The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
Excuse me, but can I challenge the assumption?
Of course you can, but not here.
Why not?
Because that is a different question. You can go to another lecture hall, if you can find one.
The crux of the problem is that, challenge as you may, you would never have an assumption determined, as otherwise it would not be assumption in the first place. Take the following:
"Just as stars were created, light rays were also created. . . Do you agree with this statement?"
The statement does not categorically describe its beginning on an assumption, either from expedience, oversight, or negligence. Nor does it define what creation means. Fine. You can decline to respond, you can agree, or you can be hobbled with that tricky assumption which, as mentioned before, is a separate question to be taken away from this room.
In general, if everything in this world, or almost everything, is premised on assumption, would we still be going place, or would we be stuck? Should we spare some time to ruminate on assumption before everything else? I would, but let me leave you that as a moot point.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
Everything we say or think is based on or around assumptions. In addition, everything we say or think is based on or around context, which is also unstated, but necessary for comprehension of what is being considered. So I suppose we should consider what's been said, the assumptions underlying what's been said, and the context within which what's-been-said was said. Anything else would be an incomplete consideration, wouldn't it?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
No. Almost every opinion, agreement/disagreement is constrained by (not based on) assumption.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 12:52 pm
Everything we say or think is based on or around assumptions. In addition, everything we say or think is based on or around context, which is also unstated, but necessary for comprehension of what is being considered. So I suppose we should consider what's been said, the assumptions underlying what's been said, and the context within which what's-been-said was said. Anything else would be an incomplete consideration, wouldn't it?
Consider the statement: The Earth is square. If you continue in one direction, you would eventually fall into the abyss. Would you agree?
Consider another: Your budget is constrained. You can buy orange or apple, but not both. Would you agree?
You would agree to both. Fine. If not, you are not answering the question correctly. You can go further, by challenging the assumptions instead, but you take the risk of being driven away.
Is that clear?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 12:52 pm Everything we say or think is based on or around assumptions. In addition, everything we say or think is based on or around context, which is also unstated, but necessary for comprehension of what is being considered. So I suppose we should consider what's been said, the assumptions underlying what's been said, and the context within which what's-been-said was said. Anything else would be an incomplete consideration, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure what part of what I wrote you're disagreeing with.
Do you agree that "everything we say or think is based on or around assumptions"?
Do you agre that "in addition, everything we say or think is based on or around context, which is also unstated, but necessary for comprehension of what is being considered"?
Or do you disagree with my final summation: "we should consider: (1) what's been said, (2) the assumptions underlying what's been said, and (3) the context within which what's-been-said was said. Anything else would be an incomplete consideration"?
This point I don't get. Assumptions are universal, I think. Scientists often call them "axioms", as if using a different word makes them different. The thinking/reasoning we use to reach any position is rife with assumptions. For example, as part of your illustration, you wrote "The Earth is square." This unjustified assertion is an assumption, isn't it? One dictionary says that "assumption" means "something that you accept as true without question or proof". That's pretty much what your statement is. And the following statements follow from it. So I think the example you gave is based on, not constrained by, assumption.
However, as I write, I am deciding that this is a trivial disagreement. We agree that we make assumptions. We disagree on the word we use to describe exactly how they fit into our reasoning. No big deal, OK?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
Everything we say or think is based on around many factors, and influenced by (but not necessarily based on) many factors. It is wrong to say that it is based on one of the factors, without mentioning the existence of others. "To be constrained" is not necessary equal to "to be based on". The latter is necessary and sufficient, but the former is not. You eat because you are hungry, but you can eat not because you are hungry, too. Hence it is wrong to allege that eating is based on hunger, or on there there being food on the table. Look around to see the obese.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 9:28 am
Do you agree that "everything we say or think is based on or around assumptions"?
Do you agre that "in addition, everything we say or think is based on or around context, which is also unstated, but necessary for comprehension of what is being considered"?
Or do you disagree with my final summation: "we should consider: (1) what's been said, (2) the assumptions underlying what's been said, and (3) the context within which what's-been-said was said. Anything else would be an incomplete consideration"?
"The Earth is square." This unjustified assertion is an assumption, isn't it? One dictionary says that "assumption" means "something that you accept as true without question or proof". That's pretty much what your statement is. And the following statements follow from it. So I think the example you gave is based on, not constrained by, assumption.
"One dictionary says that assumption means something that you accept as true without question or proof." Well-said. Assumption is a priori, not invitation to your afterthought. What "a priori" means can best be found in the dictionary. Your response to many statements is often constrained by or conditioned before your arrival. You want to challenge what is a priori? Fine. You can even replace it with another a priori, in which case you would be making another statement.
As another example. "God is great. Would you agree?" The a priori assumption: God exists."
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
gad-fly wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 5:59 pm Everything we say or think is based on around many factors, and influenced by (but not necessarily based on) many factors. It is wrong to say that it is based on one of the factors, without mentioning the existence of others. "To be constrained" is not necessary equal to "to be based on". The latter is necessary and sufficient, but the former is not. You eat because you are hungry, but you can eat not because you are hungry, too. Hence it is wrong to allege that eating is based on hunger, or on there there being food on the table. Look around to see the obese.
"One dictionary says that assumption means something that you accept as true without question or proof." Well-said. Assumption is a priori, not invitation to your afterthought. What "a priori" means can best be found in the dictionary. Your response to many statements is often constrained by or conditioned before your arrival. You want to challenge what is a priori? Fine. You can even replace it with another a priori, in which case you would be making another statement.
As another example. "God is great. Would you agree?" The a priori assumption: God exists."
I'm not ignoring what you say, but it occurs to me that our discussion has done all it can usefully do. Time to return to the main topic?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: The a priori importance of assumption in every staement
Of course. I don't think I have ever left the main topic, as titled. When tackling every statement, its assumption, whether stated or not as assumption, must be taken a priori before you take your position on the statement. It would be unwieldy to declare that the statement is based on the assumption, but your position is constrained by the assumption.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023