Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2017, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 08:49 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
It cannot because you say so, again. You have no way of demonstrating this is actually true. By saying its "self evident" you've begged the question. We assume reality can't contradict itself, so we can analyze it.

If it contradicted itself, we couldn't have this conversation? Why not? Because you can't imagine how it could work?

You already said we can't know anything for sure. I agree. So how do you know this is certainly true?

All we have are models. We cannot access reality directly. It always goes through at least one filter.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 08:42 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It's an argument from incredulity, really. He can't imagine things being any other way. We have no data.

Also... what is the point of any of this, anyway? What does trying to poke holes in the sceptic viewpoint achieve?

Well there's no need to poke holes in skepticism. It pokes holes in itself. I'm trying to show that the questions skeptics ask pose a problem for pragmatists.

Let's pretend you have demonstrated this.

What difference does it make? Have you any larger point?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It cannot because you say so, again. You have no way of demonstrating this is actually true. By saying its "self evident" you've begged the question. We assume reality can't contradict itself, so we can analyze it.

If it contradicted itself, we couldn't have this conversation? Why not? Because you can't imagine how it could work?

You already said we can't know anything for sure. I agree. So how do you know this is certainly true?

All we have are models. We cannot access reality directly. It always goes through at least one filter.

It can't contradict itself because the concept is incoherent. I am not begging the question. I'm setting my epistemic foundation. Self-evident truths are not circular arguments. They are true by their nature and are understood as true by the intellect immediately. It's not because I can't imagine it being the case. This isn't an argument from incredulity either. It's a statement about operations of the intellect in relation to a given reality. The intellect is formed such that it knows certain truths inherently. Your own existence and the reliability of your reasoning are among these truths. They are knowledge. Keep in mind I have an infallibilist view of knowledge. Unless something is completely justified and true, it cannot be knowledge. If you can acknowledge any uncertainty in a belied, it isn't knowledge. It could be a partially justified true belief, but unless it is completely justified, it doesn't rise to the level of knowledge.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Incoherent? To you? Reality doesn't need to be coherent to you.

A sceptic is someone who apportions their beliefs to the evidence.

If you don't do this, what do you do? You seem to just declare a lot of things to be true. That's not of any practical use and is defeated by your own objections to scepticism.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:50 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well there's no need to poke holes in skepticism. It pokes holes in itself. I'm trying to show that the questions skeptics ask pose a problem for pragmatists.

Let's pretend you have demonstrated this.

What difference does it make? Have you any larger point?

Yes. I'm trying to persuade scientists and atheists to step away from pragmatism. It weakens the scientific method.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 09:03 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 09:00 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Incoherent? To you? Reality doesn't need to be coherent to you.

A sceptic is someone who apportions their beliefs to the evidence.

If you don't do this, what do you do? You seem to just declare a lot of things to be true. That's not of any practical use and is defeated by your own objections to scepticism.

We're using skepticism differently here. I'm referring to philosophical skepticism. You could phrase it as a maxim: Question everything... even this statement.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 09:05 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Quote:I am not begging the question. I'm setting my epistemic foundation. Self-evident truths are not circular arguments. They are true by their nature and are understood as true by the intellect immediately.

Wrong again Nelly.
Your underlying assumptions could be wrong, (as they were in your crap cosmological argument). You could be making a mistake, (as you also did in what you said about your dualism nonsense).
And wasn't it just yesterday, you were claiming someone "revolutionized" the understanding of science, (although you couldn't say how, in your own words). Your attention span is that of a gnat.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 09:08 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 09:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  We're using skepticism differently here. I'm referring to philosophical skepticism. You could phrase it as a maxim: Question everything... even this statement.

Not "we're". You.
You've been schooled on changing the meaning of words, yet you persist in thinking you get to define things for others.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:14 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The law of contradiction is true of everything in the sense that any true proposition must also, by it's nature, falsify it's negation.

Exactly. It holds for propositions. Propositions are not everything.

You continually insist on phrasing things in the most incoherent way possible. You have to stop doing this. The statements you are trying to make are incoherent, and it forces the other participants to waste pages upon pages trying to get an actual definition out of you.

If you want to make any sort of argument against materialism, you have to be able to actually define things like "immaterial aspect", "interpreted in the aphysical by the aphysical", and so on. Until you do, these statements are gibberish, and must be discarded as worthless.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 09:20 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It cannot because you say so, again. You have no way of demonstrating this is actually true. By saying its "self evident" you've begged the question. We assume reality can't contradict itself, so we can analyze it.

If it contradicted itself, we couldn't have this conversation? Why not? Because you can't imagine how it could work?

You already said we can't know anything for sure. I agree. So how do you know this is certainly true?

All we have are models. We cannot access reality directly. It always goes through at least one filter.

It's a rabbit hole with Naeilis. Initially I had hope for him (or her - didn't check, don't really care) but the whole talking-in-circles thing tested my patience one too many times.

Feel free to go down it if you wish, but the cycle won't end: obfuscation, moving goalposts, incoherent arguments that sound suspiciously like something from WLC... it's a no-win, even when you're correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: