Timeline for Why is the Münchhausen trilemma an unsolved problem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2021 at 7:36 | comment | added | Dcleve | @DoubleKnot. The "linguistic turn" to philosophy is, I believe, one of the major errors of modern philosophy. Philosophy is about puzzling out the crucial subjects we don't understand yet. Focusing on the language we use while doing that is at best a massive distraction from the point. At worst, it prevents completion of useful philosophy, because the insistence on clear and well-defined terms would PREVENT understanding of the need to innovate in concepts and metrics to understand these subjects. But getting back to our subject, neither linguicism nor fictionalism solve the trilemma. | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 5:49 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Dcleve Thx for ur quick feedback. I religiously believe there're no really trilemma or dilemma in this ontic world, all these are due to our own limitations especially after the linguistic turn philosophers tend to define truth through usually self-referenced (formal) languages... I hold a kind a epistemic fictionalism, we can only say likeness never exactness, justified verification really means this epistemic knowledge more like ontology. Falsification can quickly make certain fictional "knowledge" more like fairy tale... It's not like a firm foundational building, more like a ship... | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 5:05 | comment | added | Dcleve | @DoubleKnot -- It is not a "false trilemma". See philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/64638/… the trilemma remains fully operant after rejecting mathematical precision. and JTB. Falsification faces fewer logic problems than verification, but it also runs into an inability to JUSTIFY it as a criteria! And falsification actually does not work as an absolute criteria -- NOTHING can actually be falsified, as evidence ALWAYS underdetermines theory. Falsification and justification are only pragmatic approximations. | |
| Apr 18, 2021 at 20:57 | comment | added | Double Knot | @Dcleve I believe Popper's idea is this seeming trilemma is a false problem once we change our past rigid conceptions about the descriptive mathematical precision requirement of any JTB knowledge. The justification part cannot be idealized as logical positivism's verification principle, it should be altered to falsification principle to form a logical negativism POV. All we can do is to identify the wrong knowledge, and there's no positive affirmative knowledge which can be described in either form of the purported "trilemma". It's a childish wishful thinking... | |
| Mar 15, 2020 at 17:53 | comment | added | Dcleve | Popper's "solution" is to accept tentative working hypotheses as our best approximation to "truth". But the rationale to use his empirical pragmatic "solution" itself needs at least pragmatic justification, and such a justification is circular (it relies upon empirical pragmatism as its "good enough" truth standard, IE it assumes its conclusion)! When Popper's "solution" itself fails the Trilemma, it is not actually a "solution", but instead just a proposed reconciliation to living with the Trilemma as unsolvable. | |
| May 8, 2014 at 9:05 | history | answered | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |