Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thought on Paradox of Epistemic Nihilism

tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have a thought (which I've had for about a month now). The paradox of epistemic nihilism states that claiming that epistemic nihilism is true is contradictory, since truth is rejected by epistemic nihilism.

The objection is circular. It assumes that the contradiction itself is 'true', therefore it assumes that the premise is true - therefore the premise holds that something can be true, assuming the conclusion. Furthermore, it assumes the logical validity of the Law of Noncontradiction, which is not fundamentally justifiable under epistemic nihilism.

In fact, the paradox itself falls into Munchaussen trilemma:

1. It relies on the axiomatic Law of Noncontradiction
2. It is circular - presuming the conclusion in one of its premises
3. The paradox is infinitely regressive, since it leads to an infinitely regressive attempt at fundamental justification of each, being circular
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 5:55:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Circularity is only a problem for premises that are not perfectly general. If a premise appeals to itself, we can only call that a "problem" if it's not necessarily true to begin with. But since any meaningful definition of truth critically depends on the law of noncontradiction (if truth didn't meant what it meant, then what are we even talking about?) saying that the law of noncontradiction is not justifiably circular amounts to saying "But how can be assured that truth (what is justifiable) is true?" The answer, of course, is that "what is true" is defined by truth, so there was never even the slightest chance they would diverge.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 5:58:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

It's nothing that a little eugenics can't solve.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:34:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

Objectivists think that Rand's entire philosophy is contained within A = A. So if I think a comma could have been better placed on page 478 of Atlas Shrugged then I've "retrogressed to disputing A = A" in their eyes.

The question is not "whether A = A" in general, but about what the import of A = A is; whether it can be drilled into the fabric of the cosmos and used to derive a worldview, universal ethics and political economy from. "A = A" is true in the very trivial sense that the figure on the left side of the equal sign resembles the one on the right of it. Beyond that, we might say that discourse is in general more productive where people use terms in consistent ways, but even this is another proposition which goes beyond what we can derive purely from the statement that A is indeed A.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:45:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 5:55:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Circularity is only a problem for premises that are not perfectly general. If a premise appeals to itself, we can only call that a "problem" if it's not necessarily true to begin with. But since any meaningful definition of truth critically depends on the law of noncontradiction (if truth didn't meant what it meant, then what are we even talking about?) saying that the law of noncontradiction is not justifiably circular amounts to saying "But how can be assured that truth (what is justifiable) is true?" The answer, of course, is that "what is true" is defined by truth, so there was never even the slightest chance they would diverge.

The law of noncontradiction is not circular, because the statement that "A is not also not-A in the same sense and at the same time" is not contained within the figure 'A'.

You might say that the attitude I take up toward 'A' upon reading it implies something along the lines of that law, but this is not circular any more than a book about biology is circular in assuming that its reader will have a functioning brain, heart, and so on.

Also, epistemic nihilism does not directly refute the law of noncontradiction. Rather, it challenges the possibility of absolutely certain knowledge. The law of noncontradiction does not state "There is absolutely certain knowledge." This is an additional statement beyond that law which requires substantiation.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:20:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 5:45:56 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/8/2015 5:55:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Circularity is only a problem for premises that are not perfectly general. If a premise appeals to itself, we can only call that a "problem" if it's not necessarily true to begin with. But since any meaningful definition of truth critically depends on the law of noncontradiction (if truth didn't meant what it meant, then what are we even talking about?) saying that the law of noncontradiction is not justifiably circular amounts to saying "But how can be assured that truth (what is justifiable) is true?" The answer, of course, is that "what is true" is defined by truth, so there was never even the slightest chance they would diverge.

The law of noncontradiction is not circular, because the statement that "A is not also not-A in the same sense and at the same time" is not contained within the figure 'A'.

How is it not contained in it? A is only meaningful if isn't what it's not. Otherwise, what is it? How can we speak of it as a specific thing if it can be anything, even things which it purports to differ from? I also don't see the relevance of this to my claim that logic is circular. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:20:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/9/2015 5:45:56 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/8/2015 5:55:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Circularity is only a problem for premises that are not perfectly general. If a premise appeals to itself, we can only call that a "problem" if it's not necessarily true to begin with. But since any meaningful definition of truth critically depends on the law of noncontradiction (if truth didn't meant what it meant, then what are we even talking about?) saying that the law of noncontradiction is not justifiably circular amounts to saying "But how can be assured that truth (what is justifiable) is true?" The answer, of course, is that "what is true" is defined by truth, so there was never even the slightest chance they would diverge.

The law of noncontradiction is not circular, because the statement that "A is not also not-A in the same sense and at the same time" is not contained within the figure 'A'.

How is it not contained in it? A is only meaningful if isn't what it's not. Otherwise, what is it? How can we speak of it as a specific thing if it can be anything, even things which it purports to differ from? I also don't see the relevance of this to my claim that logic is circular. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

"...which is purports to differ from..."

Here is the problem. You are building parts of our dialogue about 'A' straight into 'A' itself. A is just the lines which make its figure, and therefore it does not purport anything. Thus, to say that "A is not not-A" adds a level of differentiation, which, yes, is contained within my recognition of A, but not within a figure which precedes any recognition. Further, there is another level of claims added when you state that "I have absolutely certain knowledge that A is not not-A" which is not contained within the lines of the figure A, nor within the statement "A is not not-A". This is provable since the word "is" is not absolutely synonymous with "is, absolutely certainly" since we use the word "is" in empirical statements which are not absolutely certain. None of these levels are built into the previous ones in the way you are claiming, which is what my challenge to your claims about circularity consists in.

Please keep in mind that the purported (self) containment relationships between each of these levels of proposition (A, "A", "A is A", "A is A and not not-A", "I have absolutely certain knowledge that A is A and not not-A", etc...) must be absolute for your system to function, and so any hole whatsoever - however seemingly negligible - which allows for one level not to contain another in any sense should properly mean the collapse of the entire system like a house of cards.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 5:16:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 5:58:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

It's nothing that a little eugenics can't solve.

Jesus I just saw this post lol. Just when I thought you guys were becoming more reasonable, you pull out the eugenics.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 1:39:17 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

I don't advocate for epistemic nihilism -- all I said was that the paradox of epistemic nihilism is flawed.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 5:18:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
If epistemic nihilism was "true" then sharing knowledge wouldn't be possible at all. Rational discussion would be impossible.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:16:24 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
Your objection is inaccurate. The paradox is actually a proof by contradiction. If we assume epistemic Nihilism is true, then X then Y then Z etc. The final conclusion of the argument is entailed that Z is true, where Z is contradictory if true. In this particular case, the contradictory conclusion is 'Truth cannot be true.'

This is the proof by contradiction:
>If Epistemic Nihilism is true, no statement is true.
>Epistemic Nihilism is a statement
>Epistemic Nihilism is not true if it is true.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:05:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:16:24 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:

Your objection is inaccurate. The paradox is actually a proof by contradiction. If we assume epistemic Nihilism is true, then X then Y then Z etc. The final conclusion of the argument is entailed that Z is true, where Z is contradictory if true. In this particular case, the contradictory conclusion is 'Truth cannot be true.'

This is the proof by contradiction:
>If Epistemic Nihilism is true, no statement is true.
>Epistemic Nihilism is a statement
>Epistemic Nihilism is not true if it is true.

But epistemic nihilism is more justifiable than alternatives, per my objection. Read Envisage's debate with Ajabi on the topic; it's interesting.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 6:20:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:16:24 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
Your objection is inaccurate. The paradox is actually a proof by contradiction. If we assume epistemic Nihilism is true, then X then Y then Z etc. The final conclusion of the argument is entailed that Z is true, where Z is contradictory if true. In this particular case, the contradictory conclusion is 'Truth cannot be true.'

This is the proof by contradiction:
>If Epistemic Nihilism is true, no statement is true.
>Epistemic Nihilism is a statement
>Epistemic Nihilism is not true if it is true.

The only way this functions is by assuming the absolute broadest sense of "true" which monopolizes all "meaning" understood in any sense whatsoever, where clearly what the epistemic nihilist is objecting to is the strict philosophical concept of objective Truth or Knowledge as Justified True Belief. To assume that Truth "with a capital T" is the only principle which can ground any assertion is of course to assume your conclusion in advance, and doesn't amount to much more than simply stating the opposite conclusion, rather than an actual rebuttal. At the very least, to assume that your opponent has not considered an objection this basic is bad form in that it is to break the principle of charity.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:18:43 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 6:20:48 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:16:24 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
Your objection is inaccurate. The paradox is actually a proof by contradiction. If we assume epistemic Nihilism is true, then X then Y then Z etc. The final conclusion of the argument is entailed that Z is true, where Z is contradictory if true. In this particular case, the contradictory conclusion is 'Truth cannot be true.'

This is the proof by contradiction:
>If Epistemic Nihilism is true, no statement is true.
>Epistemic Nihilism is a statement
>Epistemic Nihilism is not true if it is true.

The only way this functions is by assuming the absolute broadest sense of "true" which monopolizes all "meaning" understood in any sense whatsoever, where clearly what the epistemic nihilist is objecting to is the strict philosophical concept of objective Truth or Knowledge as Justified True Belief. To assume that Truth "with a capital T" is the only principle which can ground any assertion is of course to assume your conclusion in advance, and doesn't amount to much more than simply stating the opposite conclusion, rather than an actual rebuttal. At the very least, to assume that your opponent has not considered an objection this basic is bad form in that it is to break the principle of charity.

The definition of truth I use specifically applies to truth functional statements. A truth functional statement has a binary value dependent upon it's logical consistency. 'True' in this sense would mean logically coherent. Only logically coherent statements can apply to reality. Working with this definition, Nihilism is not logically coherent, which is to say, Nihilism isn't true.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:20:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:05:40 PM, tejretics wrote:
But epistemic nihilism is more justifiable than alternatives, per my objection. Read Envisage's debate with Ajabi on the topic; it's interesting.

A statement is either true, or it is not true. If it is false, then it is false along with every other false statement and cannot be argued for on the grounds of logic. You can make a subjective appeal to preference etc, however that is not an objection to the fact that Nihilism is logically incoherent.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:42:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 9:18:43 PM, Smithereens wrote:
The definition of truth I use specifically applies to truth functional statements. A truth functional statement has a binary value dependent upon it's logical consistency. 'True' in this sense would mean logically coherent. Only logically coherent statements can apply to reality. Working with this definition, Nihilism is not logically coherent, which is to say, Nihilism isn't true.

This post is confusing to me since it seems you're saying that the only criteria of the truth of a statement is its internal consistency? This doesn't seem to give a statement any 'hold' on the world, and it would even exacerbate the problem of infinite regress outlined in the OP.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 9:33:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 4:42:15 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:18:43 PM, Smithereens wrote:
The definition of truth I use specifically applies to truth functional statements. A truth functional statement has a binary value dependent upon it's logical consistency. 'True' in this sense would mean logically coherent. Only logically coherent statements can apply to reality. Working with this definition, Nihilism is not logically coherent, which is to say, Nihilism isn't true.

This post is confusing to me since it seems you're saying that the only criteria of the truth of a statement is its internal consistency? This doesn't seem to give a statement any 'hold' on the world, and it would even exacerbate the problem of infinite regress outlined in the OP.

To illustrate what I mean, it's commonly accepted that there are 3 different epistemic 'levels' of possibility. The highest order is logical possibility. A statement can be true if it does not contradict itself. A statement contradicts itself if it has no internal consistency. 'This statement is false,' is a logically inconsistent claim. The other two levels are physical possibility and actual possibility, which are used to determine what is true about our world. In the barest sense however, I'm talking about truth in the logically possible context.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:10:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have a thought (which I've had for about a month now). The paradox of epistemic nihilism states that claiming that epistemic nihilism is true is contradictory, since truth is rejected by epistemic nihilism.

The objection is circular. It assumes that the contradiction itself is 'true', therefore it assumes that the premise is true - therefore the premise holds that something can be true, assuming the conclusion. Furthermore, it assumes the logical validity of the Law of Noncontradiction, which is not fundamentally justifiable under epistemic nihilism.

In fact, the paradox itself falls into Munchaussen trilemma:

1. It relies on the axiomatic Law of Noncontradiction
2. It is circular - presuming the conclusion in one of its premises
3. The paradox is infinitely regressive, since it leads to an infinitely regressive attempt at fundamental justification of each, being circular

- That's why having a nuanced distinction between Awareness & Conception helps with problems like these. So far, I haven't found any such nuanced made in Western Thought.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:17:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:42:15 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:18:43 PM, Smithereens wrote:
The definition of truth I use specifically applies to truth functional statements. A truth functional statement has a binary value dependent upon it's logical consistency. 'True' in this sense would mean logically coherent. Only logically coherent statements can apply to reality. Working with this definition, Nihilism is not logically coherent, which is to say, Nihilism isn't true.

This post is confusing to me since it seems you're saying that the only criteria of the truth of a statement is its internal consistency? This doesn't seem to give a statement any 'hold' on the world, and it would even exacerbate the problem of infinite regress outlined in the OP.

To illustrate what I mean, it's commonly accepted that there are 3 different epistemic 'levels' of possibility. The highest order is logical possibility. A statement can be true if it does not contradict itself. A statement contradicts itself if it has no internal consistency. 'This statement is false,' is a logically inconsistent claim. The other two levels are physical possibility and actual possibility, which are used to determine what is true about our world. In the barest sense however, I'm talking about truth in the logically possible context.

Yeah, but the problem is that you're using this "barest sense" of a certain necessary condition to refute nihilism, which doesn't use that definition. "There is no objective truth" doesn't equate to "there is no internal consistency" because while that is perhaps a necessary condition, it isn't necessary and sufficient. It would be like refuting the claim that there are no unicorns by proving that 'animals' exist; just because a statement can contain symbols that mutually refer to each other consistently, doesn't give that statement a normative sway over an 'objective universe'. A sufficient proof of objectivity would involve all three of your levels, and establish a code of truth and knowledge which radically distinguishes it from opinion.

To equate "No statements are objectively (absolutely) true" with "All statements are false" assumes a paradigm of language which should be the conclusion, and not the premise, of the realist's argument against nihilism, if they're not going to assume their position in advance.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:22:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The appeal to self-contradiction only applies in the weak sense that an incorrect statement about the human body is self-contradictory. If someone is typing an account of how human intestines work, and their account is such that if they were correct, they would be dead (because intestines couldn't work in the way they're claiming), this doesn't mean that someone of an opposing view doesn't need to establish their own position in order to convince them.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:04:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 4:17:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:42:15 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:18:43 PM, Smithereens wrote:
The definition of truth I use specifically applies to truth functional statements. A truth functional statement has a binary value dependent upon it's logical consistency. 'True' in this sense would mean logically coherent. Only logically coherent statements can apply to reality. Working with this definition, Nihilism is not logically coherent, which is to say, Nihilism isn't true.

This post is confusing to me since it seems you're saying that the only criteria of the truth of a statement is its internal consistency? This doesn't seem to give a statement any 'hold' on the world, and it would even exacerbate the problem of infinite regress outlined in the OP.

To illustrate what I mean, it's commonly accepted that there are 3 different epistemic 'levels' of possibility. The highest order is logical possibility. A statement can be true if it does not contradict itself. A statement contradicts itself if it has no internal consistency. 'This statement is false,' is a logically inconsistent claim. The other two levels are physical possibility and actual possibility, which are used to determine what is true about our world. In the barest sense however, I'm talking about truth in the logically possible context.

Yeah, but the problem is that you're using this "barest sense" of a certain necessary condition to refute nihilism, which doesn't use that definition. "There is no objective truth" doesn't equate to "there is no internal consistency" because while that is perhaps a necessary condition, it isn't necessary and sufficient. It would be like refuting the claim that there are no unicorns by proving that 'animals' exist; just because a statement can contain symbols that mutually refer to each other consistently, doesn't give that statement a normative sway over an 'objective universe'. A sufficient proof of objectivity would involve all three of your levels, and establish a code of truth and knowledge which radically distinguishes it from opinion.

To equate "No statements are objectively (absolutely) true" with "All statements are false" assumes a paradigm of language which should be the conclusion, and not the premise, of the realist's argument against nihilism, if they're not going to assume their position in advance.

Nihilism supposedly rejects objective truth. It follows that since truth is a descriptor of that which is possible, Nihilism rejects the ability for statements to be objectively possible. This is now Modal logic S4. If it is possible that a statement is necessarily true or false, then that statement is necessarily true or false.

I claim that possibility is represented by the logical internal consistency of a claim. If it is logically impossible for a married bachelor to exist, then it is also physically and actually impossible for a married bachelor to exist. This is a simplification of "If it is possible that a married bachelor cannot exist, a married bachelor cannot exist." A "married bachelor cannot exist" is a necessary statement. Ergo, we have an objective truth.

'No statements are objectively true,' is the equivalent of "All statements are possibly false." In symbolic logic, this is very easy to refute, but I can't really do it on the forums here. Simply know that by process of simplification, we derive an axiom where a possibly true, necessary statement is a necessary statement, ie objectively true for all possible worlds.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:56:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
I have a thought (which I've had for about a month now). The paradox of epistemic nihilism states that claiming that epistemic nihilism is true is contradictory, since truth is rejected by epistemic nihilism.

The objection is circular. It assumes that the contradiction itself is 'true', therefore it assumes that the premise is true - therefore the premise holds that something can be true, assuming the conclusion. Furthermore, it assumes the logical validity of the Law of Noncontradiction, which is not fundamentally justifiable under epistemic nihilism.

In fact, the paradox itself falls into Munchaussen trilemma:

1. It relies on the axiomatic Law of Noncontradiction
2. It is circular - presuming the conclusion in one of its premises
3. The paradox is infinitely regressive, since it leads to an infinitely regressive attempt at fundamental justification of each, being circular

You might consider this: Epistemic nihilism can only either be true or false. Let's look at both cases.
If epistemic nihilism is false, then it is false by definition.
If epistemic nihilism is true, then it argues its own nonexistence, contradicting its own truth value. The law of noncontradiction is saying that a world in which epistemic nihilism is true cannot logically exist. THEREFORE it is false.
The law of noncontradiction doesn't necessarily derive its contradictions by assuming something to be true. It could also do it on the case of it being false. It's perfectly possible to assume a binary falsehood on some statement and derive a contradiction from there, necessitating the statement's being true instead.
I wouldn't really call it circular reasoning. It's more like testing hypotheses (in this case two hypotheses).
It's also possible that the universe isn't bound by the rules of logic, but that's a separate and completely inane discussion entirely.
Does that make sense in any way or am I speaking non-sequitur gibberish?
Senpai has noticed you.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:32:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

It isn't that simple -- we have to presume the truth of logical axioms in order to make sense of reality. But to assert that they are objectively true is to assume that reality has some underlying sense of 'order' which conforms to our cognitive limitations. There's no reason to make that assumption. There's no reason to limit what's "metaphysically possible" to what we are able to coherently conceptualize.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:46:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:

Objections to epistemic nihilism are self-refuting ... but pointing that out is circular because it automatically assumes the truth of logical axioms ... and pointing that out is self-refuting for the same reason ... but there's no objective basis for assuming that the laws of logic are true in the first place ... Conclusion -- studying epistemology is a waste of time and we should all adopt pragmatism instead.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 7:52:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:32:31 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

It isn't that simple -- we have to presume the truth of logical axioms in order to make sense of reality. But to assert that they are objectively true is to assume that reality has some underlying sense of 'order' which conforms to our cognitive limitations. There's no reason to make that assumption. There's no reason to limit what's "metaphysically possible" to what we are able to coherently conceptualize.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 7:57:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 7:52:04 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 12/19/2015 6:32:31 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/8/2015 5:25:11 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that A = A? I really don't understand how anyone can retrogress enough to find it worthwhile to dispute.

It isn't that simple -- we have to presume the truth of logical axioms in order to make sense of reality. But to assert that they are objectively true is to assume that reality has some underlying sense of 'order' which conforms to our cognitive limitations. There's no reason to make that assumption. There's no reason to limit what's "metaphysically possible" to what we are able to coherently conceptualize.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

Wittgenstein sucks.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 11:04:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:46:12 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/8/2015 4:58:03 AM, tejretics wrote:

Objections to epistemic nihilism are circular ... but pointing that out is self-refuting because it automatically assumes the truth of logical axioms ... and pointing that out is, again, circular for the same reason ... but there's no objective basis for assuming that the logical axioms are true in the first place ... Conclusion -- studying epistemology is a waste of time and we should all adopt pragmatism instead.

Edit
Call me King Pootie Tang.