Re: How does one find True Knowledge?
Posted: October 26th, 2019, 4:10 pm
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15952
Progress!Tamminen wrote:So we have reached an agreement at last! No boundaries around a finite universe. Trips possible ad infinitum.
But without "infinitude", there can be no "finitude". (...can't get something (finite) from 'nothing', ...can only get something (finite) from 'everything' (infinite)).Sculptor1 wrote:We have a state of finitude, like it or not.
Not so. The inability to mathematically divide infinity is certainly not logical proof of its in-existence.Sculptor1 wrote:This is demonstrated by the simple idea:-
Take an infinite piece of string, cut it in two.
What do you have?
Two infinite pieces of string, which is impossible.
Infinitude is logically and practically impossible, as a well as being unverifiable.
Rubbish
nopefrom 'nothing', ...can only get something (finite) from 'everything' (infinite)).
-- Finite numbers would not be possible if not for its infinite-ness.
-- Finite spaces, times, and things (matter) would not exist if not for its infinite-ness.
It is perfectly possible to divide sculptor1.Not so. The inability to mathematically divide infinity is certainly not logical proof of its in-existence.Sculptor1 wrote:This is demonstrated by the simple idea:-
Take an infinite piece of string, cut it in two.
What do you have?
Two infinite pieces of string, which is impossible.
Infinitude is logically and practically impossible, as a well as being unverifiable.
The inability to mathematically divide "Sculptor1" is not logical proof of your in-existence. -- Only 'finite' values can be mathematically manipulated.
lol, ok Sculp, in that sense, I'll give that point to you. -- But can you mathematically divide "forever"? (...note: I'm referring to the 'meaning' of the word, not the literal letters of the word).Sculptor1" wrote:It is perfectly possible to divide sculptor1.
and it is perfectly possible to divide RJG, but all you get is a bloody mess.
That's reality
Boundary is a perceptual distinction rather than a strictly logical one, you are confusing the two.RJG: Firstly, that which gives it "finite-ness" is that which gives it "boundary". - So tell me what gives it "finite-ness", and I'll tell you it's "boundary".
Of course not, logic is ineffectual when it comes to infinity.RJG: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.
It would be a kind of category error to say that logic refutes infinity. A sound argument might refute it, meaning one that uses logic and has true premises, but logic itself is more or less to way statements relate to each other. A pear is neither logical nor illogical. Length is neither logical nor illogical. And infinite universe is neither logical nor illogical. Perhaps it is not possible, but this would be given something outside of logical. A fact, a law, ontological truths. Beliefs can be logically arrived at or not. But things are not logical or illogical. Neither are qualities.
RJG wrote:Again: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.
Good comment. To correctly rephrase:Karpel Tunnel wrote:It would be a kind of category error to say that logic refutes infinity. A sound argument might refute it, meaning one that uses logic and has true premises, but logic itself is more or less to way statements relate to each other. A pear is neither logical nor illogical. Length is neither logical nor illogical. And infinite universe is neither logical nor illogical. Perhaps it is not possible, but this would be given something outside of logical. A fact, a law, ontological truths. Beliefs can be logically arrived at or not. But things are not logical or illogical. Neither are qualities.
RJG wrote:"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
Steve3007 wrote:Yes, and the entity that is proposed to exist independently of any subjective perceptions is "object". We call a table an "object" and we proposed (without ever being able to be 100% certain) that it exists "objectively". By that we mean that we propose that it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations with which we associate it, such as the sensation "Albert saw a table" or the sensation "Beatrice smelled a table".
Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another. In other words, you are fraudulently twisting (interchanging) the meaning of "objectivity" to deceive, or suit your specific purpose. To better understand your flawed reasoning, google "equivocation fallacy".Steve3007 wrote:As discussed, we define "objectivity" differently. I relate it to objects. I think objects are ... see loads of earlier remarks.
And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of your subjective sensations of the table. There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.Steve3007 wrote:We call a table an "object" and we proposed (without ever being able to be 100% certain) that it exists "objectively". By that we mean that we propose that it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations with which we associate it, such as the sensation "Albert saw a table" or the sensation "Beatrice smelled a table".
Huh? You must have missed my answer. Here it is again:Steve3007 wrote:So, are you going to have a go at answering the question I've asked you several times? What is it that causes you to believe the objective proposition "the Earth is approximately spherical" and not the objective propositions "the Earth is flat"?
...and that which we read/hear/observe are only just "subjective (personally held) truths", and not necessarily "objective (real) truths".RJG wrote:My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.
Probably because I've read/heard more of one way than of the other way.Steve3007 wrote:And why do you believe one more than the other when they're both just things you've read/heard/seen?
Steve3007 wrote:I think Betrand Russell's classic book "The Problems of Philosophy" deals very well with the subject we've been discussing here, of the way in which objects, and propositions about them, relate to what he refers to as "sense-data".
No disrespect to Bertrand, but he is "begging-the-question" here (pre-assuming the conclusion). Bertrand makes the pre-sumption that his and the former occupant have "similar" sense-data, when in fact the existence of former occupant is just a product of Bertrand's own sense-data". That is akin to claiming -- "the words in the Bible are God's words, because it says so right here in the Bible".Bertrand Russell wrote:I bought my table from the former occupant of my room; I could not buy his sense-data, which died when he went away, but I could and did buy the confident expectation of more or less similar sense-data.
...and boom! ...here comes flawed conclusion #2:Bertrand wrote:Thus it is the fact that different people have similar sense-data…
...and more flawed conclusions!:Bertrand wrote:...and that one person in a given place at different times has similar sense-data, which makes us suppose that over and above the sense-data there is a permanent public object which underlies or causes the sense-data of various people at various times.
Please tell me the two different meanings of the word "object" that you say I am using. I can only spot one. The one I can spot is the entity that I find it useful to propose to exist as the cause of various sensations. What is the other one?RJG wrote:Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another.
As I said, I see objective propositions as propositions about objects. In what sense is that equivocating?In other words, you are fraudulently twisting (interchanging) the meaning of "objectivity" to deceive, or suit your specific purpose. To better understand your flawed reasoning, google "equivocation fallacy".
No assumptions are made. Propositions are made.And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of your subjective sensations of the table.
That is true. There are many possible causes of those sensations, if we even believe that they need to have causes. So how would you decide whether it is a real table or an hallucination? What kind of test might you do? As a clue, recall what Macbeth says when he thinks he sees a dagger floating in front of him.There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.
How would you test the objective proposition that the sensation that you refer to here as a mirage corresponds to an object called water? (Remember Macbeth's dagger).Another example: When you see/observe water on the road, it does not necessarily mean that "water" is actually on the road. It could just be a simple illusion; mirage. We can never trust our 'subjective' perceptions to tell us what is 'objectively' true/real.
So why do you believe it? Why don't you believe that the Earth is flat? As I've asked several times before: What are your criteria for choosing?My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.
OK. So you tend to believe things more if you've read/heard them stated more often? Anything else? If someone repeated many, many times to you: "the Earth is flat, the Earth is flat..." would you change your beliefs? If not why? What else, apart from repetition, do you use to choose between competing objective propositions (i.e. propositions about objects such as the Earth)?Probably because I've read/heard more of one way than of the other way.
You are incorrect to state that the laws of science are either constantly or CONSTANTLY changing (the case doesn't make a difference). Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?Again, please note: that which we hear/read/observe is only that which we hear/read/observe. That's it, nothing more! In no way does our reading/hearing/observing imply any 'real' objective truth. For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
RJG wrote:"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
Steve3007 wrote:As discussed, we define "objectivity" differently. I relate it to objects…
RJG wrote:Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another.
"Objectivity" (un-biased; real/true; non-subjective) is one thing, and "objects" (entities; things) are another. Two different meanings.Steve3007 wrote:Please tell me the two different meanings of the word "object" that you say I am using. I can only spot one. The one I can spot is the entity that I find it useful to propose to exist as the cause of various sensations. What is the other one?
Steve3007 wrote:...it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations…
RJG wrote:And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of all of the subjective sensations of the table.
RJG wrote:There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.
In the first statement you say the table/object is the cause of all of the subjective sensations, and now here you seem to agree with me that our subjective sensations of the table may be caused by something else (other than the 'real' objective object called table).Steve3007 wrote:That is true. There are many possible causes of those sensations, if we even believe that they need to have causes.
This is beside the point; a red-herring. The point is that a 'real' object named "table" is not necessary to experience the subjective sensations of a table.Steve3007 wrote:So how would you decide whether it is a real table or an hallucination? What kind of test might you do? As a clue, recall what Macbeth says when he thinks he sees a dagger floating in front of him.
RJG wrote:For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.Steve3007 wrote:Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?
RJG wrote:For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
Steve3007 wrote:You are incorrect to state that the laws of science are either constantly or CONSTANTLY changing (the case doesn't make a difference). Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?
OK, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I'll leave it there, but I'll let Buddy Holly, who seems to have understood the simple difference between objective and subjective propositions, have the last word from my side (paraphrasing):RJG wrote:No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.
I'll try again.RJG wrote:No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.