Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities? Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking wha...
If I have it right, the OP starts by looking for an argument that the world is as it appears, and finds the case wanting. Why not start with the premi...
If you were to move from principles in the strong sense to heuristics, we might have some agreement. “It’s not okay to make up data” is a good rule of...
Given the misrepresentation in your last reply to me, I'm somewhat reticent to bother continuing this chat. What progresses science is not adherence t...
, @"Moliere", Somewhat famously, Feyerabend argued that Galileo manipulated or selectively interpreted his data—particularly with regard to the telesc...
Good response. There's also the problem, that if "sciences are based on per se predication", we need an explanation of "per se predication". I've not ...
Here come the tu quoque replies. They are logically questionable. They attack the person, not the claim. They shift focus from argument to biography. ...
So I'll go back to this: The danger is not just when those in authority tell themselves stories free of critique, but stories that only reinforce thei...
That's a fine question. The fallacy of arguments from authority is an informal fallacy - it's not a logical fallacy as such, not false becasue of the ...
Well, we might shift the philosophical weight from ontology or doxastic content to praxis and procedure. What matters would not be the abstract truth ...
Oh, not at all. There's a lot here about foundational beliefs and relations to hinge propositions and so on that would be fun to go through. And there...
Cool. It seems that the fundamental opinions of some are less malleable than those of others. I find that interesting and confronting. That resistance...
Not dissimilar, but i might place much more emphasis on the community than the individual. Not a "personal web of beliefs" - it's public, and learned,...
I agree. Yes - doesn't this amount to insisting that the discipline at least be self-consistent? We might even supose after Feyerabend, that a practic...
:lol: There's nothing in belief in god that has to lead to this sort of... antagonism (?) And nothing in disbelief, either. I am guessing that you wou...
Perhaps. I gather that would involve adopting a liberal attitude to interacting with others, accepting that they may have different foundational attit...
...and everyone holds foundational positions... As you say. So a large part of the discussion should be about what we can agree on, despite those diff...
Well, I was attempting to avoid god, but you asked. Yep. I don't think it's a coincidence that Tim and Leon are so adamantly disagreeing with the idea...
It's odd, isn't it, to be arguing in a philosophy forum for the validity of saying "I don't know". Odd that such an stance should need any defence at ...
Cheers. Others know even less about logic, but post their opinion anyway. Kripke's account leads to forms of antirealism, with which I am not overly h...
Yep. Usually I find myself arguing against idealism or antirealism, but here I find myself against Tim's excessive realism. There are various argument...
Your habit of removing the automatic link on a quote - what's that about? I don't know if OJ killed his wife or not. I've not paid the case much atten...
We don't do those. This is serious. :wink: Tim's reply makes quite a few assumptions. His reply is that we must assign "these positions are neither tr...
Your comment was: You said that if a statement is ruled out, it is denied. Now you want to change that to if a statement is ruled out, it is not true....
We'll see. So far as epistemology goes, it's the equivalent of saying "I don't know". If that's avoidance, maybe. "I don't know" might be seen as anti...
You can no doubt see where I am going. We agree that if we allow a contradiction, a statement that is both true and false, in propositional logic with...
How? Over to you again. Explain how allowing a sentence to be undecided violates the LEM. Maybe begin by explaining which version of the LEM you would...
Whatever. Seems to me that just repeats the same error. Both. If we allow a case in which it remains undecided if some sentence is true or false, then...
All of them. And yet non-classical logics are coherent. Non-classical logics, such as paraconsistent logics, do allow for contradictions without colla...
He is providing examples of where the binary does not hold. That is different to pointing to places where there is a third option. See . Note 's respo...
To my eye, J is providing comprehensive answers. But the folk he is talking to do not see that there is a problem with their questions, rather than wi...
Sure. And in setting this up as a binary, he already forecloses on the possibility of it not being a binary. He presumes what was to be shown. That's ...
So, can we agree that sometimes determinate/indeterminate are not contradictories? And that not every situation is reducible to a binary? And that the...
Others have an obsession with the same. Determinate/indeterminate is not a contradictory pair. Many things are partially determined. Borderline concep...
What makes the syllogism valid is that whatever you substitute for "Socrates" "Man" and "Mortal", the syllogism holds. That's why we can write it as (...
It's overkill, no doubt, but we might formalise it a lot. Supose we have a list of sentences, A, B, C... The assumption, from Tim and others, is that ...
Comments