Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Responses to the Regress argument?

Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 9:51:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 9:54:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:51:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.



Awesome.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 9:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:51:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.



The Fool: You take your Conscious experiences and use induction, and Deduction to work your way Outward.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 1:15:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.

You can be justified in your knowledge with degrees of certainty. The theory of gravity for instance has mounds of evidence and justification for belief while another bad theory or something like the God hypothesis has none. It is important that one should never claim absolute certainty on most issues, regardless the argument is a red herring. We do not use absolute certainty for every single belief in our lives we use degrees of certainty and that is enough to justify our beliefs and our corresponding actions. The only things I have found to be absolutely certain without further justification are hypotheticals/counterfactuals, definitions, and the proposition that "something exists."
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:29:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool:

(0.9)x(0.8)x(0.8)x(0.7)x(0.8)=0.3226
And on and so forth ==>>0
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 5:35:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.

(Lame attempt at epistemology follows... you have been forewarned)

Either all propositions require explanation for their truth, or some propositions do not. Logically contradictory statements.

If all knowledge requires explanation for it's truth, then there are two options. Either an infinite regress of propositions explaining propositions, or a circular explanation. However, in both cases, nothing can be known. In the first case ultimately there is no explanation, since it is lost ad infinitum (and thus, no knowledge), and in the second case, the proposition circularly proves itself (which doesn't hold logically, since then any proposition could prove itself). But in both of these cases, we are supposing that we *know* nothing can ultimately be known, without explanation. So the first proposition must be false, since some known things do not need explanation.

Since that proposition is false, the logical contradictory statement must be true. Ergo, some propositions do not need to be explained. I would argue that self evident propositions do not need to be explained, and that this proposition is in fact self evident, and thus doesn't need explaining.

Simply put. If there's an infinite regress of reasons, we then know there's ultimately no knowledge to be known.

This is more or less how I would approach the argument... I suppose it depends on your exact definition of "knowledge" to a certain degree.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 8:02:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 8:56:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 4:17:10 PM, Sargon wrote:
Are you talking about the argument for nihilism? If so, it's silly, self-contradicting, and ignores what an axiom is in the first place.

No I'm talking about the regress argument. It is the argument that no belief can be regarded as knowledge, because every belief to be knowledge requires justification, and for each justification we provide further justification is required, and that justification requires justification and so on and so forth.

It's obviously self-refuting.