Prev: Is truth just something we have beliefs about or is there such a thing as truth?
Next: Suppose P is a Pisa Fish and NP is a fish by any other name.
From: raven1 on 20 May 2010 22:17
On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

What dressing would monsieur like for his word salad?

>If we suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is,
>emperical beliefs which are epistemically justified, and whose
>justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
>beliefs, since for a belief to be episemically justified requires that
>there be a reason why it is likely to be true and a belief is
>justified for a person only if he is in cognitive possession of such a
>reason, and a person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only
>if he believes with justification the premises from which it follows
>that the belief is likely to be true, but allthewhile the premises of
>such a justifying argument must include at least one empirical
>premise, whence the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief
>depends on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
>contradicting that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is,
>emperical beliefs which are epistemically justified, making it so
>there can be no basic empirical beliefs including completely justified
>sceptical beliefs, then is our only recourse to propose an empirical
>belief which is realatively true if and only if it coheres with a
>system of other beliefs, which together form a comprehensive account
>of reality, which in science is similar to how "fact" can only mean
>"confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
>provisional assent," and depends upon the evidential and conceptual
>("context") of reasoning or an inductive argument from evidence to
>hypothesis which is inductively cogent if and only if the hypothesis
>is that hypothesis which, of all the competing hypothesis, has the
>greatest probability of being true on the basis of the evidence,
>consequently leading one to believe that whether it is reasonable to
>accept a hypothesis as true, if the statements of evidence are true,
>is determined by whether that hypothesis is the most probable, on the
>evidence, of all those with which it competes or should we just be
>skeptical about the entire affair?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IeASZZf1c
From: ZX on 22 May 2010 10:35
Immortalist wrote:
> If we suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs,
> that is, emperical beliefs which are epistemically justified, and whose
> justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
> beliefs, since for a belief to be episemically justified requires that
> there be a reason why it is likely to be true and a belief is
> justified for a person only if he is in cognitive possession of such a
> reason, and a person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only
> if he believes with justification the premises from which it follows
> that the belief is likely to be true, but allthewhile the premises of
> such a justifying argument must include at least one empirical
> premise, whence the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief
> depends on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
> contradicting that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is,
> emperical beliefs which are epistemically justified, making it so
> there can be no basic empirical beliefs including completely justified
> sceptical beliefs, then is our only recourse to propose an empirical
> belief which is realatively true if and only if it coheres with a
> system of other beliefs, which together form a comprehensive account
> of reality, which in science is similar to how "fact" can only mean
> "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
> provisional assent," and depends upon the evidential and conceptual
> ("context") of reasoning or an inductive argument from evidence to
> hypothesis which is inductively cogent if and only if the hypothesis
> is that hypothesis which, of all the competing hypothesis, has the
> greatest probability of being true on the basis of the evidence,
> consequently leading one to believe that whether it is reasonable to
> accept a hypothesis as true, if the statements of evidence are true,
> is determined by whether that hypothesis is the most probable, on the
> evidence, of all those with which it competes or should we just be
> skeptical about the entire affair?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IeASZZf1c

Yes.






 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Is truth just something we have beliefs about or is there such a thing as truth?
Next: Suppose P is a Pisa Fish and NP is a fish by any other name.