Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Question bout epistemology.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:51:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I think, therefore I am." that is all that we can be absolutely certain of, that we "are."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:45:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Under my definition of life we would still be alive. On what grounds do you assert that we are dead?
Perhaps we cannot know if the thoughts were implanted or not, though I get the feeling that the process of writing the memories into our brains would require a simulation equally as complex as the life we feel that we have experienced anyway. So I ask, what does it matter?

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.
No, our experiences and memories and such are essentially unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Does this bother you?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:56:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:51:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
"I think, therefore I am." that is all that we can be absolutely certain of, that we "are."

Incorrect. Our experiences could consist of thoughts in isolation. Descartes happens to be a bit dated.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:57:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:45:58 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Under my definition of life we would still be alive. On what grounds do you assert that we are dead?
Perhaps we cannot know if the thoughts were implanted or not, though I get the feeling that the process of writing the memories into our brains would require a simulation equally as complex as the life we feel that we have experienced anyway. So I ask, what does it matter?

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.
No, our experiences and memories and such are essentially unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Does this bother you?

Way to miss the point of philosophy.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:04:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 10:04:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:


Well, I didn't understand that one bit. Is he trying to say that intuitive thought is superior to purely logical thought? (Zeno's paradoxes have been solved mathematically, btw).

Anyway, I think that the problem is that I'm trying to define the the whole question incorrectly. My consciousness is stretched over time by its nature. The mere fact that I experience things proves something, and in fact I think it's that my experiences exist, but over a different plane than I was biologically programmed to comprehend. It's hard for me to think in any terms other than past and present.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 12:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:56:56 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:51:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
"I think, therefore I am." that is all that we can be absolutely certain of, that we "are."

Incorrect. Our experiences could consist of thoughts in isolation. Descartes happens to be a bit dated.

In that respect, not really. There are clearer summations of the cogito (there is thought, there is a thing that thinks etc.) but in a practical sense it is correct; the symbols point to the same objects in the same arrangement. As a linguistic construct they map to the same points, as it were. Also, 'I' does not have to carry any connotations of existence beyond thought, it is just the expression of a particular perspective on thought.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 12:34:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.

Yer kind of throwing a bunch of concepts around here. For instance you ask if we can't verify any points of experience. The answer is probably. I don't even think that's controversial anymore. But after that you ask if that means our experiences are unfalsifiable. Way different. Verificationism is a dead (or if not, a should-be dead) philosophy which seeks to ultimately verify some point of knowledge or experience. Logical positivists were a big fan of it. Falsifiability is a philosophy, brought in as part of Popper's critical rationalist project, which doesn't seek to verify anything (realizing that it's futile at a base, philosophical level) but instead sets a framework for what kinds of statements can be falsified. Those that can be are considered 'scientific' (Popper was mainly writing from the pov of a philosopher of science here). Those that can't are the stuff of superstition or whatever. The point of falsification is to guard against falsity whereas the point of verificationism is to ground ultimate truth. My point is that they're not identical. Experience can't be verified (we've known this since Descartes) but that doesn't mean we can't (ideally) erect certain standards which could stand as a guard against possibly false propositions.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:31:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 12:34:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.

Yer kind of throwing a bunch of concepts around here. For instance you ask if we can't verify any points of experience. The answer is probably. I don't even think that's controversial anymore. But after that you ask if that means our experiences are unfalsifiable. Way different. Verificationism is a dead (or if not, a should-be dead) philosophy which seeks to ultimately verify some point of knowledge or experience. Logical positivists were a big fan of it. Falsifiability is a philosophy, brought in as part of Popper's critical rationalist project, which doesn't seek to verify anything (realizing that it's futile at a base, philosophical level) but instead sets a framework for what kinds of statements can be falsified. Those that can be are considered 'scientific' (Popper was mainly writing from the pov of a philosopher of science here). Those that can't are the stuff of superstition or whatever. The point of falsification is to guard against falsity whereas the point of verificationism is to ground ultimate truth. My point is that they're not identical. Experience can't be verified (we've known this since Descartes) but that doesn't mean we can't (ideally) erect certain standards which could stand as a guard against possibly false propositions.

Ah, correct. I think I can grasp this somewhat intuitively. I'm clueless about this stuff, but how do you know that verificationism is really as dead as you think? Have you listened to Popper's own methodology and looked at the arguments in favor instead of confirmations of your own position?

According to the arguments against verificationism, it is impossible to truly confirm that Socrates is mortal even if we know that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 7:04:46 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Well, I didn't understand that one bit. Is he trying to say that intuitive thought is superior to purely logical thought? (Zeno's paradoxes have been solved mathematically, btw).

Anyway, I think that the problem is that I'm trying to define the the whole question incorrectly. My consciousness is stretched over time by its nature. The mere fact that I experience things proves something, and in fact I think it's that my experiences exist, but over a different plane than I was biologically programmed to comprehend. It's hard for me to think in any terms other than past and present.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying.

Many logical issues exist simply due to how we think about them and not due to any actual issue. Watts points out one of these ways, which I think applies to your own problem. Which is to look at things in pieces rather than as a whole continuum.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:04:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2013 7:04:46 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Well, I didn't understand that one bit. Is he trying to say that intuitive thought is superior to purely logical thought? (Zeno's paradoxes have been solved mathematically, btw).

Anyway, I think that the problem is that I'm trying to define the the whole question incorrectly. My consciousness is stretched over time by its nature. The mere fact that I experience things proves something, and in fact I think it's that my experiences exist, but over a different plane than I was biologically programmed to comprehend. It's hard for me to think in any terms other than past and present.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying.

Many logical issues exist simply due to how we think about them and not due to any actual issue. Watts points out one of these ways, which I think applies to your own problem. Which is to look at things in pieces rather than as a whole continuum.

Great video! I like the way he outlines his idea for analysis. I have had a similar mindset recently, but haven't really put much thought into the process itself.

Watt's does a good job with his outline of pragmatic analysis. I'll be sending this one to friends in the future.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:36:23 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
Great video! I like the way he outlines his idea for analysis. I have had a similar mindset recently, but haven't really put much thought into the process itself.

Watt's does a good job with his outline of pragmatic analysis. I'll be sending this one to friends in the future.

<3 Alan Watts. All of his lectures are great.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:43:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:57:24 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:45:58 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Under my definition of life we would still be alive. On what grounds do you assert that we are dead?
Perhaps we cannot know if the thoughts were implanted or not, though I get the feeling that the process of writing the memories into our brains would require a simulation equally as complex as the life we feel that we have experienced anyway. So I ask, what does it matter?

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.
No, our experiences and memories and such are essentially unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Does this bother you?

Way to miss the point of philosophy.

Way to miss the point of my questions,
I am not asking rhetorical questions here. I am interested in the answers, philosophy is about asking these questions as well. I am a functionalist. Functional distinctions are the only ones that matter to me. So when I ask these questions, they are naturally philosophical. I know there are others on here who ask questions like these to simply shut down discussion but I'm not trying to do that. I'm sorry if it came across that way.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:39:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 7:43:09 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:57:24 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:45:58 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Under my definition of life we would still be alive. On what grounds do you assert that we are dead?
Perhaps we cannot know if the thoughts were implanted or not, though I get the feeling that the process of writing the memories into our brains would require a simulation equally as complex as the life we feel that we have experienced anyway. So I ask, what does it matter?

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.
No, our experiences and memories and such are essentially unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Does this bother you?

Way to miss the point of philosophy.

Way to miss the point of my questions,
I am not asking rhetorical questions here. I am interested in the answers, philosophy is about asking these questions as well. I am a functionalist. Functional distinctions are the only ones that matter to me. So when I ask these questions, they are naturally philosophical. I know there are others on here who ask questions like these to simply shut down discussion but I'm not trying to do that. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

No, you missed the entire point of literally everything I said.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:34:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We make educated assumptions?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:31:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:34:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.

Yer kind of throwing a bunch of concepts around here. For instance you ask if we can't verify any points of experience. The answer is probably. I don't even think that's controversial anymore. But after that you ask if that means our experiences are unfalsifiable. Way different. Verificationism is a dead (or if not, a should-be dead) philosophy which seeks to ultimately verify some point of knowledge or experience. Logical positivists were a big fan of it. Falsifiability is a philosophy, brought in as part of Popper's critical rationalist project, which doesn't seek to verify anything (realizing that it's futile at a base, philosophical level) but instead sets a framework for what kinds of statements can be falsified. Those that can be are considered 'scientific' (Popper was mainly writing from the pov of a philosopher of science here). Those that can't are the stuff of superstition or whatever. The point of falsification is to guard against falsity whereas the point of verificationism is to ground ultimate truth. My point is that they're not identical. Experience can't be verified (we've known this since Descartes) but that doesn't mean we can't (ideally) erect certain standards which could stand as a guard against possibly false propositions.

Ah, correct. I think I can grasp this somewhat intuitively. I'm clueless about this stuff, but how do you know that verificationism is really as dead as you think?

It's pretty dead. There are a few people writing from within I guess a modified version of it but it's nowhere near accorded the level of prominence which it found with the rise of logical positivism.

Have you listened to Popper's own methodology and looked at the arguments in favor instead of confirmations of your own position?

Um yeah. Of course anyone would say that about him/herself which is why the question seems weird being asked at all. More to the point, if yer interested, this [http://strangebeautiful.com...] might prove useful.

According to the arguments against verificationism, it is impossible to truly confirm that Socrates is mortal even if we know that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man?

Which arguments specifically/
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:10:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:27:22 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:31:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:34:50 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:47:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
We obviously cannot know if any past moment was real or if the memory was implanted by some malevolent demon. In addition, even though I am experiencing the 'present,' as soon as the current present becomes the past, it cannot longer be verified as genuine. However, in reality there is no present- consciousness is in itself a process, and so our conception of events can never be reduced to mere "moments" at any scale whatsoever. If our neurons were suddenly frozen in time and remained that way for eternity, we would be dead.

What does this seeming contradiction imply? It appears that we can't verify ANY point of our experiences at all (note that "experiences" does not equal our personal existence, which I'm not talking about). Does this make our memories and by extension our continuity unfalsifiable? Or is the opposite true? Sorry, if I'm not making sense, I'm incredibly tired right now. Will be saner in the morning.

Yer kind of throwing a bunch of concepts around here. For instance you ask if we can't verify any points of experience. The answer is probably. I don't even think that's controversial anymore. But after that you ask if that means our experiences are unfalsifiable. Way different. Verificationism is a dead (or if not, a should-be dead) philosophy which seeks to ultimately verify some point of knowledge or experience. Logical positivists were a big fan of it. Falsifiability is a philosophy, brought in as part of Popper's critical rationalist project, which doesn't seek to verify anything (realizing that it's futile at a base, philosophical level) but instead sets a framework for what kinds of statements can be falsified. Those that can be are considered 'scientific' (Popper was mainly writing from the pov of a philosopher of science here). Those that can't are the stuff of superstition or whatever. The point of falsification is to guard against falsity whereas the point of verificationism is to ground ultimate truth. My point is that they're not identical. Experience can't be verified (we've known this since Descartes) but that doesn't mean we can't (ideally) erect certain standards which could stand as a guard against possibly false propositions.

Ah, correct. I think I can grasp this somewhat intuitively. I'm clueless about this stuff, but how do you know that verificationism is really as dead as you think?

It's pretty dead. There are a few people writing from within I guess a modified version of it but it's nowhere near accorded the level of prominence which it found with the rise of logical positivism.

Have you listened to Popper's own methodology and looked at the arguments in favor instead of confirmations of your own position?

Um yeah. Of course anyone would say that about him/herself which is why the question seems weird being asked at all. More to the point, if yer interested, this [http://strangebeautiful.com...] might prove useful.

According to the arguments against verificationism, it is impossible to truly confirm that Socrates is mortal even if we know that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man?

Which arguments specifically/

I meant, according to the anti-verificationist viewpoint is it considered impossible to verify a basic logical syllogism?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:17:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:10:43 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

I meant, according to the anti-verificationist viewpoint is it considered impossible to verify a basic logical syllogism?

Yer equivocating the word 'verify' here. Verificationism =/= the ability to verify anything.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:24:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:17:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:10:43 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

I meant, according to the anti-verificationist viewpoint is it considered impossible to verify a basic logical syllogism?

Yer equivocating the word 'verify' here. Verificationism =/= the ability to verify anything.

I'm becoming very confused.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:38:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:24:02 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:17:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:10:43 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

I meant, according to the anti-verificationist viewpoint is it considered impossible to verify a basic logical syllogism?

Yer equivocating the word 'verify' here. Verificationism =/= the ability to verify anything.

I'm becoming very confused.

Verificationism was a school of thought which (ostensibly) held that propositions are only intelligible if they can be proven true or false. This isn't particularly controversial (within the domain of Analytic philosophy) but the consequences in verificationist methodology (regarding empirical statements) is where the problem lies (or most of it). Their methodology relied on both analytic rigor in the construction of propositions (read Russell, he's marvelous at it) as well as a belief that the empirical sciences are capable of 'verifying' non-analytic propositions. The former is imo a fabulous methodology so long as it stays in its proper sphere but the latter (relying on verification in the sciences) is what gets tripped up, especially in light of the problem of induction and its various consequences. Non-verificationism (while not a school) is simply the rejection of the idea that one can verify non-analytical statements. In the beginning of "Logic of Scientific Discovery" (seriously read it, fantastic stuff), Popper refers to the idea that observing a series of black swans can never 'verify' the propositions that 'All swans are black' since it holds no logical weight concerning future experiences. Falsificationism side-steps this by not laying claim to 'truth' in the natural sciences, but merely cautious acceptance so long as contradictory evidence is not presented.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.