Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Radical skepticism.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability. You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular. If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know. Summary:

1. Probability could be false.
2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.

Anyone know how to solve this problem? (To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 1:46:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see a problem. There's a time and a place for logic, but there's also more to life than logic.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 7:16:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability. You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular. If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know. Summary:

Nonsense, the lack of certainty does not preclude "likelihood", it is not the case that if something is not certain, then it cannot be probable.

1. Probability could be false.
2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.

Regarding:
1. Deduction can be false too, so what.
2. Proofs of deductive logic are dependent on deductive logic too, I don't see why you see this as a special case.
3. Sure we do, both empirically and by the application of deductive logic. Logic is axiomatic, all you need to do is add a simple axiom to support the validity of inductive logic. The implicit axiom of inductive reasoning is that the statistical sampling of a large set is representative of the characteristics of that set, and this axiom can be arrived at deductively.
4. Nonsense, this is not true, and even if it was, the lack of certainty does not render logic meaningless. As good as it gets is still pretty damn good.
5. Bare assertion fallacy based on circular reasoning.

Anyone know how to solve this problem? (To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)

But that is the basis of your poor foolish argument, because there is an absence of absolute proof of validity, you are claiming that that inductive logic is not valid, that is nonsense.

You speak of parsimony to arrive at the least parsimonious conclusion of all and you use reason to refute reason, I just don't see the point. Skepticism needs to be practical and based on common sense, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are referential to each other and provide a strong basis for the practical use of logic as a useful tool, but it is only a tool. The way out of this false dilemma is to accept that we are finite beings, we are not, and never will be, omniscient, you just need to learn to live with that.

It's called the real world, come on in.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 9:14:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 7:16:40 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability. You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular. If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know. Summary:

Nonsense, the lack of certainty does not preclude "likelihood", it is not the case that if something is not certain, then it cannot be probable.

1. Probability could be false.
2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.

Regarding:
1. Deduction can be false too, so what.
2. Proofs of deductive logic are dependent on deductive logic too, I don't see why you see this as a special case.
3. Sure we do, both empirically and by the application of deductive logic. Logic is axiomatic, all you need to do is add a simple axiom to support the validity of inductive logic. The implicit axiom of inductive reasoning is that the statistical sampling of a large set is representative of the characteristics of that set, and this axiom can be arrived at deductively.
4. Nonsense, this is not true, and even if it was, the lack of certainty does not render logic meaningless. As good as it gets is still pretty damn good.
5. Bare assertion fallacy based on circular reasoning.

Anyone know how to solve this problem? (To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)

But that is the basis of your poor foolish argument, because there is an absence of absolute proof of validity, you are claiming that that inductive logic is not valid, that is nonsense.

You speak of parsimony to arrive at the least parsimonious conclusion of all and you use reason to refute reason, I just don't see the point. Skepticism needs to be practical and based on common sense, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are referential to each other and provide a strong basis for the practical use of logic as a useful tool, but it is only a tool. The way out of this false dilemma is to accept that we are finite beings, we are not, and never will be, omniscient, you just need to learn to live with that.

It's called the real world, come on in.

You have no idea what I'm talking about. Lol. This guy already burst my bubble, though: [http://forums.civfanatics.com...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 9:19:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 9:14:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/10/2012 7:16:40 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability. You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular. If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know. Summary:

Nonsense, the lack of certainty does not preclude "likelihood", it is not the case that if something is not certain, then it cannot be probable.

1. Probability could be false.
2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.

Regarding:
1. Deduction can be false too, so what.
2. Proofs of deductive logic are dependent on deductive logic too, I don't see why you see this as a special case.
3. Sure we do, both empirically and by the application of deductive logic. Logic is axiomatic, all you need to do is add a simple axiom to support the validity of inductive logic. The implicit axiom of inductive reasoning is that the statistical sampling of a large set is representative of the characteristics of that set, and this axiom can be arrived at deductively.
4. Nonsense, this is not true, and even if it was, the lack of certainty does not render logic meaningless. As good as it gets is still pretty damn good.
5. Bare assertion fallacy based on circular reasoning.

Anyone know how to solve this problem? (To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)

But that is the basis of your poor foolish argument, because there is an absence of absolute proof of validity, you are claiming that that inductive logic is not valid, that is nonsense.

You speak of parsimony to arrive at the least parsimonious conclusion of all and you use reason to refute reason, I just don't see the point. Skepticism needs to be practical and based on common sense, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are referential to each other and provide a strong basis for the practical use of logic as a useful tool, but it is only a tool. The way out of this false dilemma is to accept that we are finite beings, we are not, and never will be, omniscient, you just need to learn to live with that.

It's called the real world, come on in.

You have no idea what I'm talking about. Lol. This guy already burst my bubble, though: [http://forums.civfanatics.com...]

I see you have already dispensed with logic and reason, do let us know how that works out for you.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 12:59:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability.
That's INDUCTIVE logic (reasoning), but not DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular.
(1) Actually, you can know 100% that A = A.
(2) Knowledge will ALWAYS be circular, otherwise it would be an infinite progression which is NOT knowledge.

If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know.
So you are saying that "it is certain that nothing is certain" or what's know in logic parlance as a contradiction. Which of course means that you're actually saying nothing at all!

Summary:

1. Probability could be false.
In order to claim 1, you will need to demonstrate how probability is a contradiction; until then, 1 is false.

2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
In order to claim 2, you will need to show how probability is dependent upon parsimony; until then, 2 is false.

3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
But we do: empirically.

4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
Now that's total bollocks! Deductive reasoning does NOT depend on probability. Try again.

5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.
Brilliant non sequitur!

Anyone know how to solve this problem?
There's nothing to solve!

(To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)
Lol! So you are the pot or the kettle?

At 10/10/2012 7:16:40 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

You speak of parsimony to arrive at the least parsimonious conclusion of all and you use reason to refute reason, I just don't see the point. Skepticism needs to be practical and based on common sense, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are referential to each other and provide a strong basis for the practical use of logic as a useful tool, but it is only a tool. The way out of this false dilemma is to accept that we are finite beings, we are not, and never will be, omniscient, you just need to learn to live with that.
Sidewalker, you're 100% spot on as usual! The problem with Skepticism is that it's a contradiction! It's a claimless claim; a pointless point; << insert contradiction here >>. Both inductively and deductively, pure skepticism is pure nonsense! Inductively skepticism begins with nothing and so it ends with nothing: ex nihilo, nihil fit. Deductively skepticism begins with something and tries to arrive at nothing: from a contradiction, anything follows.

At 10/10/2012 9:14:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
^^ Corrected
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Several_Ingredients
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 6:37:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is what you're referring to Pyrrhonism? It's a school of thought that basically says "Nothing can be known for certain, not even this". It's even more radical than nihilism.

I think nihilism/pyrrhonism is easy to dismiss as "fashionable sophistry". When I feel like I should question everything, I inevitably come to questioning basic rules for thinking, including questioning everything. In fact, not even mathematics can be totally proven, because it relies on a set of axioms. What's great is that we can change those axioms and arrive at new, and even useful conclusions.

I'll give you one example, Euclidean geometry. One of the assumptions was that the three angles in a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. If we reject that assumption, we can work with a new form of trigonometry. It's just as useful as Euclidean geometry. The best example would be to think of triangles laid on a sphere. The triangles will be somewhat distorted when laid out flat. The angles don't add up to 180 degrees, because the lines aren't straight. But now we can find more accurate distances in GPS navigation, just by changing our axioms to fit a purpose.

Another great example can be found in paradoxes. Logical paradoxes force us to questions some very basic assumptions. "This sentence is false" is a paradox. Is the statement is true, then it is false. If it is false, then it is true. One way of answering this is that circular or self-referencing statements are meaningless and do not prove anything by themselves.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:24:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 12:59:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 11:08:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
How do you evaluate logic? Through probability.
That's INDUCTIVE logic (reasoning), but not DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

You can't know 100%, but you can infer that something is very likely or unlikely to be true. But probability relies on logic itself, and therefore this solution is circular.
(1) Actually, you can know 100% that A = A.
(2) Knowledge will ALWAYS be circular, otherwise it would be an infinite progression which is NOT knowledge.

If nothing is certain, than neither is the likelihood of axioms being true, and we have no way to know.
So you are saying that "it is certain that nothing is certain" or what's know in logic parlance as a contradiction. Which of course means that you're actually saying nothing at all!

Summary:

1. Probability could be false.
In order to claim 1, you will need to demonstrate how probability is a contradiction; until then, 1 is false.

2. Our justification of probability is dependent upon parsimony, which is in turn dependent upon probability.
In order to claim 2, you will need to show how probability is dependent upon parsimony; until then, 2 is false.

3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of probability.
But we do: empirically.

4. Without probability logic is meaningless.
Now that's total bollocks! Deductive reasoning does NOT depend on probability. Try again.

5. Therefore logic should not be trusted.
Brilliant non sequitur!

Anyone know how to solve this problem?
There's nothing to solve!

(To those poor fools who believe that this is self-refuting, remember that there is a difference between absence of proof of validity and proof of invalidity.)
Lol! So you are the pot or the kettle?

At 10/10/2012 7:16:40 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

You speak of parsimony to arrive at the least parsimonious conclusion of all and you use reason to refute reason, I just don't see the point. Skepticism needs to be practical and based on common sense, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are referential to each other and provide a strong basis for the practical use of logic as a useful tool, but it is only a tool. The way out of this false dilemma is to accept that we are finite beings, we are not, and never will be, omniscient, you just need to learn to live with that.
Sidewalker, you're 100% spot on as usual! The problem with Skepticism is that it's a contradiction! It's a claimless claim; a pointless point; << insert contradiction here >>. Both inductively and deductively, pure skepticism is pure nonsense! Inductively skepticism begins with nothing and so it ends with nothing: ex nihilo, nihil fit. Deductively skepticism begins with something and tries to arrive at nothing: from a contradiction, anything follows.


I don't think you speak to 'true skepticism'. True skepticism is when your view always remains as simple as "I don't know." There is no contradiction there, and if there was it wouldn't be skepticism, it would be nonsensical logic. True skepticism doubts everything but has to reasoning behind it, therefore is neither logical or illogical. Of course you can, as an external, force your own variables into the equation and insist that this thinking is illogical, but to whether or not that is true or valid in your opinion doesn't speak for the opinion of the skeptic in question, so that would be an invalid conclusion.

At 10/10/2012 9:14:44 AM, MouthWash wrote:
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
^^ Corrected
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:25:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit - "...but has NO reasoning behind it..."
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"So you are saying that "it is certain that nothing is certain" or what's know in logic parlance as a contradiction. Which of course means that you're actually saying nothing at all!"
Prove that contradictions exist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 3:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:44:16 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"So you are saying that "it is certain that nothing is certain" or what's know in logic parlance as a contradiction. Which of course means that you're actually saying nothing at all!"
Prove that contradictions exist.

I don't think you're referring to my post, but if you are:

"I do not know that contradictions exist at all."

If i'm not speaking the truth, so be it, but honestly I am not purposely implying anything within the quoted statement. If you see an implication, that is merely a product of your interpretation, and doesn't mean to say that I intended to mean any certain thing.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts