So what is going on? Again, the point is that provability (in the sense of obtaining a proof that we can recognize as such) is different from truth. — Nagase
Would you mind giving it a look before we continue because it would be good discuss with you how logic might/might not relate to experience? — TVCL
However, I would contend that a source of information such as experience cannot provide us with an understanding of what is true directly and that we must use our logical faculty (paired with our concern for "use") to sort our experience into that which is indicative of the truth and that which is not; what experience tells us may or may not be true, but experience is that which is being judged for its truth-value. — TVCL
Therefore, my hope is that this argument/heuristic will eventually be relevant to all who actively seek but, of course, I must be a ways off for now and even if the work is of a level that it only offers something of interest to a handful of people it feels justified. Finally, the point about a lot of epistemology being useless is exactly right and that's why the relevance to our goals is so important - I'm attempting to ground what we know in how we live - in what is relevant to our life and aims without hitting all of the pitfalls of pragmatism. I genuinely believe that this can be done, but there are a lot of questions to overcome before that can be demonstrated. — TVCL
But that is just "that which is the case." And it may well be a duck. But here's a problem: how are you going to know it's a duck? (That not quite as simple as it sounds.) — tim wood
I may have made a mistake in framing the argument as such. Instead, the aim of the argument is akin to saying "we are not yet entirely sure what it is, but if we are to posit the search at all, there seem to be some necessary starting points - especially if we are to posit an explicit search...you appear to be looking for something without a model for what it is. — tim wood
You do have some criteria that seem relevant to you... — tim wood
but instead it is that our understanding of the truth will be determined by whatever we place into our goals. You're right to say that I am not speaking about a universal truth (directly) but here is - I think - the interesting bit... if universal truth is such that it only allows for the existence of particular goals to be pursued, then we can backtrack from the selection of our available goals to decipher what universal "Truth" or "reality" might be, by recognising what this "Truth" does or does not allow. For example, if we cannot go north and south at once, our understanding of this truth is relative to our goals, but it may also reveal that "reality" is such that it does not allow one to go north and south at once.truth is merely the outcome of whatever we place into our goal. — Philosophim
I guess I'd just advise you then to be aware of the fact that you are attempting to (re)create a heuristic that is competing with an organ that has evolved for millions of years and serves a similar purpose (among other things). — ChatteringMonkey
If experience gave us a direct feed of truth, we would simply passively receive the truth through our experience — TVCL
etc.~T is defined as the compliment of T in E. Given any subset of false propositions in ~T, called F, he showed you can construct a proposition that is false but not in F, therefore in ~T. — tim wood
If there are monsters at the outer reaches of logic, I do not think they depend on a temporal framework for existence. "Carried through," then, I cavil at. Maybe another way, the monsters all seem to share direct or indirect self-reference. "I always lie!" Well, do I? And these generally regarded as exotic zoo creatures, but not part of every day fauna, not a thing to look out for in, for example, accounting.Okay, so could we make a distinction between saying that adherence to logic is necessary for seeking an understanding of knowledge that makes any sense, and saying that if such an understanding is to be sought, logic must be carried through to its final conclusion? — TVCL
Another point! it all seems to point back the the trueness of the true, Which path, traveled enough, becomes dizzying.Again, we might not be able to pursue logic to its limits in pursuit of these aims, but we also cannot do away with logic (which would have the same effect). As such, it is interesting to note what this reveals about the world in which we live. I hope this demonstrates the point. — TVCL
Another point! it all seems to point back the the trueness of the true, Which path, traveled enough, becomes dizzying. — tim wood
I posit that this is the best we can hope for as a starting point of epistemology, or it may even be considered a heuristic for proto-epistemology because I believe that this is the point that we must start from the moment the enquiry commences, prior even to any formal epistemology. — TVCL
...Since its you and I at this point, a [[b]definition of[/b]] deduction for both of us will be a conclusion that neither of us can contradict with the information at hand. In including more people, we make it more difficult to deduce, but can be more hopeful that it is exposed to more "potential contradictions" then you or I alone could throw at it. — Philosophim
The first point that I might contend is that the approach that I've suggested only regards the self-subjective viewpoint. — TVCL
What we could posit is that the same principles of the heuristic apply directly over to a social context. — TVCL
"A deduction as defined here will be "A conclusion that cannot be contradicted from the premises, and any further information we introduce.""? — TVCL
While our process for obtaining knowledge can be defined by logic and avoiding contradictions, this does not necessitate that our knowledge is actual truth. — Philosophim
Lets go back to the example of our person who traveled to the South pole while thinking that they were going to the North Pole. Recall the GPS knows they are actually at the South pole. Does the person who has traveled to the North pole know that they are at the South pole? — Philosophim
To your point, we cannot have a relative methodology of applying our distinctions to reality, but we can have relative distinctions, or definitions. — Philosophim
I can define, and accept as a definition from others in my mind by my choice. There is nothing in reality that necessitates I do otherwise. — Philosophim
I'm not sure if this is making sense - I'm thinking through this as I go. — TVCL
My only contention would be when you say:
I can define, and accept as a definition from others in my mind by my choice. There is nothing in reality that necessitates I do otherwise.
— Philosophim
This is contingent. Reality appears to determine that you must unite your definitions with others if you are to enter mutual understanding and dialogue with them. — TVCL
Yes, you must unite your definitions with others if you are to enter mutual understanding and dialog with them. But reality does not necessitate that I desire to enter mutual understanding and dialog with them. — Philosophim
It directly tethers the use of reason (which is adherence to logic) to our attempts to seek knowledge. Of course, this alone does not demonstrate that reason is a necessary factor in all possible knowledge, — TVCL
Using the heuristic, we can determine that of the three options (science, religion or both) the one that allows for the maximal set of goals is the most likely to provide us with knowledge of reality because the one that can allow for the maximal set of goals to be pursued is the most applicable to reality. — TVCL
The network of goals that relativism allows to be pursued appears to be extremely small which we can use as a contrast. The network of goals that genuine relativism allows one to pursue is relegated to the ability to define or re-frame things in any way. However, the practising relativist will find that these goals are constrained solipsistically to their own psyche and reasoning abilities alone, and that this "network" does not extend beyond this, instead being contained by external factors - known or unknown. (one may redefine "water" however they like, but this will not allow sand to satiate their thirst). — TVCL
Therefore, not only does philosophy become practical, but the practical becomes philosophical. — TVCL
It also creates the possibility for us to demonstrate that, if two people are seeking the truth and therefore adhere to reason as their initial goal, it must follow that they will necessarily reach the same conclusions, provided that they are exposed to the same information. — TVCL
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.