You're reframing what I said. I'm not talking about propositions and their truth values. I'm talking about real-world behaviors: how people think, spe...
I have not seen any reason, let alone convincing argument, that establishes that claim. It continues as a baseless claim until someone can provide som...
You repeatedly reframe the matter in terms of belief, as if belief were foundational -- which is why I mentioned vindicating it. Actually, the first w...
Well, that's what we'd end up with, wouldn't we, if we found beliefs that didn't fit the nut structure? It's obvious that almost everyone wants to vin...
I enjoy your thinking. We're not on the same page, though. No, in the same way that I'm one thing, my role as a father is another, and "6-0 tall" is a...
I'm very much enjoying your thoughts. Kinda sorta. Knowledge is a construction: a collection of truths deemed reliable and operable. "Rational" and "i...
Well, we're not born tabula rasa, but neither were we born with indoctrination, presuppositions, etc. Since computer/Internet/AI analogies are all the...
Now why, if all belief is irrational, would I have a belief that knowledge/truth settlements start as belief? I don't believe that -- not because I be...
Not at all. I said we dig down -- under our biases, presuppositions, indoctrination, attachments, etc. -- until we find rock-hard foundations: hard en...
Not "perfect" by a long shot, lol. Plenty of valid criticisms have been raised, but the syllogism isn't the point. I posted it to provoke criticism to...
The likeness is legit to a point, except I fundamentally disagree with Descartes on his entire skeptical project. He sought to find a rock he could bu...
Thanks for the contribution. I don't subscribe to many of the categories you mentioned, let alone to their prioritization. For me, it's simple: Someth...
That doesn't seem "odd" at all. It, actually, should be SOP for anyone engaging in this sort of thing. You assess an idea on the same terms it was dev...
Yeah you hit the nail on the head. You're coming at this as an epistemologist would. That's why 3rd person is important for you. You're taking a bird'...
You showed the distinction, you didn't show how the distinction makes a difference to our topic. In sloppy usage, sure. Are you saying that the differ...
I haven't ignored it since you first brought it up, and I've said so. After working it through, tho, I realized it doesn't matter. We're dealing with ...
Sure. Simply put, epistemics includes whatever we do to make sure that something we think is true actually is true (or find out it's not.) Especially ...
NICE! Almost exactly, but far better job than I did. I suck at syllogisms, lol. I'd say "instead of 'I think'" instead of "above another prefix". Also...
Yes, fair point, but the question is: does it matter? If both work the same, it's all the same. Please explain how the distinction matters. The first ...
Nice catch dude! You're right. I'm not at all interested in the 2nd or 3rd person cases because I'm not trying to build a theory here. I'm only intere...
Hey dude, nice to discuss with someone who is actually thinking! :grin: I find that this kind of glitch often results from the clash between categoric...
One, they're premises. They don't need proof. You're right, I'm relying on the reader's own experience in using the terms and observing they're use. A...
Well, no, we're not in agreement, because I haven't said and don't agree that think can mean the same thing as believe. Nope. I'm not sure I can make ...
Probably. Again, what you mean by belief isn't relevant to the post. The syllogism can't be evaluated on the basis of your definition, because it does...
What you have in mind does, but it's not what I said. "I ____ that P" is a two-part assertion. (think/believe/know in the blank, makes no real differe...
Well, bad call. No "middle" excluded by me, although I won't argue it's not true of your interpretation of what I've said. I can't account for or answ...
It's doing there in an attempt to distinguish the assertion from the statement of relationship to the assertion (which failed miserably as can be seen...
You're, of course, welcome to theorize to your heart's content, just like I do. :blush: That was an enjoyable little read, but it's not responsive to ...
No, not even a little bit. Personally, I don't deal in belief at all. "I think" and -- rarely -- "I know" are all I need, precisely because overextend...
It does not follow just from that either that they're rational or irrational. Sorry, having a hard time following you and relating it to what I've sai...
:rofl: Believing that believing all belief is irrational, is irrational, is irrational. And that's to ignore the irrationality of confusing what I've ...
Glad to see someone understands "epistemically identical". :grin: "Justified belief" is an oxymoron. Take any idea. If the idea is justified to the po...
By "epistemic warrant", I simply mean that what is asserted as true doesn't cantilever past a solid, rational (adequately thought through and connecte...
“Epistemically identical” and “identical” mean different things. I didn’t say that belief and thought are identical, period. I distinguish epistemics ...
I pretty much never go for argumentum ad populum. I generally assume that whatever is generally recognized in a world such as ours is must be incorrec...
Actually, no, they're not consequent because they're not subsequent. There is no "exists" without "exists somewhere" -- which would necessarily be a r...
The way I'd say it is that there might or might not be forces that "govern", but we have no way of knowing if there are any or if there aren't. We do ...
So far as we know, nowhere. Narratives about natural laws exist, but the laws themselves "exist" only in narrative, as far as we can tell. "Natural la...
My bad, I said I corrected you on that way up at the beginning. I did correct the inference, but I misattributed the statement I corrected to you. It ...
Why not? Because you ipse dixit so? "Presumably" is not terrible basis for making a truth claim like you just did. "Presumably" introduces a hypotheti...
I could have answered more simply, respectively: in the minds of people who use math and develop the field of mathematics, and in the minds of scienti...
Self-explanatory or not, the fact that math rests on axioms that seem self-evident does not ipso facto signify either that they do or do not refer to ...
PS. To all: several times I've mentioned Harari. You can read his books, of course (I've perused Sapiens well enough to broad-brush grasp his main ide...
Where indeed? In my schema they either belong in the ontological domain of narrative or of actuality. So you tell me, what actuality (Harari likes to ...
The question is legit and non-rhetorical. I do these kinds of posts all the time and I'm so surprised that so few people do it. I'm exposing my "defin...
You can reformulate my statement that way, but then that's not necessarily what I said. It's not necessary to reformulate it. I in fact did not say or...
Comments