But how would they set the odds? — Cuthbert
Like Bayesian inference? — Down The Rabbit Hole
travesty it is of anything resembling philosophy — unenlightened
ways of looking. — unenlightened
For instance, true, we have no conclusive evidence either way on the matter of God's existence. However, we could come to some consensus given all that's at our disposal. For example? theism/atheism is likelier (PDs are probabilistic). — Agent Smith
We could at least form some kind of coherent weltanschauung with this method, yes? — Agent Smith
The problem here is the arbitrary constraint on possibilities (and never mind problems of settling on definitions). For example, that which is adduced to "prove" the "existence" of God also at the same time with mere appropriate substitutions "proves" the "existence" of infinitely many other things. Thus properly understood, either there are infinitely many gods, or the "proofs" dismissed. However, folks interested in these "proofs" generally have zero interest in the logic and reason of them.
PDs then, do not escape the burden, then, of being reasonable. — tim wood
A coherent Weltanschauung? WTF are you talking about Agent? God is alive and kicking but his legs are too short to reach us — Raymond
The last thing we need is for philosophy to become an institution like science, directing people's thought to someone's whim. No. — theRiddler
You confuse philosophy (i.e. ways of looking / interpreting / diagnosing) with 'having a worldview' (i.e. conventionally stipulated, unexamined assumptions), and thereby seek didactics (dogma, apologetics) over above aporetics (inquiry, dialectics). Any religion (or even scientism) will do, no? :mask: — 180 Proof
a poor second. — Agent Smith
Yes. That is the way of looking that I am criticising; looking at philosophy as a poor second to science. Idolatry of the Fact. — unenlightened
Peirce says 'by abduction'. Hume says 'by custom & habit'. Pascal says 'by faith'. Pyrrho say 'by epoche' of undecideable (e.g. philosophic, theological, ideological) claims and therefore by common sense'. Socrates says 'by listening to the daimon'. So why does being a "skeptic" of one kind or another "make decisons" problematic for you, Smith? :chin:How does a skeptic make decisions? — Agent Smith
So why does being a "skeptic" of one kind or another "make decisons" problematic for you, Smith? :chin: — 180 Proof
Witty — 180 Proof
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.