No, a reasonably held belief has a justification for it. Arbitrary beliefs do not. A justification is not required for a belief to be a belief, but it...
For claims like "there was a creator of the universe", which already play part in conceptual arguments and constrain empirical matters, the ability to...
No, not at all. A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification. No. What we know however limits ...
Because something has been believed historically and had social institutions devoted to that belief does not entail it is well justified given what we...
"The universe was created" is either vague and unsupported or entails things which are implausible given what we know. Was it an agent? Before the adv...
The fallibility, incompleteness and contingency of knowledge entails absolutely nothing about whether the universe was created by an agent or not. An ...
To my understanding, paradigm shifts occur when privileged statements and techniques at the centre of a research paradigm get revised. It is rare that...
I have a nitpicky logical tone because I wanted to get a clear statement of your position. I apologise if it made you uncomfortable. Yes. I understood...
Can you justify this? It seems to me that I can use: "Is this universe a created universe?" Because there are an almost infinite number of different t...
I imagined the details linking your statements to each other. You didn't spell them out. (Hypothesis generation is arbitrary) & (Knowledge is fallible...
The negation of "the universe is an egg" has probability 0. Why would I consider things of probability 0? There is no evidence that the universe is no...
And what do paradigm shifts and the falsifiability criterion have to say about creation hypotheses again? It consists of two outcomes, the empty set a...
50/50 is impossible in that case. The only consistent assignment of probabilities to that set which satisfies the probability axioms assigns all proba...
Someone posits something arbitrary, is otherwise logical, and makes a sensible inference; garbage in, garbage out. But what if the universe is a egg? ...
If pushed, almost 0%, it would be very surprising for me. It necessitates a lot of hypothesis with vaguely specified mechanisms relying upon incredibl...
"Devan is wrong about all conclusions he tries to derive from maths" or "Devan is right about some conclusions he tries to derive from maths", it's 50...
I have eggs or bacon on my bed. 50% chance of eggs, 50% chance of bacon. I look at my bed. No eggs, no bacon. What went wrong? Maybe I had salad or ma...
Thread has two years since the last post in it, original participants are less likely to respond. I don't understand the double negative distributed o...
My overall argument is for the claim that it is possible to be certain of things that we do not believe. "Do not believe" as in "lack belief in" rathe...
It seems to me your standards for someone demonstrating that there are components of know how which cannot be stated are to state them; that they must...
EG, here's a cooking guide for sunny side up eggs: This makes sense. I know how to gently crack an egg into a pan. But if I were to try and list what ...
Oh I have no compunctions about talking about things which are not numerically identical to language items. All that matters is that we can treat what...
Regarding the sense of necessity thing, maybe this helps spell out my suspicions that it doesn't tell us much. Define that a given statement x is poss...
I agree! "X is certain about P => X believes that P". This doesn't address whether we can be certain of things that are not numerically identical to t...
Only once you've fixed the underlying logic, I think. I'm not too happy with bringing in an exterior sense of modality to the theorems. If we're in a ...
I think this is about right. Though it's clearly true that not every first order structure has the empty domain as a model; eg "There exists an x such...
Maybe a logical reframing of this might be that it's possible to be certain of things that we do not believe that we believe? IE: Possibly If belief a...
In my experience, formal intuition works more like an open neighbourhood around a proof than of proofs themselves. There are essential details and ine...
But yes, thinking about it again, what you've said is accurate. I've not written down what sets are, natural numbers are, rational numbers are etc; bu...
IMHO you can start wherever you like, the "existence" of any object that satisfies some property is really only relative to some other object. Like "t...
I agreed very hard on this in my heart. Tutorials and seminars in abstract algebra mixed between people who preferred algebra and people who preferred...
:up: Great discussion. I don't really know if this contributes much to it, but I want to throw it among people I'm interested in reading talk about ma...
In case it is not obvious why functions should be defined as having the property "if two inputs to the function are the same, the output should be the...
I think you're equivocating between: (1) If someone knows something, they obtained that knowledge through a process they can (at least) partially desc...
It's difficult to see if you're making an argument or making a series of unconnected statements about formal languages but not about the reduction of ...
Just look at the quote. "Reasoning within the formal system is much different to reasoning about the formal system itself". You don't even need a form...
You mistake the claim that all stipulated axioms and formal systems are useful or arbitrary or relevant in every sense for the much weaker claim that ...
You're talking about what follows if you accept the axioms as true. Not about what justifies stipulating them in the first place. There are good axiom...
Unless I interpret the statement as false and study the consequences. :chin: But yes, there is a component of choice in setting up any formal system; ...
Comments