on universal proof: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » on universal proof » on universal proof

on universal proof

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

on universal proof

mrcollision
Canoe Champ

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Location: London, soon to be New York
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 01/03/05 - 06:11 PM:	#1
This is a bit of a rant, maybe a mis-placed rant (for lack of knowing where better to put it). For all "philosophers" who see every philosophical debate as a pointless exercise - since nothing can be proven and therefore all assumptions are useless, please honour their philosophy and regard the necessity to illuminate this fact as pointless. While there is no universal authority to say what is, and what isn't - it would be very honourable, and fruitful (I might add) to remember that we already know of the lack of universal authority and to save us the misfortune of having our enquiries thrown into this nihilistic void. If your philosophy requires you to acknowledge the lack of proving anything beyond doubt then please do so and also take note that it would then be pointless and boring to remind us of this little technicality. While we cannot prove anything beyond doubt, we can still try.
The demand to be loved is the greatest kind of arrogance.

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2038

Posted 01/03/05 - 06:19 PM:	#2
mrcollision wrote: While we cannot prove anything beyond doubt I think we can. Your statement is akin to "we cannot know anything for certain"; we, indeed, can. Simple Reductio Ad Absurdum approach to the statement reveals it.
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

Indeed
raison d’être

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 33

Posted 01/03/05 - 07:27 PM:	#3
dreamweaver wrote: I think we can. Your statement is akin to "we cannot know anything for certain"; we, indeed, can. Simple Reductio Ad Absurdum approach to the statement reveals it. But the statement "we cannot know anything for certain" is merely a guess by a person rather than a claim to objective truth, it too is subject to no certainty like everything else. Every argument or proof proceeds from premises which it did not itself establish, by trying to demonstrate the truth of those premises by other arguments or proofs, then they would have to be based on undemonstrated premises, ad infinitum. And so no certainty can ever be reached. You are also uncertain because you don't know the world. It follows that you must be uncertain about everything that happens in each instance. I can't even be certain that a lion is not in my room, regardless of if I am in it, it may be the case that my senses or memory are mistaken. Notice that this also negates the possibility of knowledge.
JW Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit. -Freda Adler

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 01/03/05 - 07:34 PM:	#4
[Indeed]Notice that this also negates the possibility of knowledge. Why is that? You mean we do not know that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Or that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun? Since when?

Indeed
raison d’être

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 33

Posted 01/03/05 - 07:49 PM:	#5
Gassendi1 wrote: Why is that? You mean we do not know that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Or that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun? Since when? Since always. You may call knowledge 'justified true belief' or put it into a logical definition, but it will remain impossible because although it may be the case that we have the truth (what is actual to the real world) in our heads, we can never be certain this is so. If it were so that an angel confirmed that we were right all along, then perhaps this would suffice, but I am yet to see one. Believing you know something only makes you overly certain about something you can't be certain of at all.
JW Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit. -Freda Adler

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 01/03/05 - 07:56 PM:	#6
Indeed wrote: Since always. You may call knowledge 'justified true belief' or put it into a logical definition, but it will remain impossible because although it may be the case that we have the truth (what is actual to the real world) in our heads, we can never be certain this is so. If it were so that an angel confirmed that we were right all along, then perhaps this would suffice, but I am yet to see one. Why must we be certain in order to know? I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but I recognize that I might be mistaken. I just am not mistaken. And if I am not mistaken, why should it make any difference that I might be mistaken? "But you might be mistaken, and if you are mistaken, then you don't know." Answer, "But I also might not be mistaken, and if I am not mistaken, then I do know." The argument cuts both ways. So, if the possibility of being mistaken is supposed to show I do not know, then why does not the actuality of being correct not show that I do know?

Romach
The Uncommon Factor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2004
Location: In The Matrix
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 399

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/03/05 - 08:09 PM:	#7
dreamweaver wrote: I think we can. Your statement is akin to "we cannot know anything for certain"; we, indeed, can. Simple Reductio Ad Absurdum approach to the statement reveals it. If a reductio ad absurdum is a disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion, then what is the absurdity to which the proposition, "we cannot know anything for certain," leads when carried to its logical conclusion?
It Is What It Is Iff...

Indeed
raison d’être

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 33

Posted 01/03/05 - 08:10 PM:	#8
Gassendi1 wrote: Why must we be certain in order to know? I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but I recognize that I might be mistaken. I just am not mistaken. And if I am not mistaken, why should it make any difference that I might be mistaken? "But you might be mistaken, and if you are mistaken, then you don't know." Answer, "But I also might not be mistaken, and if I am not mistaken, then I do know." The argument cuts both ways. So, if the possibility of being mistaken is supposed to show I do not know, then why does not the actuality of being correct not show that I do know? Don't mix delusion with certainty. No human being (including Gassendi) is equipped to be able to make the statement "I am correct, and I am not mistaken" with any certainty, because there is no certainty to begin with. Knowledge relies not only on having the truth in your mind, but also certainty that it is true.
JW Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit. -Freda Adler

Romach
The Uncommon Factor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2004
Location: In The Matrix
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 399

Posted 01/03/05 - 08:16 PM:	#9
There are degrees of certainty, dreamweaver. Perhaps you mean with perfect certainty, as in "Knowledge is most likely not the result of perfect certainty." One might believe something to be perfectly true such that one might believe that one knows something to be true regardless of one's actual certainty of the thing being true.
It Is What It Is Iff...

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 01/03/05 - 08:19 PM:	#10
Indeed wrote: Don't mix delusion with certainty. No human being (including Gassendi) is equipped to be able to make the statement "I am correct, and I am not mistaken" with any certainty, because there is no certainty to begin with. Knowledge relies not only on having the truth in your mind, but also certainty that it is true. Of course not. I agree. But that doesn't mean no human being is equipped to say, "I know." For instance, I know that Quito is capital of Ecuador, although, of course, I recognize that it may turn out that I was mistaken. But, if I am not mistaken, which I believe I am not, then, given my justification, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. What is wrong with that? Suppose that I have oodles of justification for my belief that Quito is the capital, and that, furthermore, that Quito is the capital. Now it is possible that I should be mistaken. But, as I just pointed out, suppose I am not mistaken. Then, don't I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Why, I ask again, doe the possibility that I am mistaken, when it is suppose that I am not mistaken, show I do not know? I agree it shows I am not certain. But I don't agree that it shows I do not know.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.