SpanishMatMaster
Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline
|
VideoAdminAlpha: Strange that you thought about other kinds of "hiding" as I do nothing else as to use this hiding and you refered to this. But ok, nevermind.
DeviantlyD: I may be a bee wee arrogant sometimes :) . It comes natural.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
Magnetism, gravity and chemical reaction spring to mind - we can see that something happens, though for many the reasoning that it all happens is just that it does. Maybe, but we can prove using reason that they do happen.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
Being unable to prove why these assertions happen does not make the assertion less valid. That depends on the knowledge system you are using. For Parmenides of Elea, they did not happen, as nothing could ever really move. Validity is relative to the knowledge system you are using.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
our perception of the world around us is based on the input of our senses and the subsequent translation in our minds Yes, but not only.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
how can you prove we are even here? You answered already. Using the input or my sense and the subequent translation in my mind... and the rules of reson.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
How can you prove the sensations received are the sensations given? Using reason. If you want a more detailed answer, I kindly beg you to open another thread. But I give you an advance: "reason" is not limited to "logic". Descartes alone could not prove a s**t, even if he thought he could.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
Looking at the development of science and medicine through history it's easy to see this - the Romans had a belief that foul air made you unwell, and so developed a sewerage system to remove a noteable cause of foul air. Indeed. But remember Parmenides. What I mean is: you can always develop a knowledge system according to which, only this system is valid and the rest (includig reason) are invalid. Still - usually common people use reason in they everyday life.
quote:
And this bit I partly disagree with, as between A and -A there is a point where the answer is neither A or -A No, I am sorry, there isn't :) . At least, according to my knowledge system.
quote:
a linear value You invented this line. I spoke about a binary partition, not a line. A is true or false, for every assertion. If you want to disprove me, I invite you to try. But if you use a non-ambiguous sentence (which can be true with one meaning and untrue with other, but that makes it two different asserts) it will be true or false. This is my bet. I invite you to disprove me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoulAlloy
Incidentally, could you define epistemology? I can't be bothered to google right now  The philosophy about knowledge. If you want a more detailed and precise answer... google...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
you added it cannot be demonstrated as said truth which is not part of conventional word use I disagree, but anyway, I think the point is clear.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
My quote refers to the problem of your definition of an axiom. Ok. Then, ditto.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
lumped means thrown together in a category that may not be representative in a certain way. Ok, then I think I did not lump religion and philosophy. Although I did mention that both use rules and axioms, that does not make them equal or (always) interchangable.
quote:
Obviously reason is a set of rules but I was referring to the systems of knowledge that you seemed to be referring to such as in point 9. Reason is also described as a singular thing in some contexts. Ok.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
proof by reason is not of significant worth as it is unsupported It is supported on reason.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Your view of reason based on unsupported axioms contrasts with your approach here: "Science is based on reason... both science and rea(s)ons have proven to be excellent ways to understand the universe, from a rational point of view". That would suggest that they are supported as they are proven in the external world, in your assertion to an unspecified extent but rationally so. No, I specifically said that this kind of proof would be circular, please read that part again. Reason is NOT "proven in the real world", this makes no sense. To prove is to use reason. We can use reason and see a world, where reason works wonderfully. And we can use another system and then see another world (another perception of the world) where that other system words wonderfully and reason fails.
So - no contradiction, rather the contrary, I warned in the very OP about trying to use the fact that "the world seen by reason works reasonably" as a proof of the validity of reason. I know that this is a common mistake.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Your approach to reason based on unsupported axioms is later contradicted here also: "Reason tells me that the absolute truth exists. 41. It also tells me that it is possible to reach it." which turns reason into something fundamentally truth based. No, it does not. I am sorry but this is only a non sequitur. Maybe you only have to read again. I did not say that reason was based on absolute truth, but that reason tells me that there is some absolute truth. I am sorry, but really - read carefully, please.
PS to Anaxagoras: Maybe I must explain that with "absolute truth" I refered to an accurate description of the real world. Asserts which correspond to the real world, no matter how far this real world may be (inception, Matrix, etc. to use hollywood films)
< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 10/2/2011 6:58:29 AM >
|
RE: A bit on epistemology. - 
Profile
I might have to find an IHOP later.. mmmmm those fresh strawberries and waffles look so good..
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread