Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnonn  Quote: |
Originally Posted by DChristopher In technical episemological terms, I count myself as a skeptic, or possibly a fallibilist. | If you were either, you would not claim to know anything—including that absolute knowledge is impossible, and that Christianity is false. You certainly wouldn't claim to be more rational than me. |
I don't claim to know anything with certainty. I thought I made that clear. (?)
I BELIEVE that absolute CERTAINTY about knowledge is false.
I haven't commented on Christianity, I don't think.
I'm pretty sure I haven't claimed to be more rational than you, either. We can check--I only have about 10 posts.
Quote:
|
In what sense are these plausible?
|
They are plausible to ME! In the sense that I like them, they resonate with me, they make sense to ME.
I don't ask that you adopt them. You can decide for yourself what is plausible to you.
Quote:
|
When you say they are plausible, you really mean they have a high probability of being correct.
|
No I don't!
Quote:
|
But probability is a mathematical function, and is not worked out in the way you would apparently like to think. It requires knowledge of a numerator and a denominator.
|
Yes: favorable outcomes/total possible outcomes.
IMO mathematical probability makes no sense whatsoever in discussing this issue. None at all. Numerator and denominator wouldn't even be numbers. They just don't make sense here, which is why I didn't think about, or bring up probability.
Quote:
|
Do you really only believe without rational justification that it is plausible to think that your senses are accurate.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
if you are simply using unjustified subjective beliefs as axioms
|
I don't believe justification is possible for axioms, or required.
Quote:
|
you are admitting that nothing you know is necessarily true
|
Yes. Except, since we're being picky, I would say nothing I
believe is necessarily true.
Quote:
|
and that everything you believe is held irrationally, apart from any kind of logical proof.
|
Well, not exactly. I would say that many of my beliefs are arrived at logically, assuming my axioms are true. (which they might not be).
So, everything I believe might be wrong; but some of it is arrived at logically, from the axioms.
Quote:
|
If that is merely your opinion, then I can safely ignore it, since it is both unjustified by rational argumentation, and obviously false besides. Do you have any reason for saying this?
|
My friend, you can safely ignore anything I say on this board, if you like.
I'll try to make my posts as interesting as I can, so that you don't
want to ignore them; but it's
safe to do so, in any case.
My reason for saying it (DChristopher: "even presupposition of revelation of God would not be sufficient justification to guarantee "knowledge."") is that I don't believe we can justify knowledge at ALL. In the end, nothing can be justified all the way. You have to start with an unjustified axiom, and go from there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bnonn Quote: |
Originally Posted by DChristopher I don't need an epistemic basis for an assumption. I hold that there is no sound epistemic basis for anything, in the end, anyway. | And again, on what epistemic basis do you hold this belief about
epistemic bases? |
On what epistemic basis do I hold the belief that there is no epistemic basis possible?
Is this a serious question?
Quote:
|
As for logical laws, since it takes logic to deny logic, I reject your notion that logic is not universal.
|
Clarification: by "not universal," I just mean that some people don't understand logic. I would prove that to you by introducing you to an idiot.
I still think there is an absolute correct logic; I even allowed for a Logic-Giver later in my post. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote:
|
Upon what basis do you assume this?
|
By definition of "assumption," I don't need a basis for one.
I'll come back to the rest later, gotta run.