It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things.
— Chet Hawkins

You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance. — wonderer1

Well, THAT is maddeningly insulting. My expertise is present in many and varied fields.

Significance is a choice of each person, and I wonder if you'd argue that many and most choosers are woefully unskilled at choosing, at believing, and certainly at knowing. So, what is deemed significant is almost always wrong. And by wrong I mean when you dig into it, in the way your next response suggests, when you approach, because you can ONLY approach and never arrive at 'knowing'. Or do you suggest there is an arbitrary cut-off to 'knowing'? That would mean that good enough is acceptable and we search for laurels to rest on. (That is or would be) The seventh day as it were.

For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well. — wonderer1

But they do not. They believe things and can demonstrate reasonable success with this belief. Therefore and of course I can and do often believe them. So your point is not lost on me. By mine is lost apparently on you, and indeed, still a point. Significance being what it is, perhaps I erred in addressing yet another who refuses to see.

After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know.
— Chet Hawkins

Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning. — wonderer1

Incorrect. If you know, you know all the way. There can be no reason to seek more. That is what 'knowing' should mean as it partakes too heavily of perfection, is my point. And ANY perfect virtue requires all virtues to be perfect, which is the nature of wisdom itself, again MY point.

If there is more to know then you DO NOT KNOW. You only believe.

But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing. — wonderer1

Learning from others is precisely my thing. But I would also suggest that you are me and I am you, finally, if truth is KNOWN. So, there are no others, only other parts of me.

It has been my lot in life often enough to up-end the expert, not the common man who cares less about either of our fine points. Multi-tack approaches to truth are superior in all ways to the single path. Integration itself as a concept shows this form and that form to must be perfected, and yet never arrives at perfection. This 100% delusion is quite damning, is my claim. And that is what 'know' means to me.

You accept some mitigation, some half (ass) way of knowing. I admit freely that does not work for me. There are many verbs, many insinuations, of language that trick the unwary into false knowing. Culture these days is rife with misinformation and echoing chambers of wrong 'knowing'. It is more correct by far to doubt everything and yet believe in what is best shown to be resonant with truth in the day to day. This pattern is more successful, more balanced, more wise, than to claim any 'knowing'.

The path of doubt allows for earning more awareness from all states of ... you guessed it ... unawareness, e.g. NOT KNOWING. This path cripples dogmatism and yet empowers science and truth-seeking, which those who claim to be philosophers should be all about.

This is not mere wordplay and sophistry, a term I detest for its inaccuracy in meaning. Knowing is a cold delusional prison. It is a cowardly short-cut, Pragmatism, and as I continually must deem it, 'intending to fail'. The humorous joke though is on ALL of us, because you are me and I am you in the final state, truth. Pragmatists tend to win until there is a real, out of bounds challenge, and we meet them every day because that is the nature of reality.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.
— Chet Hawkins

I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.) — wonderer1

And facts are only a subset of beliefs. They are exalted in no way beyond that. I would offer indeed by way of concession that even what I deem a 'fact' is what I consider to be 'an acceptably probable belief', but in doing so, I realize there is always a small chance of failure, of not KNOWING, because knowing is impossible.

Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't. — wonderer1

And you say trite small things like all Pragmatists that reek of fear and the trap of KNOWING. This Vulcan stagnation is petty and cold. It has no fire. And life includes passion and passion is worthy, a part of wisdom.

I do believe that passion should mix with reason, but you exclude it too thoroughly (to me). You see only the probability of my chaos and not the beauty and dedication to actual perfection that is present in that belief. At least that is how I interpret your answers to me, and so many others here on this order-apologist thread.

If reason cannot admit from its trap the purpose of desire, of anger, then that reason is the unreasonable thing. Its limit has been reached and found stale, dead. The cycle must then be rebellion and disintegration. Try again, build everything back and hope the next time the logicians know (ha ha) their place because their current belief (for real) is not knowing and only haughtily presumed as such.

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist." — Corvus

Once again, you've got it entirely backwards. "You think therefore you exist" implies if you don't exist, you don't think. The logic you've presented here, that I've quoted, is a logical fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

The correct, non fallacious way is to deny the consequent, detailed here by Oxford https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711647

arguing validly from a hypothetical proposition of the form If p then q that, because q is false, therefore p is false

Are you prepared to listen to find out why?

Are you prepared to listen to find out why? — flannel jesus

Sorry. I have already explained in most clear logical way with even the simplest symbolic logic Modus Ponens demo example. If you still cannot see it, then I can no longer do any further. I shall not waste any more of your time or mine with this point. Have a good weekend jesus.

You have drastically misunderstood what modus ponens means. You have literally understood it in the exact wrong way. Feel free to find any source detailing what modus ponens does, and compare it to your own logic.

I'm happy to illustrate why for you, just give me a source that you like for modus ponens

What is there to misunderstand? It is the simplest symbolic classic logic. Only thing is your trying to distort the truth even I have shown the clearest logical proof.
It seems that even the simplest logical demo is not getting through to you. Only thing I could ask you is keep reading my posts, and think clearly until you can understand it.

you're absolutely right, it is incredibly simple, which is why it's a wonder that you misunderstood it so drastically.

here's your quote where you present your modus ponens argument. This is not Modus ponens. At all. You have misunderstood modus ponens and transformed it into a formal fallacy - the fallacy is called Denying the Antecedent.

You said

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

That's not Modus ponens. Modus ponens is

P --> Q
P
=====
Q

I can prove, easily with real examples, why your argument is a clear fallacy. Do you have the courage to question your own beliefs?

You can use MP using negation too. Please read some introduction to Logic.

No, you actually can't. You can't do that. That's a fallacy, it's called Denying the Antecedent, and what I'm telling you is much better than "read some huge text book", because I'm pointing you to the specific part of the textbook to read : read the part about denying the Antecedent. Here's a link for you: https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/LogicalFallacies.htm

Very simple examples can be used to prove your logic wrong. Do you have the courage to look at those examples seriously and consider the possibility that you're wrong?

Obviously you have not read a single Logic book, but are copying and pasting some internet info here. So I shall not try with logic. In simplest ordinary language, If you don't think, you don't exist? You don't think, therefore you are not?

You are finding so many excuses not to investigate the validity of your own argument. Be brave. Don't come up with excuses. Look at it in the face.

You have a fallacious understanding of modus ponens. Are you brave enough to investigate if you might be wrong about it? Do you have the intellectual courage to look at it in the face?

Don't change the subject. Please answer me.
You don't think, therefore you don't exist?

You are literally changing the subject. Be brave. Modus ponens. You're incorrect about it, and I can prove it.

You still refuse to answer. You are not an authentic interlocutor.

Okay, so authentic interlocutors answer questions. I will meet you in the middle, and answer your question, and if you then don't engage with my argument, that will show who is inauthentic, right?

You don't think, therefore you don't exist? — Corvus

Nope, I don't agree with that. You derived that from "I think therefore I am" via a fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.

Now are you prepared to understand why denying the Antecedent is NOT something you can do with modus ponens? Are you prepared to learn why I, other people on this forum, and the Stanford philosophy department consider it a formal fallacy? Your authenticity is on the line.

Because you couldn't understand the most basic demo of logic, I had to ask you in ordinary language about the point. You change the subject, and refuse to answer.
So, the only conclusion I can have is that, you are not an authentic interlocutor. Please read some books on the topic before engaging in the discussions.

I answered your question. You are being too cowardly to look at my argument. You want to present arguments and have other people take them seriously, but you refuse to look at other people's arguments. You are not authentic. You are not brave. You are scared of being shown to be wrong.

Lose the fear. It won't make you wiser. Questioning yourself will make you wiser. You can turn it all around any moment, instead of doubling down into logical fallacies. You can choose bravery at any moment.

You presented your argument, now look at others.

Why do you refuse to answer to a simple question?
You don't think, therefore you don't exist. ==> Is this correct?

You can choose bravery at any moment. — flannel jesus

Not to mention increase his competence at using logic. All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus.

I didn't refuse, I answered it:

Nope, I don't agree with that — flannel jesus

Is it correct or incorrect?

All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus. — wonderer1

Hell, I don't even want him to admit that. I just want him to not be a hypocrite. He's come in here and told me I'm wrong, and given an argument why I'm wrong - that's great! Now I have a counter argument to his argument, and he won't look.

He expects others to look at his arguments, but refuses to look at theirs. The hypocrisy is... just unbelievably frustrating.

Incorrect. That's what "I don't agree with that" means.

No it is not. You don't agree with that, is psychological. It is incorrect is factual.

"I don't agree with that" means I think that factually it is incorrect. You have the answer now. Are you ready to look at your argument and see why denying the antecedent is considered a fallacy by me, most other people on this forum, and the Stanford philosophy department?

Well, if you say it is incorrect, then you proved yourself, you think therefore you exist is incorrect too. That is a simple logic.

You've presented your argument. Can you listen to a counter argument?

Sure, present your argument against it, if you have any. I must go and do some work. I will read it later.

You presented this as if it's a valid form of logic

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

Now, I have countless sources online that call this a logical fallacy, Denying the antecedent. You, for some reason, don't want to look at any websites but just for thoroughness, I'll link a few.

https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/LogicalFallacies.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/denial-of-the-antecedent
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch3
https://philosophyalevel.com/posts/if-p-then-q-modus-ponens-modus-tollens/
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627?p=emailAMbd16BqHZ1a6&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59356/is-this-an-example-of-denying-the-antecedent

But you don't like online sources, so fine, I said I could disprove it with a simple example, so that's what I'm going to do:

All squares are rectangles - this should hopefully be an uncontroversial statement. Not all rectangles are squares - this should of course also be uncontroversial.

I have a bag full of paper shapes I've cut out. Some of them are squares. Some of them are non-square rectangular cutouts (like A4 pieces of paper). Some of them are triangles.

I pull out a piece of paper, and I tell you "I'm holding a square". Given that information (and this isn't a trick question, so you can assume I'm being truthful), can you conclude I'm holding a rectangle?

All squares are rectangles, so YES, you can conclude I'm holding a rectangle.

P is the statement "FJ is holding a square"
Q is the statement "FJ is holding a rectangle"
P --> Q

I hope all of the above is agreeable enough. FJ is holding a square implies FJ is holding a rectangle

I throw that piece of paper away, and I pull out another piece of paper. This time I tell you "I'm NOT holding a square."

¬P

Now, if your logic holds above, then

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

I'm not holding a square
====
I'm not holding a rectangle

But is that valid? Is it valid that, if you know I'm not holding a square, you also know that I'm not holding a rectangle?

If you don't think that's valid - if you understand that I could still be holding a rectangle, even when you know that I'm not holding a square - then you intuitively understand why denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy, and an invalid form of argument.

In symbolic classic logic, the contents don't matter. It works purely on the format.
So if you say,
P-> Q
Not P
Then it must be Not Q

There is no way Not P, and it is still Q.

The proof process goes on with introducing negations, assertions and inferences. That's why it could have Not P for the negation introduction. If Not P, then it must be Not Q.

But Not Q doesn't make sense. You confirmed that it is incorrect. Hence P->Q is incorrect.

You think, but sometimes you stop thinking. But you still keep existing.
Not thinking doesn't make you non-existence. You think therefore you are. is logically incorrect.

I hope this helps.