Knowledge and Justification

Maybe Glaucon you and Sarkus may be interested in joining a discussion on just that subject " Self-evidential proofs thus objective logic/truths" at another time when there is something of possible value to discuss?

There is an approach I am thnking on that may open some doors so to speak...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh I understand them alright...not a problemo...just that I don't accept them... do you have a problem with that?
And no, quoting a rule is not answering the question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lixluke, being an individualist and all, sincerely believes he can make claims about 'rules' of logic, and so continually point out how everyone isn't playing by their rules.

I guess it gives them something to do (over and over again).

P.S. I already stated the rule about answering questions, this is not an allowed proposition because there are no questions where their individual logic is concerned.
Maybe that means, if he asks a question, he's being illogical according to his own rules?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your questions are irrelevant here is the fact for all discussions period that I already posted:

Questions or no questions. You either abide by the rules or not.

 

No we don't, because there's someone here who isn't abiding by the rules.

Rules are irrelevant anyway, like everything else so who cares?

Given that there isn't a shred of evidence that the someone has engaged in any discussion, in any of the several threads they've posted in, it's a bit ironic to start referring to "rules of discussion"

 

What burden? The burden is never on me. I'm not the one that stated that truth is dependent on observer. I stated that truth is independent of observer. If you don't want to provide logic behind your claim, I have no reason to consider it legitimate. I have no problem providing logic behind truth being absolute. It is not going to happen until you take your own burden.

 

Irrelevant to what? In order for purpose of discussion to be fulfilled, rules of discussion must apply. If you are not interested in fulfilling purpose of discussion, you are only interested in image.

 

Rules of discussion apply only if the people are having a discussion, and abiding by a set of rules, which aren't (never have been) any individual's ideas of what 'rules' are.

There's a contributor here who keeps insisting 'their' rules are the only ones applicable, which is complete crap.

 

The burden of proof for this:

You are truly clueless.

 

There is no such thing as burden of proof. It is an absurd concept with no basis. Thus the burden is all yours as the one who mentioned burdens in the first place.

 

Sounds like an interesting idea. Feel free to start such a thread.

I must say however, I hold that there are no such things as "self-evidential proofs". Similarly, I hold that "objective truth" is meaningless at best, a semantic conceit at least. So, I really wouldn't have much to say.

 

You seriously need to read a dictionary.

 

and since when have you had the authority to throw rules around?

 

What authority? Those are simply the rules of discussion. You either abide by them or don't. You cannot approach a discussion without understanding what the other party is saying. Furthermore, rule#10 about knowledge specifically states that there is no such thing as possibility/impossibility of misconception. It is impossible, even if anybody wanted to, for anybody to not be compelled to realization that they have misconception.

Do you really think that if you were wrong, that it would be impossible for you to realize it? Or anybody for that matter. Do you think if anybody is wrong, it would be impossible for them to realzie it?

 

The person making this statement, appears to believe they are some kind of authority on rules of engagement in a discussion. Peculiarly, this person never engages in any discussion, but just repeats a set of rules as if they have some kind of authority.

This statement presumably implies the person making it doesn't understand what other parties are saying. (??)

It is probably impossible for this person to ever concede they are incorrect about anything.

 

Obviously this is possible as demonstrated by your posts. That is to say it is possible for someone to not be compelled to realization they have a misconception.....

You are living proof of such a state...

 

Wrong. It is not possible for somebody to not be compelled to realization they have misconception.

 

It is possible, though not certain, that a misconception can be a valid conclusion.

This hardly ever happens for some reason.

Dang, I know what this is: some people are irrational and can have a misconception about what truth is, that's it.

About those misconceptions: a common one amongst the irrational types is: "People can be dishonest and tell lies, I never do this"
Or: "Truth is being honest and not lying"; "If people agree with me, it's because I'm always honest (it isn't just to shut me up)"

This could all be a big lie, though...? (Or 'gulp', irrelevant)..

 

I don't know ... QQ ... we've got to see this finish before long. Right?


I did ok with him (minus the final post which according to the mod is a serious insult). I was about to start making him squeam so I could get some testomony from him about how he feels about anything. But instead the mod came and he ran away... So much interest is in this little event.

So many interesting things to think about.

 

Nature of logic- IOW wikipedia.
Form is central to logic. It complicates exposition that 'formal' in "formal logic" is commonly used in an ambiguous manner. Symbolic logic is just one kind of formal logic, and is distinguished from another kind of formal logic, traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic, which deals solely with categorical propositions.

Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of Plato[5] are a good example of informal logic.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content, where that content is made explicit. (An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which were incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic.[6] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language.)
Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.[4][7] Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches, propositional logic and predicate logic.
Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.
"Formal logic" is often used as a synonym for symbolic logic, where informal logic is then understood to mean any logical investigation that does not involve abstract symbolism; it is this sense of 'formal' that is parallel to the received usages coming from "formal languages" or "formal theory".[citation needed] In the broader sense, however, formal logic is old, dating back more than two millennia, while symbolic logic is comparatively new, only about a century old.[citation needed]


[edit] Consistency, soundness, and completeness
Among the valuable properties that logical systems can have are:

Consistency, which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another.
Soundness, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise. If a system is sound and its axioms are true then its theorems are also guaranteed to be true.
Completeness, which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system.
Not all systems achieve all three virtues. The work of Kurt Gödel has shown that no useful system of arithmetic can be both consistent and complete: see Gödel's incompleteness theorems.[7]


[edit] Rival conceptions of logic
Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of logic that it "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations" (Hofweber 2004).

By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgment, an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege's logical and philosophical work, where thought (German: Gedanke) is substituted for judgement (German: Urteil). On this conception, the valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgements or thoughts.


Shame he won't read this.