hertz
Posts: 1315
Joined: 8/7/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote:
ORIGINAL: hertz quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true? In pretty much the same way as you got to your position from the idea that the idea can't be shown to be true, so it is probably false. Isn't the method you're using something along the lines of: the idea can't be shown to be false, so it is probably true? No. That would be bonkers. If an idea cannot be shown to be false, then it becomes one of a number of possible truths. It's actually a bit worse than that because even if it can be shown to be false, it still might be true - it could be that the method used to determine the status of an idea is flawed, or enough information is lacking to make the claim 'false', false. Certainly, if an idea cannot be shown to be false, it does not automatically become true. I have already suggested that I cannot be certain about the things that are 'true' either. Yes, there are plenty of observations, and some really sweet theories that appear to be backed by good evidence, but that isn't really the end of the story. The observations could be flawed in some subtle way, the theory reached could be horribly wrong despite its apparent veracity and son on. OK, so in normal life, I might just ignore all of that and use some basic common sense - assume that if I step into the road without looking I could get hit by a car, that if I do get hit, I will get injured, that I could die and so on. Simple example in the context of this debate. I suggested that I know DomKen doesn't exist. Within the framework of this thread, that argument can be disputed. He posts, so yes, most likely he does exist. Or, at least, someone who claims to be him exists. Or a number of people who claim to be him exist. Or someone who is already someone else exists. Or DomKen does not exist at all. It kind of depends on where one stands in relation to the thread, and what 'exists' means, and what 'DomKen' means and probably all sorts of other stuff as well. Truth is, DomKen simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. It just depends on one's perspective and what one knows about him, and what meaning is ascribed to the various elements of the belief system that creates him. I'm quite confident that he doesn't exist. I could just play the 'most likely' game - but that's not very satisfying. Not really. Beyond this thread, I could ignore the questions and just assume all is good and everything is as it seems. Nothing to see here, move on. Often, I do just that. At other times, like when I am involved in a debate like this one, or when I find myself in a church or temple, I usually take the decision to let the questions float to the surface. There are lots of questions. I find myself very short of certain answers.
|