One can know what "the cup is on the table" means without knowing what the word "premiss" means. — creativesoul
If there is an infinity of possible premises, and any premise can be used to validate another premise, then there is an infinity if possible premises by which to validate premises — tim wood
and any premise can be used to validate another premise, — tim wood
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise... — khaled
Show me a premise that can be known to be true without referring to any other premises... — khaled
One can know that "there is a cup on the table" is true by virtue of knowing what the statement is talking about, and then looking to see if the cup is on the table... — creativesoul
Complex language use requires knowing what certain statements mean. If knowledge requires complex language use, and that requires knowing what certain statements mean, then we've arrived at a big problem — creativesoul
All of this clearly shows that "the cup is on the table" can be determined true or false without it's being used relative to another premiss. — creativesoul
My apologies...
:confused: — creativesoul
My basic point is if A validates B and B validates C, etc then nothing can possibly validate A or else that would be using circular reasoning. P6 is that there is an infinity of possible As from which you can start this logical validation chain and I find this a problem — khaled
No there are not a lot of As if the As are the starting axioms — tim wood
For a particular argument there are not a lot of theorems available, only those that work — tim wood
You mean, there are not a lot of As that WORK (are practically useful) if the As are the starting axiom. I agree, however picking axioms because they work is just another axiom "One ought to start with axioms that work". There is no reason to pick THAT over "One ought to treat all starting axioms equally" — khaled
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise — khaled
Thinking about one's own though and belief requires complex language use. If knowledge requires thinking about one's own thought and belief, then it requires complex language use.
Complex language use requires knowing what certain statements mean. If knowledge requires complex language use, and that requires knowing what certain statements mean, then we've arrived at a big problem... — creativesoul
Arithmetic is such a system. Five axioms, but many theorems/propositions. You build arguments using the axioms and proved (provable) theorems. So there are not a lot As, period. The idea that somehow there are many and you choose and all of that is simply confusion on your part. — tim wood
What a statement means involves not the statement. — Blue Lux
Obviously understanding does not involve the language itself or else how do you explain that there are multiple languages but the same understanding? — khaled
getting systems — khaled
People DO pick and choose their axioms out of a potentially infinite set. — khaled
Here's in essence what you're claiming: it's possible now or in the future that you owe or will owe me a lot of money. So pay up! Do you see a problem with that? — tim wood
What infinite set of axioms do people pick and choose their axioms from? Is there anything you can say about that set? — tim wood
Look, it could be that 2+2=7. Could be, you never know, someone might discover a proof. — tim wood
Obviously understanding does not involve the language itself or else how do you explain that there are multiple languages but the same understanding? — khaled
Example? — creativesoul
"two plus two equals four"
"2プラス2は4"
"dos más dos son cuatro" — khaled
What a statement means involves not the statement.
— Blue Lux
Why exactly is this rubbish? — khaled
Basically, I think my definition of knowledge is unproblematic because any form of knowledge must rely on a validation (or else it is not knowledge) and that validation can always be abstracted into a premise in a syllogism to give an accurate model of knowledge. I haven't come across any knowledge that cannot be put as the conclusion to a syllogism yet (as that would imply that there exists knowledge that does not need validation) — khaled
You're claiming that reason is required for knowledge. That's false — creativesoul
Knowing what certain statements mean is required for reason — creativesoul
I bet 99% of the people in the civilized world would staunchly disagree with that statement. — khaled
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.