Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6530)	6/22/2003 12:28:12 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

What in the world are you talking about? You have certain principles of logic, observation, etc. that you rely on to determine what is true and what is untrue. For example, you probably rely on your senses to provide accurate information, you rely on certain rules of deductive and inductive reasoning, etc. Within that framework, you can make predictions that you are sufficiently confident of to say that you "know" this or that. But if your framework started with "God exists, the Bible is the Word of God, infalliable, absolute truth" and proceed from there, you would make a whole set of different predictions about what you "know." Within the different frameworks, the knowledge is roughly equally certain and convincing. People who have the different frameworks will have different beliefs about what they know and what is true. And there is NO way to prove that either framework is more or less true than the other framework. That's the big problem.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6530)	6/22/2003 4:56:06 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

What he appears to mean is that you rely on "logic" and "deductive reasoning" and so forth. But if a person relies on some capricious framework such as "Trolls esist, the grass is the hair of trolls--and the grass will give you certainty if you eat enough of it" and proceeds from there, you would make a whole set of different predictions about what you "know." Within the different frameworks, the knowledge is roughly equally certain and convincing. A person who believes the world is square or made of cheese or that trolls rule is equally convinced within his "framework". And you can't "prove", Karen, to those who repudiate logic, that logic and reason is more or less "true" than the "frameworks" used by those not using the framewok of logic, etc. I have it on good authority that you really ought to consider this as an insurmountable problem. <gg>