Do you recognize that the point being made is the necessity of the assumption? You say,there is nothing inherently circular, "if we assume...". Theref...
Yes, this is the point. Without comparing it to "the standard unit of measurement", the measuring of the ruler's accuracy by measuring it with another...
Right, it is a convention, an arbitrary assumption adopted by human minds. Circles of logic, and infinite regress of justification are avoided by refe...
I've found Stanford expresses a materialist bias. A search through the credentials of the editorial board explains why this is the case. Their philoso...
To measure a ruler with another ruler, is to calibrate or justify it's reliability by comparing it to another ruler. What else could measuring a ruler...
This is not at all true. Thales predicted a solar eclipse. Following motions, and predicting what will be where at a future time, does not conclude th...
The point though, is that measuring a ruler with another ruler really is circular. It is the calibration against the defined object which removes the ...
What you describe is a situation in which they are using their minds to study the brain, and making conclusions from this study, about the mind. To ma...
Right, there are assumptions made about the nature of space, the nature of time, the nature of living beings, etc., which form the fundamental convent...
The problem here is that things change as time passes. Ben 1 and Ben 2 might be "the same" at the precise moment in which you make them to be 'the sam...
You cannot found epistemology on commitment alone. And, commitment doesn't even give us an approach to ontology. We've already learned the latter from...
So all that fuss just concerns minor details? I don't think so. String theory is insufficient. Quantum loop gravity is insufficient. It looks more lik...
There is a much easier, and more efficient way of dealing with the function of the predicate, and that is to make it completely subjective, an imagina...
No? What did he propose then? \ I don't see how this would avoid the problems. Wouldn't the forces have to act within some kind of substance, like the...
I think the idea that reality is composed of fundamental and irreducible particles was proven as illogical by Aristotle. But if you allow for dualism,...
What do you think is the difference between "evolution" and "emergence"? Are they just two different words which refer to one and the same thing? Is e...
The ID example is different from the lottery example. One consists purely of odds, the other there is a person and ID to be judged. What justifies "th...
Language is a property of living beings, just like any of the various other properties. You can separate the property from the beings who possess the ...
There are different degrees of certainty which are appropriate for the different fields of study. Aristotle explained this in his Nicomachean Ethics. ...
Because you cannot rule out the possibility that any of these people have the ball you are not justified in believing that any one of them doesn't hav...
What the cosmological argument shows is that "infinite potentialities" (as infinite possibility) is physically impossible. Whatever has actual existen...
No. Do you think that being wrong could be reasonable? Isn't this how we define "unreasonable", as wrong? I think so. And if unreasonable is wrong, th...
That's irrelevant, what I'm talking about is when one believes that the premise is false, and also that the conclusion drawn from it is justified. Loo...
I think you'll have to lay out for me what you mean by "material implication". In any case, you don't seem to be getting at the point here. The issue ...
The issue with "potential" gets more complicated with Aristotle's cosmological argument. The argument is that no potential can be eternal, therefore t...
It's not the claim "this is justified" which makes a belief justified, it's to demonstrate the correctness of the belief to others and have them agree...
You could probably state such criteria, but you've already demonstrated that you'd be wrong. I prefer to maintain integrity, not insisting on the corr...
That tells me nothing. What we're talking about is falsities which support the conclusion. If someone is going to use a falsity to support a conclusio...
Then we ought to differentiate between these two. But Michael seems to be arguing that if there are reasons for a belief then the belief is reasonable...
Oh, sorry noAxioms, my mistake. I somehow misread your comment as saying that such a discussion doesn't belong in this thread. Read too fast sometimes...
So you're saying that if a person has reasons for one's belief, even if those reasons involve falsities, then that belief is reasonable? The problem i...
No it's not, that's the point, once the belief is exposed as false it cannot be considered reasonable to hold that belief. Furthermore, it would requi...
We might clear up the issue if we revisit the time factor. I submit that the judge might say "you were justified in your belief". But now, the truth i...
I agree that "justified" does not mean certain. However, demonstrating that a belief is "not wrong", does not demonstrate that it is correct. Nor does...
I'm not equivocating, because I've already said that your definition of "justified" is unacceptable. We ought to adhere to an acceptable definition of...
Clearly he wasn't right in believing that she was sixteen, so he wasn't justified in believing that she was sixteen. Justification requires demonstrat...
So you have contradictory justified beliefs then. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both justified. I think that an individual would necessari...
I think that's a very strange definition of "justified". If we go with "compelling evidence" as you suggest, then justification cannot be, as you sugg...
I don't believe that you believe my belief is justified. You know that the documents are falsified so you know that my belief is not justified, and yo...
If you believe it to be a forgery then you do not believe it to be conclusive evidence. This is irrelevant to my point, which is that you cannot belie...
I don't see the relevance. Showing her id. seems like conclusive evidence to me, so you'd be justified in believing her name is Sarah. The point I mad...
That's not true, evidence supports a theory, it doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion. It is false to say that any time there is evidence for a p...
I think that this is the most important aspect of the subject, how we relate to temporal continuity. We see that mass has a tendency to persist, to co...
If you think that the person did not commit the crime, then you believe that the conclusion that they did commit the crime is unjustified. Evidence ma...
You might think "they were justified in believing X". But this does not mean that you think that X is a justified belief. So if you do not think that ...
Comments