Skip to main content

New answers tagged

1 vote

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

Ethical and moral beliefs are justified but they are non scientific. Aesthetic beliefs , metaphysical beliefs , epistemological beliefs , religious beliefs , intuitive beliefs , cultural are social ...
SacrificialEquation's user avatar
1 vote

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

The challenge, "For what?" is often issued on this site to any request for or issuance of a definition, rule, concept, etc. Because, it is the important aspect of those things. One part of ...
Scott Rowe's user avatar
  • 1,274
3 votes

What sorts of beliefs can be justified non-scientifically?

There is no easy or simple answer to that question, possibly the question needs more focus to be answerable. The area of philosophy dealing with this is called Epistemology. It provides significant ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 3,876
0 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Good question. Personally, I do believe in levitation without "scientific evidence". The problem is what exactly constitutes as "scientific evidence"? Well, scientific evidence is ...
PonderChrist's user avatar
1 vote

Are two persons equally rational in choosing different dogmatic stopping points in their chains of justification as per the Münchhausen trilemma?

If, "There is an epistemological trilemma, with its horns being these inferential sequences of these relatively specific kinds, such that..." is used as a premise in an argument, then is not ...
Kristian Berry's user avatar
-2 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

A justified look on levitation and exorcisms starts by looking at the facts and the history. Exorcisms predate Christianity, in Mesopotamia this was already done reportedly around 1000BCE, obviously ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 3,876
1 vote

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation? Yes. This way is referred to in general terms as Faith. In particular, see Faith beyond (orthodox) theism : Can there be faith ...
Vector's user avatar
  • 488
3 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

Yes, there are many ways to justify a belief. Wikipedia helpfully lists 12 of them under the title of "Theories of justification". To let me pick a few... Reliabilism – A belief is ...
AnoE's user avatar
  • 2,887
1 vote
Accepted

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

You ask: Is it possible to have a justified belief in levitation without scientific evidence for levitation? Philosophically, yes. This is because what constitutes "justification" is a ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.6k
6 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

As with all forms of theory choice, one can simply compare theories and their virtues with respect to levitation and make a decision. If levitation is real, you would surely expect reports of ...
Curious's user avatar
  • 387
8 votes

Are there non-scientific ways to have a justified belief in levitation?

This might be one of the easiest supernatural claims to demonstrate (if it were possible), because pretty much all you need to do is confirm that (1) someone is in the air, (2) they aren't attached to ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
0 votes

help with understanding Deleuze's argument on "difference first, identity second"

If that is what Deleuze really claims, then Deleuze is an idiot. Suppose you lived in a world in which the only object you encountered was an apple; would you not know it because you could not compare ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 22.9k
0 votes

Is it logically permissible to neither believe nor disbelieve a proposition X? Or does this violate the law of excluded middle?

You only missed one thing: Believing ~p doesnt stand to believing p as how ~X stands to X. Basically, B~p and Bp arent related in the same way as ~X and X. That's because the proposition "i ...
randomindividual's user avatar
2 votes

How do you respond to this common critique of American Pragmatism?

I'm not sure labelling pragmatism as 'anti-epistemological' is the best approach here. Pragmatism is anti-idealist or anti-Platonic; or perhaps better put it's Bayesian, not normative. It certainly ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 20.1k
4 votes

How do you respond to this common critique of American Pragmatism?

There are two main replies I think are important to point out: In pragmatism, a truth is an assumption that has predictive value when acting upon it. We know from experience that acting upon that ...
Philip Klöcking's user avatar
  • 14.2k
0 votes

What type of reasoning is this? Abduction, inference to the best explanation, induction?

Solipsism says that my mind created other people and controls their behavior. this explanation offers the smallest number of entities and therefore is ontologically the simplest. No, it has the same ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13.6k
1 vote

Is it possible for an individual to adopt a new better general epistemic system?

Although most people improve their epistemic system in certain domains, like adhering to strict logical rules to derive theorems in mathematics, the general system remains nearly untouched. I think ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
2 votes

What were the reactions to Hume's problem of induction from scientists practicing in the field?

The claim that science was not actually based on induction, but actually on falsifiability, was not first brought up by Karl Popper. It dates back at least to Blaise Pascal: In order to show that a ...
FlatAssembler's user avatar
1 vote

Explain the answer from Reddit and give an explanation about Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is subtler than most people realize. A better formulation of it would be: For comparable theories, the theory which explains the most observations with the fewest a priori assertions is ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 20.1k
1 vote

Explain the answer from Reddit and give an explanation about Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor isn't about quantitative parsimony, it's about qualitative parsimony. And solipsism is qualitatively unparsimonious because it requires you to explain why only you have consciousness and ...
Tran Ervin's user avatar
10 votes

What were the reactions to Hume's problem of induction from scientists practicing in the field?

I can't speak for people in the 18th century, but there isn't really much for scientists to do about it. The principle of induction has proven to be exceedingly useful for predicting things, and for ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
3 votes

Do combinations defy logic?

Two points. First, computers are wholly symbolic and don't have any information about the ontic world. This isn't related to binary logic; analog computers don't know anything either. For example, ...
Corbin's user avatar
  • 1,222
1 vote

Suppose something we thought was subjective was in fact chaotic (in the mathematical sense). How would we test for that?

One characteristic of chaotic systems is that the exact same system yields wildly differing outputs depending on slight variations in the input. Since people's minds are not at all exactly the same, ...
Hans-Martin Mosner's user avatar
1 vote

Can one know something (a thing) exists without knowing that thing or what it is or any of its properties?

The situation you describe is exactly how it was when physicists began to suspect the existence of the neutrino, which was the means by which the math could be fudged to match the experimental results....
niels nielsen's user avatar
3 votes

Explain the answer from Reddit and give an explanation about Occam's Razor

You might find it helpful to think in terms of probabilities. Suppose you have a theory that makes several independent assumptions. The probability of all your assumptions being correct is then the ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 22.9k
1 vote

Causation in physics equation

Causation is a phenomenon of (general) relativity, giving a natural partial order to events. The equations of physics constrain what phenomena they can explain in an acausal fashion: neither do ...
Corbin's user avatar
  • 1,222
-1 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

Surely you can see that your question boils down how you define certain words. I consider myself to be absolutely certain that I am awake, that I have two feet, that I am not a billionaire, that I do ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 22.9k
0 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

In the world of mathematics, certainty can be and is routinely achieved in practice- at least in the sense that when balancing your checkbook, there is only one correct answer for the closing balance. ...
niels nielsen's user avatar
2 votes

Give advice on justifying belief in the existence of other minds

The number of entities is generally an irrelevance, and you seem to be confusing yourself because you think otherwise. By your logic, a theory that asserts a block of iron, say, is a seamless blob, ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 22.9k
0 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

Confidence is an internal feeling and conviction within a person regarding the correctness of their views, decisions, and actions. A self-confident individual knows precisely what they want to achieve ...
Aurelius Pontus's user avatar
1 vote

Do we have evidence that explanations that contain a minimal number of entities are true?

NO to all questions. (ontology is not about simplification, but realization)
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
0 votes

Is it metaphysically possible for a belief to act directly?

Yes, it is possible for beliefs, falsehoods, delusions etc., to act directly onto the physical. You can't find a direct connector because you may believe in a strict mind-brain duality instead of mind ...
retrospace's user avatar
0 votes

Ground vs justification?

grounding is understood to be a form of constitutive (as opposed to causal or probabilistic) determination or explanation Would a justification of our belief not be a "ground" of our ...
andrós's user avatar
  • 1,249
0 votes

Ground vs justification?

As with many questions like this, it may be a matter of personal preference when to use one word in preference to another, however, I would make the distinction as follows: Grounded is the word I ...
Red Five's user avatar
  • 101
0 votes

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

Any objective statement has to be made intersubjectively. So any objective statement is also an intersubjective statement. But the converse does not follow. An intersubjective statement need not be ...
Mozibur Ullah's user avatar
0 votes

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

Look at this from physics point. A key principle in physics is that objective reality should be independent of any individual observer's subjective experience or perspective. The existence of an ...
Groovy's user avatar
  • 1,078
2 votes

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement? When different people arrive at an intersubjective agreement, they say it is objective. The expression "intersubjective ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 7,992
1 vote

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

Each circle A, B, C represents the knowledge of a subject. If there does not exist knowledge of subject(s) then there are no circles. The attributes of reality, of what exist independent of the ...
SystemTheory's user avatar
  • 1,909
5 votes
Accepted

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

The dispute about realism travels through a spectrum of views. Most people, before engagement with philosophy of science, hold by direct realism (DR) -- that we can and do discern the reality of our ...
Dcleve's user avatar
  • 14.4k
3 votes

What's the difference between objectivity and intersubjective agreement?

I'm going to naively assert that the scientific method assumes a straightforward answer: intersubjective agreement is a useful but imperfect means for finding objective truth. does this collective ...
Brian Z's user avatar
  • 1,329
2 votes

Are there any philosophies related to different structures of organization of information?

This is an interesting question. Although data storage, indexing and retrieval is a modern phenomenon, probably not covered by classical philosophy, the question of access to the data (information) is ...
TheMatrix Equation-balance's user avatar
3 votes

Are there any philosophies related to different structures of organization of information?

Organizing knowledge is part of library and information science. It's not atypical for a librarian to do graduate work in the topic, so I presume there's quite a lot of things to know about the ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.6k
3 votes

Are there any philosophies related to different structures of organization of information?

There are people who have knowledge of how to structure information. They tend to be people who have experience of managing information in the real world, such as computer programmers. That laws of ...
alanf's user avatar
  • 7,984
-2 votes

Ground vs justification?

Yes there is a technical distinction in philosophy. Here I use the adjective 'technical' to convey a multiplicity of distinctions that are so ill-defined, obscure and disputed that the SEP devotes an ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 22.9k
1 vote

Roles of sensibility, understanding and imagination in Kant's epistemology

It is a common mistake to view noumena as somehow corresponding to Lockean substances. Noumena are not objects as they're given to the senses - quite the opposite, they're the objects as they're ...
abracadabra's user avatar
0 votes

Ground vs justification?

A similar answer has already been downvoted, but you are getting my thoughts anyway. 'Grounded' is just a type or refinement of 'justification'. Justification means there are some reasons that ...
cogitoboy's user avatar
1 vote

Ground vs justification?

Short answer, hopefully it maketh some sense. Axioms would count as grounds (the seed). The move from axioms to theorems is justification (the tree of knowledge issues forth) For example, physicalism ...
Hudjefa's user avatar
  • 3,742

Top 50 recent answers are included