Some points against a strictly relativistic view of On Certainty. Much of this comes from the idea that the foundation, which everything is based on, ...
One of the things we need to keep in mind about Wittgenstein's later writings, is his lack of emphasis on sharp boundaries. He emphasizes the changing...
Grayling: "My exegetical task is effected by suitably anatomising OC. The view I shall call OC1 and which constitutes a version of a foundationalist r...
That's your argument, there are no parts? I'm glad you're saying this, because people can see how silly this is. You make my argument for me. So you j...
While it's true that there are a large number of examples in both camps, what makes the argument to intelligent design so strong is that we know based...
I make a distinction between respecting the person, and respecting their beliefs. I may show respect for a person I don't agree with, but I don't nece...
The way I'm using the term indubitable, is in the sense of being undoubtable, which is exactly what Wittgenstein was getting at with Moore's propositi...
There are different philosophies of psychology that may or may not work, one would have to do some research on the outcomes of different theories of p...
Right, the infinite regress is about justifications. For example, how do you know X is true, because of A, B, and C. How do you know A, B, and C are t...
Yes, I can choose to violate the rules, I can move the bishop like the castle, but then who will understand what I'm doing? My talk and actions would ...
My theory of knowledge rests on these Moorean propositions, or as Wittgenstein calls them, hinge-propositions. It's a kind of foundational theory that...
The language-game of certainty can be confusing because sometimes people are referring to their subjective certainty, i.e., an attitude of certainty, ...
"But when is something objectively certain? When a mistake is not possible. But what kind of possibility is that? Mustn't mistake be logically exclude...
There is an interesting insight in OC 402 where Wittgenstein seems to reject that Moorean propositions are empirical propositions. Wittgenstein seems ...
Wittgenstein, as far as I know, never defined certainty as logically excluding the possibility of a mistake. In OC 194 Wittgenstein asks, "But when is...
I agree with this statement, but maybe not in the way you think. Wittgenstein isn't saying that Moore's propositions aren't true or false because they...
If I say, "I am not certain that the chess expert knows what he's talking about?" - how is this different from "I doubt what the chess expert is telli...
One's attitude, may or may not be justified, it depends on the reasonableness of the doubt, which is part of what you seem to be getting at. The attit...
I'm going to make one more remark, then I'm moving on. Most reasonable people would understand that the sampling size I'm using is huge. It doesn't ne...
Well, first we shouldn't be using the term valid in reference to inductive arguments. When I first used it in my remarks I was using it very loosely. ...
It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. You're assuming that if we ...
Where in the world did you get that reasoning from? To know that this is incorrect all you have to do is apply it to any analogical argument that we k...
There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this...
The logic (the inference) is very simple, straight forward, and compelling, which is why most people believe it's true. The point is that when we look...
Ya baby, go for it. Look at these three cars. That Demon is freaking crazy. The Epic Showdown Dodge Demon,The Viper, And The Ferrari https://youtu.be/...
Most of what we believe comes through the testimony of others, are we to doubt most of it? I think not. It's not about attitude, otherwise any doubt w...
Yes, if I was reading an official print out of FIDE ratings, I would make an assumption that it's accurate. At some point doubting just comes to an en...
Agreed. Of course not, and I've already addressed this, at least I thought I did. Someone simply telling you they're an expert isn't good evidence tha...
As I've said, the given is that he's an expert, thus it follows that his knowledge is superior to yours. In such a situation it would be unreasonable ...
You've changed the example, of course if someone simply tells me that he's an expert, that in itself doesn't mean that he is. Especially since there a...
If I remember correctly, my example is that the teacher is an expert, and the information or evidence you have gives you reasons to believe he is an e...
As I said in another post I have nothing against evolution, but even evolution speaks to intelligent design. You have not given good reasons why I sho...
Whether it's unreasonable to doubt someone or something, depends on many factors given a particular context, but generally one needs to have good reas...
So let me see if I understand your argument against intelligent design. If something was put together shoddily, it means that it couldn't have been in...
Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-) Let me see if I have this straight, I ...
Comments