Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Epistemologically Paralyzed

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 2:53:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, prima facie cases and inductive reasoning is PURELY a human invention. There is no non-question begging way to justify these types of reasoning. They seem to work, but then again, maybe there is something we don't know about which makes that false? This problem is troubling to me.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:15:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 2:53:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, prima facie cases and inductive reasoning is PURELY a human invention. There is no non-question begging way to justify these types of reasoning. They seem to work, but then again, maybe there is something we don't know about which makes that false? This problem is troubling to me.

Rational Thinker,

I am impressed with the fearlessness with which you frame the issue. Well done.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 10:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I get the impression you are equating knowledge with epistemological certainty such that unless we can be certain, we don't have knowledge.

I think that is a mistake. Knowledge is justified true belief. Let me explain that.

I would be contradicting myself if I said, "I know X to be true," while at the same time saying, "I believe that X is not true." If I claim to know something, then I'm presupposing that I at least believe it.

To believe something is to think that it is true, to hold that it is true, to be of the view that it is true, etc.

But obviously, believe, by itself, doesn't amount to knowledge because it's possible to believe something and be wrong about it. So it must also be true. You can't know that X is true if X isn't actually true. You can only THINK that X is true.

But belief and truth are not enough either. After all, it's possible to believe something for all the wrong reasons and have it be true just by luck. For example, suppose that for whatever reason, a person honestly and sincerely believes they are going to win the lottery. Then, lo and behold, they win. You still wouldn't say they KNEW they were going to win. They just got luck, and they were crazy to think they were going to win.

What's missing is justification. Justification is what connects the belief inside your head with the reality outside your head. It's the reason or warrant for why you believe something. And it's necessary for knowledge.

So I think knowledge is justified true belief. I think that's the way we use the word in our every day language. If somebody asked me if I knew who my own parents were, I answer yes in spite of the fact that it's possible I could be wrong.

Mere possibility of error is not a good reason to think that you actually are in error. As long as you believe something, you have justification for believing it, and it happens to be true, you know it.

So knowledge doesn't require certainty. If it did, there would only be a handful of things we could actually know.

As for me, I live quite happily without having epistemological certainty about most things. Although it might be nice to have, it's just not necessary. I get along fine in life without it.

David Hume once said "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." That is, the strength of your belief should be proportional to the justification you have for holding that belief.

It's not an all or nothing approach, which is the way you seem to be taking it. It's not as if mere possibility of error or some degree of doubt or hesitation stumps us. We all make decisions every day on less than certain grounds.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:17:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 10:24:56 PM, philochristos wrote:
I get the impression you are equating knowledge with epistemological certainty such that unless we can be certain, we don't have knowledge.

Well, to say otherwise is to appeal to human inventions (prima facie cases, inductive reasoning ect.), not logical absolutes. The only way to justify this is to question beg.


I think that is a mistake. Knowledge is justified true belief. Let me explain that.

My point is that how can you be justified in claiming a belief is true, if you haven't ruled out that which you don't know about, which possibly makes that false? You might say you don't have to, but this is based on human made rules.


I would be contradicting myself if I said, "I know X to be true," while at the same time saying, "I believe that X is not true." If I claim to know something, then I'm presupposing that I at least believe it.

Ok.


To believe something is to think that it is true, to hold that it is true, to be of the view that it is true, etc.

That doesn't mean it is. You can believe whatever you want, and believe it is justified, but it really isn't justified, as you don't know, whether there is something you don't know, which makes this belief false. It can only be justified under human invented modes of thinking, not logical absolutes.


But obviously, believe, by itself, doesn't amount to knowledge because it's possible to believe something and be wrong about it.

Exactly.

So it must also be true. You can't know that X is true if X isn't actually true. You can only THINK that X is true.

Exactly.


But belief and truth are not enough either. After all, it's possible to believe something for all the wrong reasons and have it be true just by luck. For example, suppose that for whatever reason, a person honestly and sincerely believes they are going to win the lottery. Then, lo and behold, they win. You still wouldn't say they KNEW they were going to win. They just got luck, and they were crazy to think they were going to win.

Exactly.


What's missing is justification. Justification is what connects the belief inside your head with the reality outside your head. It's the reason or warrant for why you believe something. And it's necessary for knowledge.

Yes, but the problem I am raising is that nothing outside necessary truths can be justified.


So I think knowledge is justified true belief.

Yes, but my whole point is that these types of beliefs aren't justified. As, there could be some fact we don't know about which makes them false. The second you try to rule it out, you know about it, meaning it is impossible to rule out that which we don't know about, which may, or may not make what you think you have justified truth regarding, false.

I think that's the way we use the word in our every day language. If somebody asked me if I knew who my own parents were, I answer yes in spite of the fact that it's possible I could be wrong.

Then how could that be justified!?

It is 50/50, for all you know, whether or not there is some fact which makes what you believe is justified wrong. Maybe your parents are a hallucination, how the hell do you know!?

The second you raise a probability other than 50/50, this presupposes to have knowledge on said fact which may, or may not make whatever you believe false. But, if you have knowledge of it, then it cannot be a fact you DON'T know about which may make whatever you believe in false, which is what I am discussing.


Mere possibility of error is not a good reason to think that you actually are in error.

It is when it is a 50/50 chance for all you know.

As long as you believe something, you have justification for believing it, and it happens to be true, you know it.

No you don't, because there could be something you don't know about which makes it false. You cannot have knowledge of a fact, if that fact is not a fact, and is false. So, unless you can rule out that which you don't know which may make what you believe false (which is impossible), you only have a NAIVE justification.


So knowledge doesn't require certainty. If it did, there would only be a handful of things we could actually know.

That is my point! There is only a few things we can actually know (necessary truths), everything else is just guess work. You can never know whether there is a fact you don't know, which makes what you believe false. For all you know, it is a 50/50 chance that this fact is this.


As for me, I live quite happily without having epistemological certainty about most things. Although it might be nice to have, it's just not necessary. I get along fine in life without it.

That doesn't mean what you believe is true. You take it on FAITH that there are not facts that you don't know about, which makes your beliefs false. You don't have justification for this.


David Hume once said "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." That is, the strength of your belief should be proportional to the justification you have for holding that belief.

My point is that we take this "justification" for granted, when ironically, this justification isn't justified. For all we know, it is a 50/50 chance that there is a fact that we don't know about, which makes what we think we have justification for false. Thus, epistemological paralysis is unavoidable.


It's not an all or nothing approach, which is the way you seem to be taking it. It's not as if mere possibility of error or some degree of doubt or hesitation stumps us. We all make decisions every day on less than certain grounds.

That doesn't mean our decisions are correct. This is why I said there is no question-begging way to defend prima facie cases, or inductive reasoning.

---

Nobody wants to admit it, because it destroys everything we know, but this problem has to be addressed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:21:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any knowledge that isn't certain, is what I call "naive" knowledge, you take it on nothing more than FAITH that there aren't facts that you don't know about which make a belief you believe is justified, false. These are just guesses called facts.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:29:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People were justified in believe the Earth was flat, but that was false, so it isn't knowledge. Therefore, thinking you have justification for something, doesn't make it true knowledge. For all you know, there could always be something you don't know about which makes what you believe to be true, false.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:47:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm no expert, but I think this is where Deontlogy/Non-Deontology comes into play:

Deontological Justification
S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p.

Non-Deontological Justification
S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p on a basis that properly probabilifies S's belief that p.

I think another good example would be Mentalism.

If two subjects, S and S*, are alike mentally, then the justificational status of their beliefs is alike as well: the same beliefs are justified or unjustified for them to the same extent.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

I believe the problem here is not knowing the truth, but the idea that only the whole picture is the truth.

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

Well that doesn't make it false right, but what can? Since the concept of the table is inextricably linked to the reality of the table, the same mental process that created the concept can expand on the concept without contradiction.

How about a more difficult example. The perception that Newton's laws were invalidated due to special and general relativity.

In Newton's Principia his laws were given verbally. The 2nd law in particular is a statement of relation between mass, acceleration, and force. Now there are two interpretations of what happens when you introduce relativity.

1. Since Newton assumed space was a constant and uniform his laws are wrong.

2. Since Newton assumed space was constant and uniform, his laws are correct in any given inertial frame.

Turns out the correct interpretation is (2). This isn't just because it would be easier on us epistemologically to think so either. When Eisenstein derived relativity he did it with Maxwell's equations which themselves relied on Newton's laws for their proof.

From the very start Eisenstein knew that Newton's laws held in a constant inertial frame, he even described relativity as necessary since that is true.

Without knowledge of relativity, someone using only Newton's laws could very well make bad predictions about perceived quantities, yet still I hold that Newton's laws are true. Just as the baby might not predict the table is flammable (being unaware of the qualities of wood) those qualities he does understand remain true.

Just as Newton might not predict perceived violations of his laws (being unaware that space time is not constant) those laws remain true within the constraints that he created and proved the concept.

We should not see them as destroyed, superseded, nor even expanded; but qualified. The error is not of falsehood but omission.

With this epistemological frame work we need not fear future discoveries or facts. They may expand upon our knowledge, or they may qualify it again. Yet what we know happens will still happen within the constraints of our conceptual framework which may be proven to be less universal than we assume but not less universal than we know.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.


I believe the problem here is not knowing the truth, but the idea that only the whole picture is the truth.


If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?


Well that doesn't make it false right, but what can? Since the concept of the table is inextricably linked to the reality of the table, the same mental process that created the concept can expand on the concept without contradiction.



How about a more difficult example. The perception that Newton's laws were invalidated due to special and general relativity.

In Newton's Principia his laws were given verbally. The 2nd law in particular is a statement of relation between mass, acceleration, and force. Now there are two interpretations of what happens when you introduce relativity.

1. Since Newton assumed space was a constant and uniform his laws are wrong.

2. Since Newton assumed space was constant and uniform, his laws are correct in any given inertial frame.

Turns out the correct interpretation is (2). This isn't just because it would be easier on us epistemologically to think so either. When Eisenstein derived relativity he did it with Maxwell's equations which themselves relied on Newton's laws for their proof.

From the very start Eisenstein knew that Newton's laws held in a constant inertial frame, he even described relativity as necessary since that is true.

Without knowledge of relativity, someone using only Newton's laws could very well make bad predictions about perceived quantities, yet still I hold that Newton's laws are true. Just as the baby might not predict the table is flammable (being unaware of the qualities of wood) those qualities he does understand remain true.

Just as Newton might not predict perceived violations of his laws (being unaware that space time is not constant) those laws remain true within the constraints that he created and proved the concept.

We should not see them as destroyed, superseded, nor even expanded; but qualified. The error is not of falsehood but omission.

With this epistemological frame work we need not fear future discoveries or facts. They may expand upon our knowledge, or they may qualify it again. Yet what we know happens will still happen within the constraints of our conceptual framework which may be proven to be less universal than we assume but not less universal than we know.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

Also, Newtons ideas explicitly contradict Einsteins. They both cannot be true. For example, Newton believed gravity was an invisible force between two objects, Einstein said it is a dimple in the fabric of space-time. Guess what? Einstein was right.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

Also, Newtons ideas explicitly contradict Einsteins. They both cannot be true.
That is not true.

For example, Newton believed gravity was an invisible force between two objects, Einstein said it is a dimple in the fabric of space-time. Guess what? Einstein was right.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Don't pretend this is as simple as "Eisenstein was right", even today QED theorist throw a temper-tantrum if you ask them to apply relativity to quantum values of mass, time and energy.

It can be a force and a depression in space time at the same time, true neither conceptualization can be fully correct. Just as light cannot be fully described as a particle, a probability, or a wave.

We may not ever be able to find a suitable analogy, and light will simply be light while gravity will simply be gravity; concepts unto themselves having truth only in how they relate entities.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:34:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

The problem is that there could be a fact you don't know about what makes what you believe is justified. false. Since you cannot rule it out, your knowledge is faith based, not truly justified.


If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

That is the problem; nothing you said was relevant.


Also, Newtons ideas explicitly contradict Einsteins. They both cannot be true.
That is not true.

Of course it is.


For example, Newton believed gravity was an invisible force between two objects, Einstein said it is a dimple in the fabric of space-time. Guess what? Einstein was right.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Don't pretend this is as simple as "Eisenstein was right", even today QED theorist throw a temper-tantrum if you ask them to apply relativity to quantum values of mass, time and energy.

It can be a force and a depression in space time at the same time, true neither conceptualization can be fully correct. Just as light cannot be fully described as a particle, a probability, or a wave.

We may not ever be able to find a suitable analogy, and light will simply be light while gravity will simply be gravity; concepts unto themselves having truth only in how they relate entities.

Both conceptualizations are not valid lol Einstein was right, Newton was wrong... It is truly that simple.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:37:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The people who thought the Earth was flat, we justified. Everywhere they looked, they saw flat land. Everything they observed confirmed that hypothesis, nothing contradicted it. They called it knowledge, but they were wrong, as there were facts they didn't know about which made that proposition false. The problem is that we can never know whether or not, there are facts we don't know about which entail a certain proposition we think is true, is false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:41:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems obvious that the sun rises, right? People believed this for the longest time. It was obvious. The sun clearly, self-evidently rises. However, this is false, we go around the sun. It is an illusion. We can NEVER know anything with certainty, other than necessary truths. We can claim we are justified, but we can name PLENTY of times in history when people thought they were justified, and were wrong. We just don't know. We take it on faith that there aren't facts that we don't know about, which entail that what we take to be true, for granted, is really false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 2:46:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, in order to have knowledge that X is true, X has to be true (false knowledge, isn't knowledge by definition, and that is a misnomer). However, X can only be true, if there aren't facts we don't know about, which entail that X is false, because if these facts exist, then X is false, and you cannot have real knowledge that X is true. However, the only way to rule out any of these facts which possibly entail X is false, is to have knowledge about them, however, if that is the case, then it isn't a fact we don't know about which entails X is false, it is a fact you do know about.

So, we can all THINK we are justified, due to whatever reason for whatever reason, but do claim we KNOW isn't justified.

Yes, certainty is required for true knowledge, otherwise is "synthetic" knowledge, or "knock off" knowledge.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 3:06:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?

I can add to this a bit more as I have foreseen another issue

4. The reality is by my definition what the senses can experience, directly or indirectly. Anything that cannot manifest in any way whatsoever via the senses are by definition, not part of my reality (such as a unicorn living in an alternate, unrelated dimension)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:41:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 2:34:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

The problem is that there could be a fact you don't know about what makes what you believe is justified. false. Since you cannot rule it out, your knowledge is faith based, not truly justified.

So you're saying we can't be certain, and somehow undiscovered facts should affect our certainty such that it is never finite in any sense?

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

That is the problem; nothing you said was relevant.

I said that is a false problem because each piece of the puzzle exists. Certainty about a piece can be had, just not its borders or relation to all other pieces until the other pieces are known as well. No amount of discovery can change the image on the single tile.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Both conceptualizations are not valid lol Einstein was right, Newton was wrong... It is truly that simple.

If Newton was wrong why do his laws appear in relativity calculations?

At 2/26/2014 2:37:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The people who thought the Earth was flat, we justified. Everywhere they looked, they saw flat land. Everything they observed confirmed that hypothesis, nothing contradicted it. They called it knowledge, but they were wrong, as there were facts they didn't know about which made that proposition false. The problem is that we can never know whether or not, there are facts we don't know about which entail a certain proposition we think is true, is false.

The earth is flat within the scope and margin of error that it was perceived to be. In calculus we see any curve approaches a linear slope when the difference is small enough. It is still an idealization that architects, engineers, and scientist adopt constantly. The only error was being unable to realize extrapolation is not guaranteed knowledge. The statement had to be qualified once new information was found.

At 2/26/2014 2:41:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems obvious that the sun rises, right? People believed this for the longest time. It was obvious. The sun clearly, self-evidently rises. However, this is false, we go around the sun.

Before we said "the sun rises" because that is what we saw. Now we know why the sun rises.

It is an illusion.

It is not, it's a description of natural behavior.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 8:41:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 2:34:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

The problem is that there could be a fact you don't know about what makes what you believe is justified. false. Since you cannot rule it out, your knowledge is faith based, not truly justified.

So you're saying we can't be certain, and somehow undiscovered facts should affect our certainty such that it is never finite in any sense?

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

That is the problem; nothing you said was relevant.

I said that is a false problem because each piece of the puzzle exists. Certainty about a piece can be had, just not its borders or relation to all other pieces until the other pieces are known as well. No amount of discovery can change the image on the single tile.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Both conceptualizations are not valid lol Einstein was right, Newton was wrong... It is truly that simple.

If Newton was wrong why do his laws appear in relativity calculations?

At 2/26/2014 2:37:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The people who thought the Earth was flat, we justified. Everywhere they looked, they saw flat land. Everything they observed confirmed that hypothesis, nothing contradicted it. They called it knowledge, but they were wrong, as there were facts they didn't know about which made that proposition false. The problem is that we can never know whether or not, there are facts we don't know about which entail a certain proposition we think is true, is false.

The earth is flat within the scope and margin of error that it was perceived to be. In calculus we see any curve approaches a linear slope when the difference is small enough. It is still an idealization that architects, engineers, and scientist adopt constantly. The only error was being unable to realize extrapolation is not guaranteed knowledge. The statement had to be qualified once new information was found.

At 2/26/2014 2:41:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems obvious that the sun rises, right? People believed this for the longest time. It was obvious. The sun clearly, self-evidently rises. However, this is false, we go around the sun.

Before we said "the sun rises" because that is what we saw. Now we know why the sun rises.

It is an illusion.

It is not, it's a description of natural behavior.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 9:36:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 8:41:38 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:34:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

The problem is that there could be a fact you don't know about what makes what you believe is justified. false. Since you cannot rule it out, your knowledge is faith based, not truly justified.

So you're saying we can't be certain, and somehow undiscovered facts should affect our certainty such that it is never finite in any sense?

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

That is the problem; nothing you said was relevant.

I said that is a false problem because each piece of the puzzle exists. Certainty about a piece can be had, just not its borders or relation to all other pieces until the other pieces are known as well. No amount of discovery can change the image on the single tile.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Both conceptualizations are not valid lol Einstein was right, Newton was wrong... It is truly that simple.

If Newton was wrong why do his laws appear in relativity calculations?

At 2/26/2014 2:37:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The people who thought the Earth was flat, we justified. Everywhere they looked, they saw flat land. Everything they observed confirmed that hypothesis, nothing contradicted it. They called it knowledge, but they were wrong, as there were facts they didn't know about which made that proposition false. The problem is that we can never know whether or not, there are facts we don't know about which entail a certain proposition we think is true, is false.

The earth is flat within the scope and margin of error that it was perceived to be. In calculus we see any curve approaches a linear slope when the difference is small enough. It is still an idealization that architects, engineers, and scientist adopt constantly. The only error was being unable to realize extrapolation is not guaranteed knowledge. The statement had to be qualified once new information was found.

At 2/26/2014 2:41:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems obvious that the sun rises, right? People believed this for the longest time. It was obvious. The sun clearly, self-evidently rises. However, this is false, we go around the sun.

Before we said "the sun rises" because that is what we saw. Now we know why the sun rises.

It is an illusion.

It is not, it's a description of natural behavior.

Right, i'm no scientists, but NEwton and all the others throughout the past had developed mathematical and scientific models that showed the earth had to be round. The people who thought the earth was flat, were facing an epistemic crisis.

If the earth was round, then we should expect to see something that would show it to be round. Math and Science formulas provided the foundations for that. Then technology developed telescopes later confirmed this theory as true.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 11:23:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 2:53:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, prima facie cases and inductive reasoning is PURELY a human invention. There is no non-question begging way to justify these types of reasoning. They seem to work, but then again, maybe there is something we don't know about which makes that false? This problem is troubling to me.

Why does it trouble you?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:50:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

That's not justified. You don't know whether your senses are reliable or not. You take it on faith.


2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

You assume other people exist. They could be hallucinations. How do you know?


3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

This I agree with. Even if we may be wrong, we have no other choice but to assume we are correct, at least at some level. That still doesn't solve the problem though.


Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:51:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 3:06:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?

I can add to this a bit more as I have foreseen another issue

4. The reality is by my definition what the senses can experience, directly or indirectly. Anything that cannot manifest in any way whatsoever via the senses are by definition, not part of my reality (such as a unicorn living in an alternate, unrelated dimension)

This means your mind can't exist, because you cannot externally experience it thought the senses. Your mind is the one thing you cannot doubt.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:59:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 8:41:38 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:34:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:24:55 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/26/2014 2:13:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 1:51:19 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

Unless the universe contradicts itself there is no true fact Y that can make true fact X false.

Assuming the fact you THINK is true, is actually true. My whole point is that you could never know that.

Well if we can't say something is true, isn't that a problem enough without saying "what if we find something that shows it to be false" ? They seem to be one in the same.

The problem is that there could be a fact you don't know about what makes what you believe is justified. false. Since you cannot rule it out, your knowledge is faith based, not truly justified.

So you're saying we can't be certain, and somehow undiscovered facts should affect our certainty such that it is never finite in any sense?

If you as a toddler learn that a table is a table, and then learn that it is made of wood and thus an instance of wood; is it any less a table?

This assumes there is a table, maybe it is an illusion?

Then the concept of the table would have to be qualified as having reality only in the matrix. Within the presumption of reality it has reality.

None of this actually addresses the epistemilogical problem mentioned.

I thought the problem presented was that certainty can't exist because that would imply we know every possible fact.

That is the problem; nothing you said was relevant.

I said that is a false problem because each piece of the puzzle exists.

If you think it is a false problem, then you don't understand the problem.

Certainty about a piece can be had, just not its borders or relation to all other pieces until the other pieces are known as well.

You cannot have certainty on ANY piece, because you lack knowledge of any piece which may negative the validity of the piece in question. This is the problem . I just don't think you understand the problem...

No amount of discovery can change the image on the single tile.

Both conceptualizations are valid, both are attempts at analogy. Explaining the working of the universe using a secondary epiphenomenon.

Both conceptualizations are not valid lol Einstein was right, Newton was wrong... It is truly that simple.

If Newton was wrong why do his laws appear in relativity calculations?

Newton was right about some things, Einstein showed he was likely wrong about others.


At 2/26/2014 2:37:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The people who thought the Earth was flat, we justified. Everywhere they looked, they saw flat land. Everything they observed confirmed that hypothesis, nothing contradicted it. They called it knowledge, but they were wrong, as there were facts they didn't know about which made that proposition false. The problem is that we can never know whether or not, there are facts we don't know about which entail a certain proposition we think is true, is false.

The earth is flat within the scope and margin of error that it was perceived to be. In calculus we see any curve approaches a linear slope when the difference is small enough. It is still an idealization that architects, engineers, and scientist adopt constantly. The only error was being unable to realize extrapolation is not guaranteed knowledge. The statement had to be qualified once new information was found.

The is the point! Maybe there is new information out there, we don't know about it, which makes all of our beliefs false (like new information made it false that the Earth was flat). Since you cannot rule it out, the problem stands.


At 2/26/2014 2:41:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems obvious that the sun rises, right? People believed this for the longest time. It was obvious. The sun clearly, self-evidently rises. However, this is false, we go around the sun.

Before we said "the sun rises" because that is what we saw. Now we know why the sun rises.

EXACTLY!

This is the point. What we know now could be based no ignorance to facts that negate what we believe. This is my entire point, that's for agreeing!


It is an illusion.

It is not, it's a description of natural behavior.

Natural behavior could be an illusion. You have no idea. You take your "knowledge" on faith, and it isn't justified.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:04:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 12:50:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

That's not justified. You don't know whether your senses are reliable or not. You take it on faith.

Why not? Emperical data is emperical data. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad data, it's still data (data being what is being told to the brain via the senses).


2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

You assume other people exist. They could be hallucinations. How do you know?

I wasn't talking about other people, I mean cross-checking the empirical data gained from sight for example with touch, for example every time you grasp a handle of the door that you see.


3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

This I agree with. Even if we may be wrong, we have no other choice but to assume we are correct, at least at some level. That still doesn't solve the problem though.

It's similarly addressed by the 'brain in a vat' "problem". Which asks the question, how do you know the reality is the real one. The answer being, the reality perceived is my reality, regardless of whether there is a higher one of not. It doesn't matter, the reality I perceive is my own reality, again you have to take an 'I don't care approach'.

Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?

This means your mind can't exist, because you cannot externally experience it thought the senses. Your mind is the one thing you cannot doubt.

There's no way of getting around of hard solipsism as far as I understand. I don't accept 'This means your mind can't exist', since we don't agree on the presuppositions of what 'mind' is.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 1:04:22 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/26/2014 12:50:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 3:02:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 2:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Any claim someone makes, unless it is necessarily true, there could always be something we don't know about that makes that false. Unless we are omniscient, how can we justify any of the claims we make? For example, it doesn't matter how concrete something seems to you as a truth, unless it is necessarily true, it is possible, for all you know, that there is something you are unaware of which makes that "truth" false. Unless that truth is necessarily true, how can we know anything is true without being omniscient? Basically, there could always be fact X that makes Y false, that we don't know about, for all we know.

1. Justification comes empirically, what is perceived via the senses.

That's not justified. You don't know whether your senses are reliable or not. You take it on faith.

Why not?

Because you don't know if it is true data, it could be a trick for all you know.

Emperical data is emperical data. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad data, it's still data (data being what is being told to the brain via the senses).

How do you know? Maybe this "data" is an illusion, and there is no data at all? You don't know lol This is the point.



2. The senses are frequently cross-checked with each other which gives great confidence in their reliability

You assume other people exist. They could be hallucinations. How do you know?

I wasn't talking about other people, I mean cross-checking the empirical data gained from sight for example with touch, for example every time you grasp a handle of the door that you see.

This assumes there is a door, and a handle. Everything you are saying is based in naive assumptions. You don't know whether anything you think you know is true, is true. The existence of people, the sun, the sky... You cannot prove any of it.



3. The senses could all be uniformly wrong... In the same way... Every time. But I don't particularly care since I am a slave to them.

This I agree with. Even if we may be wrong, we have no other choice but to assume we are correct, at least at some level. That still doesn't solve the problem though.

It's similarly addressed by the 'brain in a vat' "problem". Which asks the question, how do you know the reality is the real one. The answer being, the reality perceived is my reality, regardless of whether there is a higher one of not. It doesn't matter, the reality I perceive is my own reality, again you have to take an 'I don't care approach'.

It is your own reality, but this reality could still be fake.


Does that satisfactorily answer your 'justification' requisite for knowledge?

This means your mind can't exist, because you cannot externally experience it thought the senses. Your mind is the one thing you cannot doubt.

There's no way of getting around of hard solipsism as far as I understand. I don't accept 'This means your mind can't exist', since we don't agree on the presuppositions of what 'mind' is.

A mind is what you are using right now to type this. A mind is what allowed you to introspect...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 1:44:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that we have no other choice than to accept certain assumptions, but that doesn't mean they are objectively correct assumptions. This is problematic for me, because how can we know for sure these things are true? If we don't know for sure, or with certainty, then it isn't real knowledge, but synthetic or knock off knowledge.