Epistemology: Reloaded

[guesswest]

Are there any propositions about which we could not possibly be mistaken? If so, could they provide an infallible foundation for the rest of our beliefs?

[madnak]

No way.

[Mr. Now]

Death. Taxes. These are immutable, invariant, empirical aspects of each human life.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any propositions about which we could not possibly be mistaken? If so, could they provide an infallible foundation for the rest of our beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]
The only one I can think of is:

"There is only one proposition about which we could not possibly be mistaken, namely this one (not counting logical equivalents as different propositions)".

And "no", it could not provide an infallible foundation for the rest of our beliefs, imo.

[EnderIII]

"I am, I exist" is true whenever it is asserted.

[bunny]

I think statements which only relate to our experiences and beliefs are completely reliable. Things like:
"I call myself bunny when I post on the SMP forum"
"I am enjoying this moment"
"I remember "such-and-such" occurring"

Clearly, I dont assert that the first implies the definite existence of the forum in an outside world. But I am certain it exists in my mind. Similarly with the others.

I dont think they provide a foundation for the rest of our beliefs since they are 'disconnected' from the external world by construction. Anything about something outside of our consciousness is not one of these statements and has an element of doubt.

[SlowStroke]

[ QUOTE ]
Death. Taxes. These are immutable, invariant, empirical aspects of each human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Empirical? Yes.

Immutable? Invariant? Maybe.

[guesswest]

How about mathematical statements like 2+2=4? Or the principle of non-contradiction?

And bunny - doesn't everything happen in our consciousness?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
How about mathematical statements like 2+2=4?

[/ QUOTE ] These statements assume alot about the world that isn't infallable. Such as,but not limited to, the combinatory properties of objects. For instance if we take 1 + 1 , if the ones we are using are circles we would end up with a 1 sphere. 1 circle + 1 circle = 1 sphere. There is also the facts of emergance, synergy and, well I can't remember but the opposite where 1 + 1 = 1.5. Or for the romantics out there 2 become 1. There is no reason to be certain that when you take 1 grain of sand and add a 2nd grain of sand. That the combinitory properties of sand must remain the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Or the principle of non-contradiction?


[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what this is but i think two contradictory statements can be equaly valid from two perspectives.

Basically, a good foundation is certainly isn't required for usefulness. The quest for absolute certitude requires an outside perspective, it's fools gold.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
How about mathematical statements like 2+2=4? Or the principle of non-contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think I can be sure that I havent made a mistake here. With regard to "Do I think I exist?" or somesuch - I can be sure I havent made a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
And bunny - doesn't everything happen in our consciousness?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I dont think so - I think there is an outside world, separate from me in which things happen. My knowledge of that world is fundamentally limited though (and even its existence is not a fact I would treat as one I know infallibly).

[guesswest]

Doug - I think you're mixing math with the application of math in the physical world, I don't think anyone could argue the latter is infallible. I just meant math in the abstract, where 2+2 always equals 4, because the definition of 2+2 is 4.

But I feel for that reason it's not very useful as a foundation for anything either, because it's a truism. It's like saying 'he is male' or 'my sister's daughter is my niece'.

As far as the principle of non-contradiction goes, it's a necessary supposition for any kind of logic. If two statements are equally valid then they are by definition not contradictory. Contradiction is not the same as disagreement, it's saying 'p and not-p.'

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug - I think you're mixing math with the application of math in the physical world, I don't think anyone could argue the latter is infallible. I just meant math in the abstract, where 2+2 always equals 4, because the definition of 2+2 is 4.

But I feel for that reason it's not very useful as a foundation for anything either, because it's a truism. It's like saying 'he is male' or 'my sister's daughter is my niece'.


[/ QUOTE ] Surprisingly, the exact point I was trying to get at.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the principle of non-contradiction goes, it's a necessary supposition for any kind of logic. If two statements are equally valid then they are by definition not contradictory. Contradiction is not the same as disagreement, it's saying 'p and not-p.'

[/ QUOTE ] The certitude realies on the supposition that we can make sense of world. Mainly that we can say p at all, or by a similiar token not-p. It is very usefull but by no means infallible.

[madnak]

You assume that logic itself is somehow valid or correct. How can you justify that belief? Not by logic, that would be circular. "2+2=4" is extremely parsimonious, to the point where it may be impossible to believe otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You assume that logic itself is somehow valid or correct. How can you justify that belief? Not by logic, that would be circular. "2+2=4" is extremely parsimonious, to the point where it may be impossible to believe otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're going militant skeptic here then even if logic is valid it could be that 2+2=4 isn't any more true than 2+2=3. Maths could be inconsistent and one of descartes demons is fooling us into only seeing an apparantly consistent slice.

chez

[guesswest]

As far as rejecting 2+2=4 on account of a cartesian demon goes I feel like the skeptic can be refuted on that particular point. Anti-realists would say that if we only have epistemic access to one slice, the remaining slices have no evidentiary standard or causal relationship, so don't exist in any meaningful way.

But as you may have picked up from previous posts, I'm not a foundationalist and mostly just playing devil's advocate bringing up this question - the other prong of the skeptical attack is to simply say that we make mistakes, and I don't see any way of countering that assertion.

mad - I agree it's circular, but it being circular might be just what we're looking for in a foundational truth. If it's not circular it has to be inferential and that just means we have to dig deeper.

[madnak]

It is what we need in a foundational truth. But it also implies that there's no way to justify that truth, internally or externally. Some things simply have to be accepted. I don't believe that implies any kind of certainty.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as rejecting 2+2=4 on account of a cartesian demon goes I feel like the skeptic can be refuted on that particular point. Anti-realists would say that if we only have epistemic access to one slice, the remaining slices have no evidentiary standard or causal relationship, so don't exist in any meaningful way.

[/ QUOTE ]
but they may be mistaken in their anti-realist views. Its enough for the skeptics case that realism may be correct and the descartian demon is fooling us.

chez

[guesswest]

Well, yes, I suppose. But you can apply the argument through error to everything. If it's the only objection to anti-realism it seems massively convoluted and unnecessary to bring the idea of a cartesian demon or some such into play in the first place.

I do agree that skepticism can't be refuted for this general reason though, as annoying as the skeptical argument is.