On Feb 20, 10:33Â pm, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b15ac24-c0b9-428f-803b-b6a41c58cd0d@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:06 pm, "Sean" blah.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> You have yet to justify the idea of certainty in a certain way that is
>>>> impossible to be mistaken and cannot be in error.
>
>>>> ---------------------------
>
>>>> I think you misunderstand Brian ... that's your job to do for yourself,
>>>> he
>>>> can't do it for you. It isn't a theory either, so there's nothing to
>>>> justify.
>
>>>> Iraq having WMD was a "theory" ... it needed justification. See the
>>>> difference?
>
>>>> When you *realise* that there are no mistakes, and that you are always
>>>> *right*, for you, then you'll be certain you know what he means. :-)
>
>>>> I'm certain of that, 100%% ... absolutely. -
>
>
>> Irrelevant, for me.
>
> It simply describes the human condition. I may be unimportant to the
> topic.
>
> SEAN:
> No Imm .... it describes the authors "beliefs" about the human condition.
> They do not know, they a re mere theorists rambling in the woods looking for
> the highway in all the wrong places.
>
Then if you have beliefs about something you don't have beliefs about
them? That sounds contradictory.
>>> Epistemologists find a number of problems with finding an meta-
>>> justification standard for justifying emperical beliefs.
>
>
>> Of course they find problems ...
>
>>> 1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
>>> beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
>>> justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
>>> beliefs.
>
>> Why should I suppose?
>
> Because you seem to be confusing empirical and theoretical beliefs
> with deduction as a component of predicate logic.
>
> SEAN:
>
> No I am not. It only appears that way to you, because you have no other way
> of interpreting such things. You are the one that is stuck in the box, not
> me. :)
>
Then you have beliefs that need no justification? Why would they be
believable then if they need no justification at all. Maybe you have a
mystical experience and that is enough justification, a feeling that
the belief is right. If so how do we justify these feelings that we
are just right about it?
>>> 2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
>>> reason why it is likely to be true.
>
>> Why do YOU believe that beliefs need to be likely they are true? Most
>> beliefs don't actually get created that way.
>
> Thats a good question why should we believe something is true or false
> just because of the customs of predicate logic, like theories such as
> contradiction, necessity and entailment? I am not taking a position
> either way actually.
>
> SEAN:
> and that's one your biggest problems imho, you just keep rattling off
> someone else postition about things you have no idea whether they are true
> or not. But they "sound" good to you, you post them without having any real
> idea about the truth of such matters.
>
Actually my favorite part of philosophy, for decades, has been
epistemology. I can talk these things down at the coffee shop without
computers or books. Maybe your getting a little autobiographical here
and these things don't seem like something anyone can talk about
because you can't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
> Why do you do that? If you do not "know" why something is or isn't, then
> simply say so and stop pretending you know anything at all except how to
> re-post others beliefs about things who also don;t know much either except
> for their philosphising and theories.
>
> And if you don't know ... but wish to posit a point a view, an opinion, or
> your own beliefs as they stand at the moment, then by all means do so ....
> nothing wrong with that at all, .... but say that that is what they are!!!
>
> As opposed to continually tossing in reams and reams of pseudo information
> about other people's theories and beliefs.
>
> If I wanted to read a book I'd go the damn library mate. If I wanted
> information about what others think about things I'd either do a Google
> search, or ask you direct for any references.
>
>>> 3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
>>> possession of such a reason.
>
>> Who says that should be believed as true?
>
> Well said, "who says" and that puts you in the proper position of
> inductive logic and the probability that reason can be considered as
> evidence in the case of knowledge.
>
> SEAN: That's a crap response Imm.
>
It is an illustration of the concept called necessity and its not
crap. You are doing the same thing that you are criticising.
> The topic is science vs the individual. I'm the individual and I know what I
> know what I know .... and I know what I believe and I know how to reason.
>
> So I ask again ... who says that the above should be believed as being true?
> Do you say that?
>
First order logic is a way to map propositions and conclusions. Are
you asking for a reason to logic, while using logic to ask the
question?
>>> 4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
>>> believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
>>> the belief is likely to be true.
>
>> "only if" .. the bastion of scoundrels n'est pa?
>
> (iff) is a custom most logicians agree upon. Your greivences burden
> you to show the scoundrals wrong brau.
>
> SEAN:
> No way Hose! :)
>
> They said "only if" the onus is on THEM to prove the proposition
> scientifically as being the ONLY way. Not me, thankyou very much. I owe
> them, and you nothing. You posted it, YOU back it up. :)
iff really mean something like, " a word necessarily contains letter"
A written word is a word if and only if it consists of letters. It is
the deductive component in arguments.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> If and only if, in logic and fields that rely on it such as
> mathematics and philosophy, is a logical connective between statements
> which means that the truth of either one of the statements requires
> the truth of the other. Thus, either both statements are true, or both
> are false.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
>
> SEAN:
> More waffle, even if it is functionally accurate from a science or rational
> argument pov.
>
> Trouble is Imm. Pi is NOT rational ... and yet it underpins the entire
> universe of physics. Anyway, can YOU prove even to yourself, the "ONLY" part
> in the prior statement?
> If not, why do you post it?
>
I like Jacques Bernier's approach of matching. Wherin; We can place
the incommensurables between two magnitudes which are congruent with
rational number orderings [JJ: your response to inferencially
(im)mediate collections as opposed to mediated odering here], showing
that this incommensurable is less than the one of this pair, but
greater than the other. This was the method used by Eudoxus:
the method of exhaustion.
By this method, the arithmetic value
of pi can be measured to any necessary
position, for such purposes as
carpentry, plumbing, and
so forth.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/09542544956450ba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion
If Pi reaches exhaustion this doesn't make it completely derived as
one completely known number string.
>>> 5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
>>> one empirical premise.
>
>> Why?
>
> Because First-order logic (FOL) a formal deductive system used by
> mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists.
> Unlike natural languages such as English, FOL uses a wholly
> unambiguous formal language interpreted by mathematical structures.
> FOL is a system of deduction extending propositional logic by allowing
> quantification over individuals of a given domain (universe) of
> discourse. For example, it can be stated in FOL "Every individual has
> the property P". And you are challenging a first order argument.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
>
> SEAN:
>
> So what happens when the Premise is not in itself imperical, but Joe Blogs
> and you just "believes" that it is? Who decides what's empiracle?
>
Empirical just means that you have to refer to some sense data to
reach a conclusion in the case.
> Is Pi "logical" and "rational" or even "imperical"?
>
>>> 6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
>>> on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
>>> contradicting 1.
>
>> So they say. :)
>
> LOL your response is a similar sylogismic apperatus loc.
>
Of course, I am arguing in favor of such apperati and paraphenalia
associated with argument style.
> SEAN:
>
> Thanks .... now, are you capable of discerning the difference between a
> belief and knowing? No, ok. So why are trying to teach me that which I
> already know about which is beyond your current level of comprehension?
>
>
> I know how beliefs work Imm. Believe me! I know it's can be a never ending
> regress into nothingness when the mind gets a hold of such things. But I can
> also get past the Mind Imm ... can you? :)
>
>>> 7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs including completely
>>> justified sceptical beliefs.
>
>>> The 7 propositions seem to eliminate the possibility of emperical
>>> justification of any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to
>>> this untruthfullness of human beliefs in three ways which deal with
>>> the apparent "regress" of one belief depending upon another which
>>> depends upon another and so on:
>
>> Ever heard the term "humans are belief creating entities" - that's what
>> differentiates them from other life forms on the planet. ??
>
> Imm .... don;t reply to me with copy/paste. NOT interetsed .
>
Showing signs of weakening?
> I asked YOU a question, by all means refuse to answer it, but please don't
> stand behind some other beleivers rhetoric. I'm just not interested.
>
> However, nothing wrong with posting info for the group if you think it;s of
> value.
>
> Any chance you'd like to answer my question to you? I'm not interested in
> rhetoric either.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
