Certainty and the Problem of Induction

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

someone claiming to know with his "flawed" senses that they are flawed.

Have you ever been deceived? Would you call that a misperception? We don't have to have 20/20 vision to know that we need glasses.

Originally Posted by Burke

So he can claim to know anything and everything by "faith."

Nobody's claiming that at all; the flaw in your logic is that you are attempting to make processes binary where such processes require no such restrictions.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

This stuff would not make a respectable discussion in Introduction to Philosophy, 101.

Seriously.

[Burke]

Which is why I took no more than one philosophy class and kept studying Rand.

[Burke]

Originally Posted by Burke

Just another silly contradiction, someone claiming to know with his "flawed" senses that they are flawed.

So he can claim to know anything and everything by "faith."

And so we can all get together and agree that an affirmative action fake who writes like a 10th grader is brilliant enough to be editor of the Harvard law review and later president.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Burke

Which is why I took no more than one philosophy class and kept studying Rand.

And that may be the core of your problem.

I mean, if you knew it all already, why go to college ? Or law school even ?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Burke

A cult of individualists is a contradiction.

And yet.

Turns out, individualists who define everything they believe and condone through the lens of another, named individual, aren't a contradiction within the word "cult", but within the word "individual".

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

And yet.

Turns out, individualists who define everything they believe and condone through the lens of another, named individual, aren't a contradiction within the word "cult", but within the word "individual".

No, no, see . . . those are truly authentic people.

[Burke]

Wes,

It's not possible to explain anything to someone who thinks he can dispense with logic and engage in contradictions whenever, which is why I have basically given up on you.

All you are saying is that we can't be certain of anything because we don't know everything, which allows you to claim anything. It's an old, long discredited tact.

The fact that we can't see the back of the moon doesn't mean that we don't know what the front side looks like.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Burke

Wes,

It's not possible to explain anything to someone who thinks he can dispense with logic and engage in contradictions whenever, which is why I have basically given up on you.

All you are saying is that we can't be certain of anything because we don't know everything, which allows you to claim anything. It's an old, long discredited tact.

The fact that we can't see the back of the moon doesn't mean that we don't know what the front side looks like.

Well, then we could see the alien base, if we could see that.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

It's not possible to explain anything to someone who thinks he can dispense with logic and engage in contradictions whenever, which is why I have basically given up on you.

One of the reasons I use the quote function is to make sure I am honestly attempting to capture what it is that I am responding to. When you say things like "dispense with logic and engage in contradictions," doesn't that make you think I'm going to ask you what, specifically, you are referring to? And why not just cut to the chase and grab what I said and address that rather than attempting to summarize my view based on what you believe I am *really* saying.

Can you cite a contradiction that you perceive that I posted and at least give me a chance to address it?

Originally Posted by Burke

All you are saying is that we can't be certain of anything because we don't know everything, which allows you to claim anything. It's an old, long discredited tact.

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've identified things that we can be certain of. I honestly don't understand how you get from there to here. Perhaps you have mistaken me with another.

Originally Posted by Burke

The fact that we can't see the back of the moon doesn't mean that we don't know what the front side looks like.

link Another misperception treated as a "fact" - we have seen the back of the moon. Just because you haven't seen images of it doesn't mean that everybody hasn't.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Wes, I'm not through here yet. Keep reading.

And re-read what I've already written here, because you seem to be missing a lot.

[Burke]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

You can't separate perception from interpretation. If interpretation is flawed, then the perception is said to be flawed. If the sensory receptors are flawed, then the perception is said to be flawed. The idea that perception cannot be flawed requires a greater faith than all of the mystics in the world combined. That it can be flawed gives us caution as to what we consider useful information based on what we have perceived.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Here is a contradiction, Wes. Can you figure it out?

Hint: if it were true, how would you know it?

[Burke]

Another question:

Is a chair a chair?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Here is a contradiction, Wes. Can you figure it out?

Hint: if it were true, how would you know it?

No, but can you just describe the contradiction that you see?

Originally Posted by Burke

Another question:

Is a chair a chair?

I don't understand the question; are you asking me if I accept the law of identity? Of course I do.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Then a chair cannot be at once a chair and something other than a chair?

Right?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Then a chair cannot be at once a chair and something other than a chair?

Right?

A chair can be both a chair and a bookcase:



Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Well then,

If it's both a chair and a bookcase, can it not be both a chair and a bookcase at the same time?

[WESGATORS]

Sure.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

That's a contradiction.

[WESGATORS]

The picture shows us that it can be both a chair and a bookcase at the same time. Those two labels identify two of the features of the object in question. Let me ask you now, how do you know that this object cannot function as both a chair and a bookcase at the same time? What do you think the purpose of this object is?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS