In order to doubt anything, one must rely on that which is beyond doubt. In other words, one cannot exit all language games and still be capable of doubting. — Joshs

Descartes doubted everything including even his own existence. But one thing he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting. The fact that he was doubting proved that he was thinking, and therefore cogito ergo sum.

I guess you could doubt them, you just exit the language game when you do. — frank

When we exit the language game, we are in the philosophical game where we discuss about all types of propositions if they make sense.

Any part whose meaning is exempt from doubt in your mind can be called a hinge proposition. — RussellA

Revisiting on hinge propositions, they could still be doubted in theory since doubts can be methodological like that of Descartes, or psychological.

A man who lost his hands in the war or work will doubt he has hands, even if he now has robotic hands.
Folks living in Paris in Texas USA could doubt if Paris in France.
Folks who believe life could be simulation could doubt if the Earth exists.

The whole point of a hinge proposition is that it is exempt from being doubted. Doubting a hinge proposition cannot even be considered. — RussellA

What are the philosophical / epistemological / logical grounds for hinge propositions being exempt from doubt?

:ok: :up:

No. That's why I have pieced together my own philosophical theory of how the primal Energy (causation) and Laws (information) of the Big Bang could evolve into living and thinking beings. :smile: — Gnomon

Isn't evolution from living biological species to the same living biological species but for the better adaptation for the survival in the given environment?

The primal Energy and Laws of the Big Bang is not living biological species, but it sounds like non-living force of some sort. How could the non-living evolve into the living?

How would you replace "exempt" by "impossible" in the above sentence? — RussellA

You don't. It was a suggestion for W if he used the word "impossible" rather than "exempt", it would have been clearer in the point.

"Exempt" is normally used for the situation where an object is free from liability, duty or restriction. Hence it seems not a proper word to use for doubt.

My idea is that you can doubt on anything and everything if you choose to do so. Even the fact "Paris in France." could be doubted under the simple syllogism.

Names of cities could be changed into some other name through time.
Paris is a name of the city.
Paris could be changed into some other name through time..

which implies Paris might not be in France sometime in the future. (weak doubt for the possibility in the future = still a doubt).

:ok: Seems to be delicate nuance in the uses, but the gist of the claim seems it is impossible to doubt?

FYI, USA has 23 towns and cities called Paris, and the French government folks could decide to change Paris to "Sartre" or some other names they feel more suitable one day. :)

"Exempt from doubt" has a different meaning to "cannot be doubted." — RussellA

What is the illocutionary difference between the two expressions?

True, but on a thread about Wittgenstein's On Certainty, the question is, how did Wittgenstein describe doubt? — RussellA

I understand W said that hinge propositions / certainties cannot be doubted or are not allowed doubting. I don't agree with that. Anything and everything can be doubted by the psychologically motivated minds.

If someone decided to doubt whether if the earth exists, or Paris is in France, then there is no way stop him from the doubting. Psychology overrides and takes precedence to reasoning.

Wittgenstein says "exempt from doubt" — RussellA

There are different types of doubts too i.e. rational doubts based on reasoning, and psychological doubts based on feelings, emotions and beliefs.

When a doubter is psychologically motivated by such as the groundless beliefs or Machiavellianism & Hyper-Competitiveness syndrome, he will not notice or understand the rational side of arguments or knowledge on the facts even with the clear evidence and rational explanations on the matter.

There would be no way to stop him from the doubting unless the causes for the psychological motivations for the doubts are resolved.

*6. The Big Bang Theory stands as the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe. — Gnomon

But it cannot explain the origin of existence of the Earth and life, can it?

this distinction between ‘I know’ as epistemological and ‘I know’ as hinge conviction, — Joshs

There are different types of "I know". I think I know, I feel I know, I believe I know, I am sure I know. I know I know. IOW, "I know" always comes with the hidden label in the front.

In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question. — an-salad

The big-bang theory must have had been inferred from the observations on the other galaxies with their old stars dying with the explosion, then the new stars being born. What intrigues me more is the existence of our solar system, and especially on the existence of the Earth with all the elements which make life possible. The Earth is a unique star in the universe so far, with all the lives and eco systems fragile they may be.

Phenomenological means in my opinion that phenomenons are directly observable (possibly with the help of equipment). Fundamental reveals that there are underlying - not directly observable - causes. — Ypan1944

Excellent explanation. :up:

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence. — MoK

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Sylbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~

You need to read this post to understand the concept of coherence.
Anyhow, I am stalked by the emotionally motivated poster here, so I am not going to contribute anymore points in this thread. All the best & good luck.

OK, it is up to you, whether accept it or not. Just pointed out the unclear use of the concept "coherence". Carry on~ :)

That's not what "coherent" means at all. That's just a bidirectional implication. — flannel jesus

You need to read some basic philosophical logic books.

I asked for examples. — MoK

Please refer to the book on "coherence theory of truth" by by Cybil Wolfram, Philosophical Logic (London 1989)

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent? — MoK

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here.

Huh? — MoK

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points.

Why don't you ask people for help? — MoK

I don't need help. You do need help. :D

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case. — MoK

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity.

In contrast, a statement such as "A bachelor is an unmarried man." or "1+1=2" has truth value with no need for anyone witnessing or agreeing.

What else could "magic" be anyway? — Quk

Magic is the created illusion. As long as the illusion exists, magic exists.

I don't think that I am distorting the facts. — MoK

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument.

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly. — MoK

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll:

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.
— Corvus
No, I don't mean that. — MoK

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis.

You are the only person who is trapped in P1. Other people understood P1 and asked other questions. To be honest I don't know how I can help you. Perhaps others can help you. — MoK

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts.
I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. Because of the misconception and misunderstanding of the concept in P1, the rest of the arguments seem to be unclear and muddled.

By coherent I mean that our experiences when we are awake are consistent. — MoK

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.

From the point of view, your use of coherence seems to be wrong, and misleading, which directed you to the misunderstanding.

Personal experience can be a solid ground to conclude that the experience is coherent. Our experiences when we are dreaming are mostly incoherent while they are always coherent when we are awake. — MoK

What do you mean by "coherent"? Can you explain "coherence" and "being coherent"?

Here, I am not talking about the cup of tea but my experience of the cup of tea only. — MoK

Psychological state or personal experience cannot be ground for objective knowledge.

The private experience is an objective ground for coherence. We don't have any other tools except our private experience anyway! — MoK

That is an idea of absolute idealist and solipsism. Problem with these ideas is that they cannot appeal to or share objective knowledge.

Can you give me an example of something you experienced in the past that was an illusion? — MoK

Illusions are possibility in daily life of humans. Your seeing a cup in a location could have been an illusion. There is no proof you were seeing a cup.

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent. — MoK

The point is not about living in a reality, but the fact that private experience is not objective ground for coherence.

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion. — MoK

Again, not the whole experience is illusion, but there are parts of experience which could be illusion.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Ideas and thoughts could be coherent. Rains, snows, sky, horses, birds, phones, computers and keyboards are not coherent.

None of these. Something is coherent when it is consistent. — MoK

I don't need to prove it. It is a brute fact. — MoK

Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent.

But beliefs and thoughts could be incoherent. That is why I want to exclude them from the discussion. — MoK

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Computer screen and keyboard either work or don't work. No one describes computer screen and keyboard are coherent.

Isn't the Moon, something that has a diameter of 3,475 km, outside the mind? — RussellA

It exists in the physical world with no relation to the mind. However, when you perceive it, it appears in your mind. It doesn't exist in your mind. Your mind just sees it. Seeing is not existing itself.

How could we ever know such a thing? — RussellA

From reasoning and inference.

The Idealism of Berkeley doesn't think that anything physical exists outside the mind. — RussellA

Mind doesn't have outside or inside. Whatever appears in mind must exist, if they could be observed and verified as existing.

It makes perfect sense. — MoK

When something is coherent, it is meaningful. demonstrable, provable and verifiable. Can you prove your seeing a cup is coherent?

I am not talking about people's beliefs and thoughts. — MoK

Beliefs and thoughts of people are part of the world which you experience in daily life.

I am not talking about dreams here but our experiences when awake. Dreams are an example of incoherent experiences though so it should make sense to you when I speak about coherence in our experiences when we are awake. — MoK

Dreams are experience. Dreams don't exist outside of your experience.

Then consider your computer. Is your experience of your computer coherent? — MoK

Computers are tools for information storage, retrieval and searches for information. They are also communication tools. They are not coherent or incoherent.

I am talking about my experience to be coherent only. — MoK

The argument is too limited and unclear, but most of all misleading in its content and points. You need to clarify all the above points before progressing into P2 and C2.

how can the Universe exist without there being anything external to it? — RussellA

It follows that the universe has the external somewhere.