Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/15/02 10:56pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "What's realilty?" on 12/15/02 3:40pm
>>
>>2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition, and for this reason
>>one need not look to the outside world to confirm this
>>truth, though adducing examples is often useful for
>>elucidating such concepts.
>
>If one defines it to be true definitionally, it really
>becomes then a matter of a circular proof. Why is it
>true? Well, because I defined it to be true.
If it is circular, it is a virtuous, rather than vicious, circle (see below for explanation).
>>I could see this going into a long philosophical
>>debate about the a priori epistemological
>>nature of mathematics, so I’ll use a different
>>example. How about this objective truth: hairless men
>>have no hair.
>
>Well again, the same criticisms I used formerly are
>still applicable.
I don’t see how. Hairless men by definition have no hair. What are hairless men? People who have no hair. Thus, the fact that hairless men have no hair is true by definition. The conclusion naturally flows from the essence of the terms involved. “If a man has no hair, then that man has no hair.” This is an objective truth. It cannot possibly be false. The consequent logically must follow from the antecedent.
Vicious circularity is where we something is supposed to be established, and we unjustifiably assume the truth of something we are supposed to establish, as in the memory example. However, hairless men by definition have no hair (that’s just what hairless men are, it’s logically impossible for a hairless man to have hair), so the consequent of hairless men (that they have no hair) is perfectly justified. It is not viciously circular and is in no way a logical fallacy.
>We perceive with our senses someone
>to be without hair, or with hair, and then in order to
>apply these concepts, formulate categories. In "true
>reality" (e.g. reality as it is without our senses
>invovled) it may be the case that hairless men do
>indeed have hair, or the other way around.
>…<
>Hence, I don't see your example as "objective truth"
>as I don't think it is possible to attain "objective
>truth" about reality. There is truth in the world of
>experience, and here our scientific laws function and
>here hairless men have no hair inasmuch as our senses
>tell us this is true, but it may not be "reality" and
>by that token isn't really "objective".
Hairless men having hair is not logically possible. It would blatantly defy the law of noncontradiction and therefore cannot exist in reality.
>>Well, I’m not saying that our senses dictate
>>truisms for morality, though I do claim that one can
>>perceive moral truths through mental
>>perceptions.
>
>Mental perceptions? From where?
Our mind.
>Everything that I'm
>aware of, or that I can theoretically construct is
>based upon experience and memory. You seem to be
>saying that we can "get at" reality that I don't think
>is attainable through some mental process. I'm
>interested to here more about exactly what this mental
>process is, and how it allows us to transcend
>experience and the limitations imposed on us by our
>senses and memory.
The mental process is called: reason (confer the statement, “there are no hairless men that have hair”).
>>It may be that one’s mental perceptions seem to
>>conflict, but that doesn’t negate the existence of
>>objective truth. I find it rather interesting that a
>>creationist and evolutionist can look at the exact
>>same set of data, with the evolutionist honestly
>>thinking that the data overwhelmingly support his
>>theory, and the creationist also honestly believing
>>that the data overwhelmingly support his
>>theory. Should we forgo the notion of objective truth
>>on this matter? Should we just throw up our arms and
>>say, “You’re both right,”? I don’t think so, and I
>>think the same sort of thing is true for moral truths.
>> Disagreement doesn’t entail the nonexistence of
>>objective truths. This is a classical fallacy that
>>many cultural relativists made.
>
>I agree, it doesn't negate the existance of objective
>truth in and of itself. What I should have said is
>that it negates the notion that senses should be the
>measuring stick of objective truth for the very reason
>that two people can disagree on the nature of an
>objective truth.
I think that could be true.
>(which you'll recall I don't think is
>attainable).
Objective truth being attainable is a very different matter of objective truth being existent. Do you concede that objective truth exists?
>The truth of the matter is that the world
>of experience is ultimately going to lean in one
>direction or the other, be it towards creationism, or
>evolution, but when one makes the next step and says
>"this is the reality of the issue
>creationism/evolution is how it happened for sure"
>then that person is in a serious predicament as far as
>I'm concerned. Fortunately, evolution has the
>mechanism of falsification working in its favor. It
>can be hypothetically falsified.
I don’t see how it could be empirically falsified (given the Duhem-Quine problem and all), but I suppose that’s another debate.
>>>I believe your argument to be that ultimately beliefs
>>>are justified according to the mechanisms of memory
>>>and sensory input.
>>
>>Nope, though I do believe that many beliefs should be
>>based on those sorts of things. What justification,
>>for instance, would one have for memory and sensory
>>input?
>
>okay, fist you said this:
[snipped quote]
>Which begs the question how does one arrive and some
>sort of irreducible truth at least in your view. The
>answer lies fairly clearly in an exhange between you
>and Ben:
[snipped quote on memory talk]
>This certianly seems to indicate to me that
>irreducable truths in your view are arrived at by
>things that aren't testable; that are simply believed
>by experience--"felt", gathered by the senses and
>stored by the memory. If this isn't the case, then how
>are irreducable truths arrived at and what exactly was
>the purpose of this passage?
The purpose of the passage was to whet the appetite a little bit and encourage one to view the link. I actually hinted at what I meant earlier, but I really wanted one to visit the web page for further elucidation. It seems you didn’t see the web page, so I’ll put the link here.
>>>You have used this to suggest that
>>>perhaps human life being sacred is a moral truism
>>>because you happen to think it is true based on these
>>>things.
>>
>>Well, that’s not quite true. I gave the reason why I
>>believe it. I’m aware that there’s a logical
>>possibility that I could be wrong, but this is the
>>best and most rational way to go.
>
>I certainly don't see it. This is the closest thing I
>see to anything of the sort:
[snipped quote]
Again, see the link.
>>That argument doesn’t logically follow (there is no
>>logical inconsistency with having both irreducible
>>truths and people in disagreement on what these truths
>>are), but I’ll agree with the notion that what many
>>people believe is disagreed upon.
>
>Again, I should have worded this as the senses of
>people are unreliable to arrive at anything objective.
>(e.g. the lack of being able to get at reality through
>the senses alone).
I don’t know that this is true. If I see a train heading towards me, I’m liable to think my senses are reasonably reliable so that I’ll move out of the way.
>>>Something has to give. Either there is no objective
>>>reality, or sensory input and memory aren't the only
>>>ways of gathering information about "reality".
>>
>>Methinks this is a false dichotomy. Another
>>possibility is that there is an objective truth, but
>>that not every fallible mortal perfectly perceives
>>them all, just as there is an objective reality in
>>science but we scientists don’t always get it right.
>
>It was oversimplified, but the point is this: our
>senses cannot convey reality to us in whatever it
>truly is for reality is outside the nature of our
>senses.
The classic philosophical puzzle. I think I have the answer in my web page, but you can judge for yourself.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 