Author Topic: another question  (Read 5176 times)

Re: another question
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2013, 04:59:28 AM »
Thanks for the heads up aitm.

I am no philosopher and if I am teaching some one then they are in serious trouble. :rollin:

Re: another question
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2013, 06:03:10 AM »
Quote from: "spideyman23"
ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
Yes, it's called "infinite regress".
Quote from: "spideyman23"
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
... according to Aristotle, yes. The term "work" doesn't seem very appropriate, though.
Quote from: "spideyman23"
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
No, it's not necessarily a paradox. Where did you get that from? There are both vicious and non-vicious infinite regresses in philosophy, if that's what you mean. The homunculus argument is one example of vicious infinite regress.
Quote from: "spideyman23"
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
Nope. You appear to misunderstand the ideas you mentioned, and as a result, your argument makes no sense.
I first assume that knowledge is not inherently connected to anything but its physical structure and physical processes that interact with the container of knowledge.

This means that "knowledge" could be an inaccurate term, describing a much more complex system.
This means that the difference between humans and machines could be completely irrelevant for the area of artificial intelligence.
This means that anything we consider true, even our most precious notions, can always be wrong.

(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2013, 05:02:02 PM »
Zeno's paradox?

Offline Colanth

Re:
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2013, 10:16:56 PM »
Quote from: "Zatoichi"
Zeno's paradox?
No, Spidey's Paradox.  We've been here before with exactly the same question of whether believing something makes it true.

It's a win-win situation (for me).  I believe that Spidey's a troll.  So either he is or his premise is wrong.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Offline SGOS

Re: another question
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2013, 07:36:49 AM »
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"

GIGO.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.

For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.
I studied similar ontological arguments in a philosophy class before, and we were required to examine them for flaws.  They all seemed terribly flawed to me, and even while other well known philosophers trashed them, their reasoning always seemed unnecessarily complicated and hard to follow.

My bone headed analysis of this one would involve all the "IF" and "IT IS POSSIBLE" statements.  Those are all vague statements.  Using those words, each statement allows for both the possibility as well as the not/possibility of being true.  In general terms it translates like this:

It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
Therefore, it must be true.

I would never write this on an exam, but here I'll just say, "What the fuck?"  No matter how many statements you put between the first premise and the conclusion,  "If" and "It is possible" never leads to any precise claim.  All you can logically deduce is, "Yeah, well, maybe or maybe not."

I keep thinking I'm missing something, because the argument seems so childish.  It's a series of inconclusive statements followed by a whopping non-sequitur.

Re: another question
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2013, 11:24:39 AM »
Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"

GIGO.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Your logic, like a computer program, may be sound but if the information you insert is flawed then your outcome is invalid.

For example William Lane Craig's version of the ontological argument for the existence of god:

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

He has the correct mechanics but it could be argued he has it backwards and there for his argument fails to supply evidence of his claims.
I studied similar ontological arguments in a philosophy class before, and we were required to examine them for flaws.  They all seemed terribly flawed to me, and even while other well known philosophers trashed them, their reasoning always seemed unnecessarily complicated and hard to follow.

My bone headed analysis of this one would involve all the "IF" and "IT IS POSSIBLE" statements.  Those are all vague statements.  Using those words, each statement allows for both the possibility as well as the not/possibility of being true.  In general terms it translates like this:

It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
It may be true or false.
Therefore, it must be true.

I would never write this on an exam, but here I'll just say, "What the fuck?"  No matter how many statements you put between the first premise and the conclusion,  "If" and "It is possible" never leads to any precise claim.  All you can logically deduce is, "Yeah, well, maybe or maybe not."

I keep thinking I'm missing something, because the argument seems so childish.  It's a series of inconclusive statements followed by a whopping non-sequitur.


Exactly, and that's all ontological arguments for God's existence will ever get you, which is to say nowhere. And the initial premise of, say, Plantinga's Ontological argument refutes the rest of the argument for a "maximally great being", since by saying it's possible a maximally great being exists in some possible world, you simultaneously establish its existence in ALL possible worlds and NONE of them, and hence fails.
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2013, 11:38:45 AM »


I'm getting an incredible sense of deja vu.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Re: another question
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2013, 06:58:57 PM »
no you troll, zeno's paradoxes have nothing to do with infinite regress.

Offline Colanth

(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2013, 09:20:22 PM »
You're right - Zeno's paradoxes have to do with infinite progress.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Offline Sal1981

Re: another question
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2013, 09:26:47 PM »
Quote from: "spideyman23"
ok so one logical/philosophical idea is that every premise must be justified by another premise.
Wrong. There are axioms.
Quote from: "spideyman23"
but that doesn't always work because it is simply evident that some things exist,
and even if it weren't you'd still have to justify the idea itself with another premise, etc. so it's all a paradox.
does that logically mean that the opposite is true, and any belief or certain belief you have automatically makes it true? note, this is logically speaking.
What? "Some things exist...", according to who/what? Answer that first before you have a working premise. Then you can ask the question "even if it weren't...". This is akin to selling the bearskin before you've shot the bear.

Quote from: "spideyman23"
no you troll, zeno's paradoxes have nothing to do with infinite regress.
Really? In maths there exists an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one. Not only that, any number between the inbetweens (between zero and one) there exists an additional infinity of inbetweens. So much so, there exists more of these Real numbers than Natural integers of 0,1,2 ... as proven by Cantor. Wrap your head around that.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman