My point was more like: If the universe has an edge, then such an edge must not be transparent by logical necessity (not merely physical necessity), b...
Well, the doctrine of many possible worlds is just taken for granted in modal logic, for example. When saying X is logically possible, all one means i...
Technically I don't, but I thought you would just take this for granted. I mean, you can take the extreme sceptic route of doubting that 2+2=4 is true...
There is no possible world in which 2+2=5 p?q is equivalent to: not p or q, so “If 2+2=5 then I am the Pope” means: Either 2+2?5 or I am the Pope, whi...
If rainbows and unicorns were logically necessary, then their non-existence would imply a logical contradiction. But obviously that's false: no logica...
No, I mean Gottfried Leibniz's doctrine of many possible worlds, the one used in modal logic: It seems to me that you are missing the point of the exp...
Ok, but we're talking about possible worlds. It may be physically impossible for the CMB to have been transparent, but if we say that it is logically ...
But the CMB is part of the world/universe (in the widest, most all-encompassing sense), right? If so, when asking how it would look like if everything...
Not in the sense I am speaking of. That's why I gave this definition: And Wittgenstein's: But anyway, let me phrase it in another way: The window of y...
I see, in that case which parts of scepticism do you think are right? For example, how far are things like Agrippa's Trilemma or the problem of the cr...
It seems clear to me that the “they” he mentions is not merely a rhetorical device, but maybe I'm wrong. It really sounds like he's adressing an argum...
I suppose you are technically right. I can't (at present) tell you who exactly put forward the arguments mentioned by Sextus and Hume. The fact that t...
I have given a quote by Sextus Empiricus (the one Banno wrote), as well as the Hume quote in the OP, that show that a significant number of philosophe...
You have not misunderstood. I sort of agree in a sense. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, there are no sceptics (in practice). Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree...
Well, ¬p?p is equivalent to: ¬¬p v p, which is just p (Proof exists), according to the rules of material Implication, double negation and the idempote...
[ Their argument is that the argument the sceptic uses proves the sceptic's conclusion “therefore, there are no proofs”, and therefore refutes itself,...
Ok, what is wrong with the argument that has the horns of the Trilemma as its premises and “Therefore no claim is justified” as its conclusion? Accord...
Ok, let's try this approach instead: Surely you'd say that sceptical arguments such as the argument that uses Agrippa's Trilemma to conclude “therefor...
Let's take a logic that has as its basis: The Law of Contradiction, The Law of the Excluded Middle, The Law of Identity, and principles of inference s...
Do you think it is trivially true that logic should seemingly allow anyone (not just the sceptic) to validly conclude something that contradicts logic...
I should clarify that the argument in the OP is not one for the conclusion that “proof does not exist”, but rather for the claim that it is not necess...
You are generalizing a bit too much. Chomsky says many people in the media falsify explanations, not that everybody does. Some people do not only care...
Hmmm, not entirely sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the argument/ proof proving that there is no proof assumes that proof is reliabl...
I suppose you are talking about the Principle of Explosion (Ex Falso Quodlibet). Indeed, if the statement “there is no proof” were false, then you cou...
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Ah ok, so you are saying if I assume Agrippa's conclusion, then I can't even conclude that “There are no justified beliefs is not...
That does seem like a plausible option, the Law of Contradiction for example can't be justified, but that is because it does not need any justificatio...
I agree, that's one of the points I was making, but although it doesn't contradict A, it also doesn't confirm A, since there is another possible expla...
Let's make it quite concrete: Agrippa's Trilemma= the premises of Agrippa's argument (but not the conclusion), right? If so, then no: my reasons are n...
Let's see: I say that it doesn't prove that its conclusion is true, not that it (the conclusion) isn't true. It may be true, but if it were true then,...
Yes, it's a good objection. It is similar to Kant's in that it questions whether existence is a predicate or not. My favorite illustration of the argu...
But it doesn't self-destruct, it proves that “There are no justified beliefs” would not be justified if it were true. (As you yourself seem to underst...
No, but I also don't have any good reason to believe that things are not as they seem to be. And as to the question in the title: It matters if you ca...
It's a hypotetical scenario where you know that with certainty (I thought you took this for granted in your second quoted statement here). That means ...
In that hypotetical scenario, since you do know that, you must have a reason to know that, right? That reason is either accesible only to you, or to o...
Because it violates the Law of Contradiction, unless the word “Albert” at the beggining of the sentence doesn't mean the same as at the end of the sen...
(Edit: It seems I misunderstood what you meant, I thought you meant the counter-argument to the counter-argument refutes itself too. Still, the conclu...
On the other hand, it seems that the justification would be to say that if a belief were justified, then it would not be a basic belief (since basic b...
Right, if one says that belief in the conclusion advocated by the Trilemma (“Therefore, no beliefs can be justified”) is justified by the fact that lo...
Suuure, just a coincidence So you haven't even read Nietzsche then? You should read about ethics, I would suggest you start with the works of Bertrand...
Why do you believe what Nietzsche says instead of building your own philosophy then? I think Nietzsche himself wouldn't like to see that he has dogmat...
Is what Nietzsche says a rule for human life? Is it certain? Is it important? If not, why should I or anybody else believe him? And it seems that acco...
I honestly don't see what is paradoxical about that. It is rational to conclude that it is very unlikely for my ticket to win, but it is not rational ...
If you believe an action is good you should do it, if you believe it's bad you shouldn't. That is how a sane human being justifies his actions. What a...
Well, that came out of nowhere. What is the point of such a question? Obviously a corpse doesn't believe that anything is good or bad, what does that ...
Comments