul
I maintain that it is impossible for a person to have knowledge prior to thinking about their own thought and belief therefore both of your objections do not stand as such: — khaled
1) If (2+2=7) then (3+3 does not equal 6)
2) If (2+2=7) then (3+3=6)
Both 1) and 2) are true.
Let both 1) an 2) stand as premises in an argument and add a third premise, 3) (2+2=7):
1) If (2+2=7) then (3+3 does not equal 6)
2) If (2+2=7) then (3+3=6)
3) (2+2=7)
----------------------------------------------
c) (3+3=6) and (3+3 does not equal 6)
You tell me what the problem is. — tim wood
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.