I might be wrong
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: I might be wrong
(09-08-2016 03:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing"
Socrates.

It is one of the wisest statements ever made. Religious people claim to know everything. They don't. We're now and have always been on a learning curve.

Banjo,

Thanks. Smile

This is exactly it. If I know "one thing" then I don't know "nothing" and if I know "nothing" then I don't know "one thing". That looks like the logical contradiction that I suspect in my OP line. But is it really in there?

"I know that I know nothing" sounds clearer, but the logical contradiction is still implied.

I think that that this and my old prof's statement are wise because they embody (maybe ironically) the very problem with epistemology that they seek to clarify. They are the mirror that my daughter was talking about, or to use a different simile, I might see them as like a road sign saying 'dead end'.

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dworkin's post
11-08-2016, 06:30 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 06:40 AM by onlinebiker.)
RE: I might be wrong
Maybe so ---

But I know that I'm Wong...

[Image: law-and-order-svu-bd-wong.jpg?w=303&h=240]

BD Wong
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
11-08-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: I might be wrong
(09-08-2016 11:09 PM)DLJ Wrote:  You're just not sure what they are.

Big Grin

Death and taxes?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 07:15 AM
RE: I might be wrong
(11-08-2016 05:03 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 03:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing"
Socrates.

It is one of the wisest statements ever made. Religious people claim to know everything. They don't. We're now and have always been on a learning curve.

Banjo,

Thanks. Smile

This is exactly it. If I know "one thing" then I don't know "nothing" and if I know "nothing" then I don't know "one thing". That looks like the logical contradiction that I suspect in my OP line. But is it really in there?

"I know that I know nothing" sounds clearer, but the logical contradiction is still implied.

I think that that this and my old prof's statement are wise because they embody (maybe ironically) the very problem with epistemology that they seek to clarify. They are the mirror that my daughter was talking about, or to use a different simile, I might see them as like a road sign saying 'dead end'.

D.

You're welcome. All it means to me is that no single person knows everything. We should be trying to learn something. There is always something new.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 02:32 AM
RE: I might be wrong
(11-08-2016 07:15 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 05:03 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  Banjo,

Thanks. Smile

This is exactly it. If I know "one thing" then I don't know "nothing" and if I know "nothing" then I don't know "one thing". That looks like the logical contradiction that I suspect in my OP line. But is it really in there?

"I know that I know nothing" sounds clearer, but the logical contradiction is still implied.

I think that that this and my old prof's statement are wise because they embody (maybe ironically) the very problem with epistemology that they seek to clarify. They are the mirror that my daughter was talking about, or to use a different simile, I might see them as like a road sign saying 'dead end'.

D.

You're welcome. All it means to me is that no single person knows everything. We should be trying to learn something. There is always something new.

Banjo,

Human reasoning has been around for a long time, but 2+2 is still 4. That is boxed off for every single person that discovers arithmetic.

Deductive reasoning in formal logic is fixed, although philosophers have been fretting at it since Aristotle and probably before. What I am seeking to ascertain at this time is whether the OP line is a example of logical contradiction or infinite regress, or something else. Hopefully someone will come along to this thread and help us clarify.

D.

PS - As an agnostic, I do admit the possibility of a universe or contingency in which formal logic and 2+2 = 4 did not hold, but I do not have the cognition to describe such a state. Maybe, as you suggest, someone will have a eureka moment. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: I might be wrong
(13-08-2016 02:32 AM)Dworkin Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 07:15 AM)Banjo Wrote:  You're welcome. All it means to me is that no single person knows everything. We should be trying to learn something. There is always something new.

Human reasoning has been around for a long time, but 2+2 is still 4. That is boxed off for every single person that discovers arithmetic.

I've worked with number systems where 4 doesn't exist and 2 + 2 = 1.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: I might be wrong
On a more serious note from the mathematical front, and this time relevant to the OP, are certain flaws/shortcomings in logic discovered in the early to mid 20th century, roughly concurrently by Godel, Turing, Church, and I think maybe one or two others. The long version would require a discussion of lambda-calculus or Turing incompleteness or something similar, so instead have a humorous example followed by the short version:

(I wish I could take credit for and/or properly attribute the following. Can't. Sorry.)

This multiple-choice test question has 4 possible answers -- A, B, C, and D. Suppose that Jake can't decide the answer and guesses at random, with each of those 4 answers having an equal 25% chance of getting picked. What are the odds that he will select the correct answer?

A) 25%
B) 50%
C) 25%
D) 0%


Take a minute or two to process that....

...

..

.

Okay, so what's going on here?

The problem is that our basic logical concepts of truth and falsehood are flawed. They can and often do break down for a certain class of question, proposition, or statement: Ones that are self-referencing. When a proposition references its own truth-value, we can no longer guarantee that its truth value will fit into our neat little boxes of true and false.

The above multiple choice question runs into this problem. So does the Liar's Paradox ("This sentence is false"), Russel's paradox ("Does the set of all normal sets, meaning sets which do not contain themselves, contain itself?").... and the quote cited in the OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
13-08-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: I might be wrong
(09-08-2016 02:59 PM)Dworkin Wrote:  Is the statement “The only thing I can be sure of is that I might be wrong” - true or false? [...]

Maybe consider the so-called Epimenides paradox?

They fashioned a tomb for thee [Zeus] O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.


—Epimenides (who was a Cretan himself)

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: I might be wrong
(13-08-2016 01:05 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The problem is that our basic logical concepts of truth and falsehood are flawed. They can and often do break down for a certain class of question, proposition, or statement: Ones that are self-referencing. When a proposition references its own truth-value, we can no longer guarantee that its truth value will fit into our neat little boxes of true and false.

The above multiple choice question runs into this problem. So does the Liar's Paradox ("This sentence is false"), Russel's paradox ("Does the set of all normal sets, meaning sets which do not contain themselves, contain itself?").... and the quote cited in the OP.

Reltzik,

Excellent.

I was already suspecting that applying truth/falsehood to my old prof's favourite statement was somehow dodgy. Yes, 'paradox' could be the answer.

Interestingly it fits with my daughter's view that philosophy 'folds back on itself' at the extremes, which is just what a paradox feels like when we confront it.

Sadly, I have forgotten more philosophy than I can remember, but there are lucid moments. Thanks for this one. Smile

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: I might be wrong
It's also an issue in one of the ontological arguments, the one with maximal greatness, wherein the concept of a maximally great being supposedly mandates that said being exists, because existence is greater than non-existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: