i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.I doubt that.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.I agree.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
off topic tangents are good! they make more stuff to debate about :Di feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.I agree.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
I feel people (me included) assume too much. I could go on, but it would be mostly an off-topic tangent, so I leave it at that
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.1. Assume proposition P: "I will place all my faith into believing 'something' is true until evidence is given for believing 'something' is false," and its complement, ~P: "I will doubt that 'something' is true until evidence is given for believing 'something' is false."
any retorts or personal elaborations?
Oops, posted my reply in the old forum. Bringing it over here.
In your example, Pineapple, I do not think ~PvP is always true. There is a third proposition, that could be called Q, which states, "I will not place all of my faith into believing something is true, and I will not place all my faith into believing something is false." What would actually be true is ~PvPvQ. This means that, while no evidence is given, I must either believe that 'something' is true, doubt that 'something' is true, or not place all of my faith into either of the two previous options. However, there is almost always, if not always, the possibility that there will be evidence that suggests either truth value of 'something.' For example, gravity might not actually exist, and every memory I thought I had of gravity was a fake creation of my brain. Extremely unlikely, but certainly possible.
Well, by "doubt that 'something' is true", I mean "not place all my faith into the [believing] that 'something' is true", which means that Q is contained in ~P.Alright, that's fair. However, I don't understand the reasoning behind the following:
In other words, "While no evidence is given for believing 'something' is false, I must choose to completely believe 'something' is true or doubt that 'something' is true."I don't see why the stronger argument would be something that has the possibility of being proven false if more evidence is introduced in the future. I think the stronger argument would be to not place all faith into believing that 'something' is true because this argument accepts the fact that 'something' can be proven false in the future.
4. Obviously, in this case, "Therefore, P is true," would be a stronger argument than "Therefore, ~P is true."
For your example, since there is no evidence that shows that gravity is just a creation of my brain, it is not foolish to go about life assuming gravity is real.The truth value of 'something' is not necessarily related to the ideal perception of that truth value. In my opinion, the ideal perception of the truth value of 'something' would be the one that does the best job of satisfying the goals of one's life, such as happiness. Basically, if believing Q makes someone very happy, and believing ~Q makes someone very unhappy, that person should go about life believing Q. However, this does not necessarily make Q true.
since there arent any sections dedicated to the ever-enjoyable sport of debate, i felt one should be posted. i felt philosophy is a nice home for it too. so without further ado, lets start things off.
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
This is derp. The verb "to feel" is used here as slang for "to believe". By posting for debates in philosophy, unit is obviously not unsure of his position on the matter. And even if unit was unsure of his position on the matter, it wouldn't render anything a half-truth. He would simply be unsure of his position on the matter, and that would be the truth. One does not have to believe in one side of an argument or another for the fact of one's belief to be true.since there arent any sections dedicated to the ever-enjoyable sport of debate, i felt one should be posted. i felt philosophy is a nice home for it too. so without further ado, lets start things off.
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
You "feel" this way, is that right? Well do you absolutely believe that you feel this way? Or are you unsure of position on the matter, rendering the fact of your belief a half-truth, which can not be evaluated as it's meaning is determined by the speaker,whose mind we cannot fathom.
since there arent any sections dedicated to the ever-enjoyable sport of debate, i felt one should be posted. i felt philosophy is a nice home for it too. so without further ado, lets start things off.
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
But Hume finds the pursuit of philosophy, entered on with such pleasure, leading him into problems for which he can find no answers, until in despair he admits, "I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness."39 Just as reason betrays him and he finds himself sinking into melancholy, nature comes to his aid. He suddenly loses interest in philosophical issues and feels an urge to thrust disputation from his mind, returning to relaxation and amusement. "I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends."40 And so the pendulum of Hume's life swings to and fro.
I think what you are describing here is radical skepticism. Wikipedia sums it up nicely: "Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified."I do not believe that I am absolutely certain that there are no absolute truths. I merely believe that the possibility that one can not know any absolute truth is more likely than the possibility that one can know an absolute truth.
I would need for you to clarify the definition of "Radical Skeptic." Does a radical skeptic not believe in absolute truths, or does a radical skeptic not believe in knowledge ? The argument is about the former, but what I have read and what you have argued makes me believe radical skepticism is defined as the latter.One can prove that believing in something is *not* foolish by proving the all-inclusive opposite to be false, by proving that radical skepticism is foolish.Radical skepticism is psychologically impossible!David Hume, who was and is one of the most famous skeptics, wrote that "[a] true sceptic will be diffident in his philosophical doubts, as well as of his philosophical conviction; and will never refuse any innocent satisfaction, which offers itself, upon account of either of them." I rather like the way Oliver A. Johnson describes Hume's view in this passage from Skepticism and Cognitivism: A Study in the Foundations of Knowledge:Quote from: David HumeBut Hume finds the pursuit of philosophy, entered on with such pleasure, leading him into problems for which he can find no answers, until in despair he admits, "I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness."39 Just as reason betrays him and he finds himself sinking into melancholy, nature comes to his aid. He suddenly loses interest in philosophical issues and feels an urge to thrust disputation from his mind, returning to relaxation and amusement. "I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends."40 And so the pendulum of Hume's life swings to and fro.
To believe in radical skepticism is to deny one's psychology. Psychology rebels against radical skepticism. Hume loses interest in philosophical issues when he starts following the questions radical skepticism poses for him. He cannot deny himself day-to-day satisfactions. He chooses to play backgammon because, through inductive reasoning (the enemy of skepticism), his inner self knows that it will be pleasing to him. His inner self rebels against his outer skepticism. If denying one's own self in the name of being a super-skeptic is not foolish, I do not know what is.
So where does it become useful? What good has come of radical skepticism? What benefit? All radical skepticism has served as is a test of philosophers, a game of "Let's see if we can beat the ultimate skeptic and prove that at least one thing is true!" But that is no reason to believe in radical skepticism. Radical skepticism is not practical at all, because you will constantly live in fear that all results can potentially be random. There is no certainty that the sun will rise the next day. It isn't practical at all to believe in such a thing and why believe in something that serves no practical purpose? If no results come of the belief, there is no reason to believe.Convenience is not the same as truth.
The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?
The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?
I say no. There was no causal link between your true belief and the absolute truth it is making a claim about.
The way I solve this problem is by requiring a belief to be inherently* true before it is knowledge.
*By inherently I mean the belief could not have been false. This is a stricter requirement than requiring the belief be true.
I am afraid I am much more of an amateur in this field. I don't know of Russel or Whitehead by name.The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?
I say no. There was no causal link between your true belief and the absolute truth it is making a claim about.
The way I solve this problem is by requiring a belief to be inherently* true before it is knowledge.
*By inherently I mean the belief could not have been false. This is a stricter requirement than requiring the belief be true.
Necro, I know, but I'd like to throw in, here. OldTrees, your logic seems to be based on Russel and Whitehead; correct me if I'm wrong. If so, though, how do you deal with statements (logic strings) which truthfully assert their own unprovability (a la Gödel)?
"This statement could be false," in your above description of 'inherently true,' is both inherently true, and due to it's formulation, also not true enough to be knowledge. There are an infinite number of other such formulations which bring uncertainty to ANY formalized logic system powerful enough to describe its own veracity.
Though I agree that belief =/= evidence for NOR against truth values, I don't see how your epistemology can hold up to skeptical inquiry.
"Believing absolutely that something is true is foolish"Believing absolutely that the earth is flat is foolish. (Not a contradiction)
Not sure what this sentence means. First, it is a self-contradiction. Secondly, it is too vague. When knowledge is often defined as "true belief" then also "knowing absolutely that something is true is foolish", which is contradiction again. But if knowing is not "true belief" then what it is? Shouldn't believing and knowing be related with the truth as things really are? If not, how we can define them? And if we think that believing absolutely something is stupid because there is no absolute truth, then that opinion presents itself as absolute truth. If not, then there is or can exist an absolute truth sometimes. Further, not sure what "believing absolutely" means, because mental act (believing) can't be so overwhelming that it exhaust itself in believing; there should be also a consciousness about believing, which is not believing but awareness of believing. And if we understand "believing" as "just believing" and not (absolute) knowing then this sentence is just a trivial tautology. Finally, "foolish". What that means really? Who is fool? A person who doesn't know how things really are.
Believing absolutely that the earth is flat is foolish. (Not a contradiction)You are using the wrong meaning of something. In this case it is used as a pronoun for "insert belief here". It does not imply relativity. Additionally you should assume that someone that protests ignoring the possibility of being wrong is not ignoring the possibility of being wrong.
Yes, but "believing absolutely that something is true" is in a way a contradiction like "everything is relative" is. Saw the difference? This sentence tries to be absolute itself.
Believing absolutely means you don't consider the fact that you can be wrong.
That's is close to knowing, isn't it? Believing absolutely is either a knowledge or just a nonsense, because "believing" pretty much means that that I can be right or wrong, right? But if "believing absolutely" is a knowledge or close to it, then it relates to truth traditionally. 1 plus 1 is 2, I believe that I can't be wrong; am I foolish now?
A fool in this context is someone that forgets that they can be wrong.
Context is pretty much missing here, in this sole sentence we spoke about.
"I am convinced that I went outside 1 hour ago". English is not my native language, but I don't get why this sentence is more close to believing than knowing. For me it seems then every knowledge can be expressed as strict conviction or belief - that's why knowledge is true (and justified, as you wish) belief.If I know X then I believe X. [P -> Q]
From you just follows that "merely believing" is stupid in any case (even in case that 1 plus 1 and the circle is round) and "absolute belief" is even worse (since it somehow mysteriously forgets that it can be wrong and is therefore a belief) then both of then just can't participate in the traditional meaning of knowledge. For me it is completely unclear from where that strict distinction comes from. From truth? No, since both knowledge and belief are trying to be true. From justification? But you never know when something is justified enough and you shouldn't ask further. That's a matter of belief.
"You are using the wrong meaning of something. In this case it is used as a pronoun for "insert belief here". It does not imply relativity. Additionally you should assume that someone that protests ignoring the possibility of being wrong is not ignoring the possibility of being wrong."
Saying again: a sentence that says that believing something absolutely is foolish is foolish because it believes absolutely that believing something absolutely is foolish. Relativity was just an example. Further, about the possibility of being wrong, did I assumed anything else? Where?
I am afraid I am much more of an amateur in this field. I don't know of Russel or Whitehead by name.
@Unproveable statement that truthfully claims it is unproveable. [Unknowable]
I have 2 statements. Both claim to be unproveable. One is true the other is false.
I can learn the false claim is false by proving it is false. If it were not false I would not be able to prove it false. Therefore my belief it the false claim being false is true and would not exist if the claim were not false. This belief would be knowledge.
I cannot differentiate the true claim from a yet unproven false claim. Therefore if I believed the true claim were true then I would believe it were true regardless of whether it was true or not. Since I could have the same belief from the same premises and be incorrect, the belief is not knowledge.
@"This statement could be false"
Was this a typo? I initially wrote "Inherently true means a belief that could not have been false." The beliefs that the statement "This statement could be false" being true or false both can be false. Since the beliefs could be false they are not knowledge.
Usually knowledge is defined as justified belief that happens to be true. I find issue with the coincidence of "happens to" rather than the stronger link of "must".
@memimemiIn principle, however, you can know that it's true: take the set [all theorems proven true from these axioms], and see whether the statement 'This statement cannot be proven true' lies within it. If it does, then it has been proven true, and so is true - except that it has falsified itself. If it does not, then it cannot be proven true, and so is true. In both cases, you do know the truth value, because you cannot provide a proof. No matter what, it's a true statement to our understanding (mind, self, what have you), and yet cannot be proven.
Thanks for the link!
;D
@"This statement cannot be proven true"
If it could be proven true it would be proven false. If this statement could be proven false then it would be true. If it must be true xor false (suspicious premise for such statements), then it cannot be proven true. If we know that it must be true xor false then it could be proven true. If it must be true xor false then we must not be able to know it must be true xor false. If we know it is not true xor false then we get into hairy possibilities (both and neither) about which I do not know the logic to shape into proofs. I do not know the truth value of this statement thus I do not know if it can be proved true.
@"This statement could be false"Mathematics have a great deal of trouble with discussing themselves. I think you'll enjoy the Principia.
If true it is either true but not false or true and false. If false it is both false and true. If neither true nor false then it is neither true nor false.
[different meanings of could might shift these a bit]
PS: I assume there is some math out their that can work with 4 truth states.
I might be able to know Tolkien wrote Legolas was an elf. I do not think I would be able to know Legolas was an elf. The first is true the second is not true.
Knowledge is a type of belief. I assume there are true statements that can be made about the time before rational beings. Wouldn't these statements be true before they were conceived? Aka is truth a belief or a characteristic?
If you do not ascribe to justified true belief (for good reason it looks), what is the definition for knowledge you use?
ii) Knowledge is not a type of belief. They are cousins, perhaps, but not siblings. I can know, based on census figures, that the population of Detroit, MI, was just over 700,000 people in 2011, even though I really find it hard to believe that that many people have bothered to stay. If I trust the census, though, my belief will change to fit the facts. I can believe, wholeheartedly, that the Earth will turn entirely to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I know that there is no mechanism by which that could conceivably happen.I am really glad you necro'd this thread.
iii) Truth is neither a belief nor a characteristic. It is the most agreed upon representation of the Human experience of events, most of which are far beyond our comprehension. Knowledge is the repeated experience of events, and perception thereof, that best agrees with the common experience of one's peers.
I am really glad you necro'd this thread.
ii) I can believe that the Earth will turn to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I do not know of a mechanism. Are you sure you can believe it if you know no mechanism exists?
iii) So Truth can be false? See the belief in a flat Earth back when there was a consensus to that effect.
"You lost me"When I said you lost me I was serious. I did not understand what you were trying to say in your last post. "Dream on" is a rude comment to make. I am trying to understand what you said. If I understood enough to ask a question, I would have. Since I did not understand that much, I admitted my failing and notified you that your message was not received.
Dream on. Many trivial commonsense beliefs can be contradictious if we analyze inherent meanings that are assumed there. Self-contradictious sentences can also include tautologies (like simple derivation from the obvious meaning of the concept) , I don't see any problems with that. If you want me to start counting how many times you "lost" me, then I can do that. But that's a childish way to speak about the topic.
"If I said "The sky is blue", then regardless of the detail that it could have meant "The sky is sad" it does not mean "The sky is blue". Even if you can interpret the sentence to mean something about relativity, it was not talking about relativity."
Mh? I wasn't talking about realtivity either. I just brought one example how a sentence about relativity relates to itself. Are you reading what I am writing or just throwing your ideas, guru? Please explain further what did you meant with the "sky is blue" example and how it is related with the topic.
Sentences like "you should always consider that you can be wrong" are something that are called truisms, which have rather bad reputations. Their seeming self-evidence hides many contradictions and problems and after analyzing them all that remain are just a vaguessness and tautologies (or too small hermeneutical circles, which don't give us anything new).
Explaining once more. I can take a mental state (a bit problematic but overall more or less understandable thing like "absolute belief") and say something about that tautologically (using that is "foolish", but this "foolishness" comes pretty much from the definition of that weird thing). It is not a logical tautology but a rhetorical one - it doesn't open many new horizons and meanings with that. Besides, now it is also unclear why this weirdness doesn't apply to the whole sentence itsef (although there was used "feeling" instead of "believing", but no big difference in principle). So, what we have here is vaguessness, tautology, contradiction(s) in one sentence. Therefore, in a way it is a brilliant one.
ii) All the religious belief I have encountered is more similar to believing despite having evidence against (know of no mechanism) rather than despite having solid proof (know no mechanism exists) against.
I am really glad you necro'd this thread.
ii) I can believe that the Earth will turn to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I do not know of a mechanism. Are you sure you can believe it if you know no mechanism exists?
iii) So Truth can be false? See the belief in a flat Earth back when there was a consensus to that effect.
ii) Yes. To do otherwise is to deny the phenomenon of religious belief. Tertullian's "credo qua absurdum;" Kirkegaard's 'leap of faith:' for many, knowledge of how God performs his divine acts is in direct contravention with faith in God, which is isopomorphic with belief in God.
iii) First, we need to separate the concepts of '(absolute) Truth' from mere truth. The former, were it to be a consistant quality, must not be false in any way at all. The latter, however, has no such strict requirement. Look at the scientific method: all truths are conditionial. Does this mean that science is not a means of garnering knowledge? Did Ptolemy not 'know' that the planets followed their unusual epicycles, on their paths around the Earth? Human-level truths are necessarily conditionial - until such a time as we become omniscient, we have no way of knowing whether any true statement is absolutely true.
ii) All the religious belief I have encountered is more similar to believing despite having evidence against (know of no mechanism) rather than despite having solid proof (know no mechanism exists) against.
ii) Yes. To do otherwise is to deny the phenomenon of religious belief. Tertullian's "credo qua absurdum;" Kirkegaard's 'leap of faith:' for many, knowledge of how God performs his divine acts is in direct contravention with faith in God, which is isopomorphic with belief in God.
iii) First, we need to separate the concepts of '(absolute) Truth' from mere truth. The former, were it to be a consistant quality, must not be false in any way at all. The latter, however, has no such strict requirement. Look at the scientific method: all truths are conditionial. Does this mean that science is not a means of garnering knowledge? Did Ptolemy not 'know' that the planets followed their unusual epicycles, on their paths around the Earth? Human-level truths are necessarily conditionial - until such a time as we become omniscient, we have no way of knowing whether any true statement is absolutely true.
iii) I think I understand. You are using truth to describe our perception of a statement rather than describing the truth value of the statement. Is this accurate?
I am able to bring quotes too from the same source you used. Did you quoted a sentence about logical tautology on purpose, even after I was saying that I was speaking about rhetorical tautology? Here it is:Sorry. I do not see a significant difference between the tautologies. All of them have the same form from my understanding. I used the logic one because logic is purer than rhetoric.
"Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct". "Believing absolutely is foolish" or "irrationality is foolish" is pretty much that, although may not be a tautology in its purest form.
About the paradox:
"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning." Paradox is a contradiction, which can be true: "Veridical paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox, which are seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true because they are perfectly logical."
You can argue with Quine if you want, but some paradoxes (they are contradictions too) can be true. Often they are true and false at the same time. So if I saying using the universal form of the sentence that "believing absolutely in something is foolish" then if this sentence is true then I can't believe that sentence absolutely (universally?) and therefore believing absolutely in something may not be foolish. If it is true then it is false. What we have here is a paradoxical and rhetorically tautological derivation from a truism.
I didn't say that it is a Veridical paradox, but I said that a contradiction can be true (what you just denied previously). Since our main sentence is expressed in the universal form and doesn't express any doubt about itself whatsoever (using words "sometimes", "often" etc); it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, therefore it can't be a "just belief" or "mere belief" or even "belief" about itself, but something very similar to that what it seems to deny. But the vague term "absolute belief" leaves some room for different interpretations, of course. Since this sentence is so opaque, as I have said like a mockingbird several times, there is just no point to use most strict mathematical logic here. But the most narrow definitions of contradiction and tautology can be used to try to object me. Some people just can't admit that they were wrong.This is why we use context (the conversation the quote comes from) and assume the speaker can read what they wrote. It was evident to everyone in the conversation that the statement was not believed absolutely. Words are symbols for meaning. Sometimes the meaning is contextual.
If we use a normal human language and not just letters and empty formulas or try to define a tautology through mathematical cycle (which is just ridiculous in case of the rhetorical tautology I spoke), then a tautology is a way to use different words say the same thing, which were already assumed. But since new words are used, some new (no matter how tiny) aspects of meanings are already present with them. This means that sentence can be more or less tautological. Things are not always black and white ("pure") like you assume.
As I said, it is hard to see why "belief" is relevant to the statement itself, because it is not expressed, it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, but the concrete universal form of the statement is present and expressed and that makes the whole sentence look like a classical self-contradiction. And tautological elements are still there. I quess that mockingbird stops to repeat himself about this topic, but will open his mouth again if he sees counter-arguments that are not artificial.
Damn, once more I couldn't resist. I hope that this is the last time.Opening post
Where are those evident contextual meanings, again? Although everybody may assume that but it wasn't there, at least in the first post and the written sentence. The last one is that we should analyze, not to derive meanings from the other sources and create assumtions that weren't written down.
since there arent any sections dedicated to the ever-enjoyable sport of debate, i felt one should be posted. i felt philosophy is a nice home for it too. so without further ado, lets start things off.Note the use of the word "feel" opposed to "know" or "claim".
i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.
any retorts or personal elaborations?
What I said is that "believing absolutely" is basically a nonsense and contradiction (yes, again, and I'm not gonna repeat that) which is used by others to describe us as fools - this is pretty much its only meaning.Believing absolutely (aka not considering the possibility of error) is neither nonsense nor a contradiction. It describes ignoring the possibility of error. This is possible to do. Since it is possible to do, a term describing it is no nonsense. Even if you don't ignore the possibility for error there exist those that do. In fact there are those that take pride in ignoring doubt even when faced with evidence. It can be misused to label those that do not ignore the possibility of error as fools. However all terms can be misapplied so the possibility of misapplication is not a legitimate critique. You claim that it is only used as Ad Hominem. This is not so. I have been using the term yet have not yet labeled anyone with it. Obviously it has a use beyond calling people fools.
"Note the use of the word "feel" opposed to "know" or "claim"."Where? In the OP. In the statement.
Where? You just assume that? Units feeling doesn't matter anyway, what came next should be analyzed. Unit doesn't point that his feelings about the next statement should be the object of discussion.
"Note the request for retorts. Something that is only done by those that are not ignoring the possibility of error."
It can be a just a polite gesture or whatever. It can be also a task thrown on us - like "do you see a paradox here?" Shouldn't concentrate on people and their possible state of mind but only look at the statement that was presented us as a task.
"Note that the discussion continues to talk about doubt and skepticism. It should be assumed that someone that is skeptical would be skeptical about skepticism."If one does not apply the principles of skepticism to a subset of ideas, then one is being arbitrary in their usage. A skeptic is not arbitrary in their usage. A skeptic would not not apply the principles of skepticism to skepticism.
Doesn't matter how it continues. The problematic statement was already thrown up. Skeptics are usually skeptical about skepticism? What makes them skeptics then? How they differ from non-skeptics that are skeptical about skepticism?
"Believing absolutely (aka not considering the possibility of error) is neither nonsense nor a contradiction. It describes ignoring the possibility of error. This is possible to do. Since it is possible to do, a term describing it is no nonsense. Even if you don't ignore the possibility for error there exist those that do. In fact there are those that take pride in ignoring doubt even when faced with evidence. It can be misused to label those that do not ignore the possibility of error as fools. However all terms can be misapplied so the possibility of misapplication is not a legitimate critique. You claim that it is only used as Ad Hominem. This is not so. I have been using the term yet have not yet labeled anyone with it. Obviously it has a use beyond calling people fools."I have been using ignore to symbolize a concept that would not require knowing the possibility of error. If you have a better word to describe this concept I am trying to communicate, please let me know and mentally substitute it.
Something that I wanted to add and why I started this post: Yes, it is possible to ignore the possibility of error, but only then if you are aware of that possibility of error. Then you can forget about it for a while. If you don't know that there is a possibility of error, then you can't ignore it. Now, usually I can believe in something (know the possibility of error) and know something (don't know the possibility of error, I hold that my belief is quite necessarily true). "Absolute belief" is something I don't meet in relation to myself, because it is impossible to know (as believer) and not to know (as a knower, since my belief is absolute) the possibility of error at the same time. From where its meaning and usage comes from? It can come from only from the others who have the perspective to myself and my beliefs which I don't have. Only they can see that I am stupid or make errors and believe in something absolutely that is not true. I can perceive myself only as thinking and knowing, but for them my thinking may be stupidity and knowing is "absolute believing". Of course I can try to see myself as others do, like "stupid" for example, but this remains an empty word for me, because I don't have that necessary distance from myself as others do. Of course I can see others "stupid" in the same way as they see me. But I can't see much non-contradictory usage of the "absolute belief" which doesn't refer to my (or their) foolishness or errenousness, because it is something that reduces my (or their) knowing to believing. This fool-making process gives life to this phenomenon, because it is hard to see how it can exist in itself, without it.
I would add that consistently applying the epistemology of the Scientific Method (all truths are conditional on verified evidence) would necessitate verifying evidence of the value of the Scientific Method. This has been done by some skeptics.
Yes. Evidence does exist for the Scientific Method. That is why it is self consistent. Do you see what I was getting at though? When you choose a rule to judge things by, you should also judge the rule by that rule.
I would add that consistently applying the epistemology of the Scientific Method (all truths are conditional on verified evidence) would necessitate verifying evidence of the value of the Scientific Method. This has been done by some skeptics.
There is plenty of existential evidence for the effectiveness of the Scientific Method. Protip: you're typing on one piece now. By every objective measure of which I know, life has been on the whole vastly improved by the application of science and scientific thinking.
I maintain that acceptance of all truths as conditional is far more defensible a position than any of Truth as an absolute. Belief (as belief; not hypothesis) has little do with knowledge itself, and more to do with our convictions in our opinions concerning knowledge.