New answers tagged epistemology
0
votes
Two competing theories that are logically inconsistent
Well if you're faced with two incompatible options of what could be true but no means of telling which one actually is true or false. Then you've literally written yourself into a scenario in which ...
- 8,140
1
vote
Two competing theories that are logically inconsistent
The heliocentric theory is much older than Copernicus. It was invented by Aristarchus and was known by Copernicus as he mentions it in an early unpublished manuscript of de Revolutionibus.
Obviously ...
- 48.8k
2
votes
Two competing theories that are logically inconsistent
In the absence of evidence to justify the choice, you might reasonably remain undecided. Or, depending on the nature of the competing hypotheses, you might rule one out on the grounds that it seems ...
- 26.4k
1
vote
Can one justifiably believe in the correctness of a mathematical theorem without relying on empirical evidence?
You are confusing the roles of your senses in learning about mathematics and the properties of mathematics itself. If, necessarily by empirical means, you learn the axioms and rules of mathematics, ...
- 26.4k
3
votes
Can one justifiably believe in the correctness of a mathematical theorem without relying on empirical evidence?
It seems like the scope of this question goes far beyond mathematics. You cite the process of
personally reviewing the proof of the theorem…using my own cognitive faculties
and characterize it to be ...
- 181
4
votes
Accepted
Can one justifiably believe in the correctness of a mathematical theorem without relying on empirical evidence?
First, to situate this: in essence this is a question of whether humans can have a priori knowledge. If humans can have a priori knowledge, then one needn't invoke empirical evidence to be convinced a ...
- 713
2
votes
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
Yes. For every series of observations, there are an infinite number of theories that match the observations or whatever experiment you perform. In order to pick one of them over another, you must rely ...
- 2,727
0
votes
Can one justifiably believe in the correctness of a mathematical theorem without relying on empirical evidence?
The “correctness” of a mathematical theorem depends on whether the theorem is logically implied by the axioms of mathematics. And the truth of whether this is implied or not has no dependence on “...
- 2,727
5
votes
Can one justifiably believe in the correctness of a mathematical theorem without relying on empirical evidence?
Logical reasoning is not within the standard conception of empirical evidence. Working through the logic of a mathematical proof is not relying on empirical evidence.
Just because you might use your ...
- 5,764
3
votes
Accepted
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
Broadly speaking, no. But it depends on how strictly you define "empirical evidence".
We could say that empirical evidence is the best/only reliable means of coming to truth. But like most ...
- 13.8k
4
votes
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
Yes. We can rely on testimony in the place of empirical verification.
According to Robert Audi and his epistemological schema, we can rely on others who have verified empirical claims for us. This ...
- 35.5k
4
votes
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
I assume you mean: „Can we evaluate claims about the empirical world reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?“
Note. Without this addition the answer is “yes” for ...
- 42.4k
2
votes
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
Yes, it happens all the time.
However, the likelihood of achieving consensus depends entirely on the nature of the claim, and the characteristics of the group or audience you are making the claim to.
...
- 259
8
votes
Can we evaluate claims reliably and with a high degree of consensus without empirical evidence?
This answers an earlier version of the question.
Claims that make no assertions or predictions about the world can be assessed without resort to empirical evidence.
For example, claims about what ...
- 5,764
0
votes
How do we determine our actual degree of belief?
The SEP explains that degree of belief, or credence, is often formalized on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 means certainty in falsehood and 1 means certainty in truth. This can be reflected in a person'...
2
votes
Are two persons equally rational in choosing different dogmatic stopping points in their chains of justification as per the Münchhausen trilemma?
Your question has no objective answer as per the trilemma itself.
In order to say if something is rational, people need to agree on a standard of rationality, but this can’t be done according to the ...
- 2,727
1
vote
Are two persons equally rational in choosing different dogmatic stopping points in their chains of justification as per the Münchhausen trilemma?
Münchhausen trilemma only relates to the impossibility of absolute deductive proof.
It's a useful note about the fallibility of any means of evaluating what's true. But we were never using deductive ...
- 13.8k
4
votes
Accepted
How do we determine our actual degree of belief?
I'm going to answer one aspect of your question:
You ask:
how do we know what our actual degree of belief in a proposition is in the first place?
Two forms of self-knowledge spring to mind: ...
- 35.5k
1
vote
Are two persons equally rational in choosing different dogmatic stopping points in their chains of justification as per the Münchhausen trilemma?
The trilemma points out a problem, but that problem is particular to a specific approach, the approach that demands that all beliefs must be justified with some source which itself is subject to ...
- 636
4
votes
How do we determine our actual degree of belief?
Given that some action didn't actually take place, how do you know what someone would do?
"You ask them. They tell you. Now you know."
"But wait... How do you really know?"
"...
- 4,944
6
votes
How do we determine our actual degree of belief?
We do, in a sense, make bets like these frequently. Much of the time we aren't betting money as the anticipated unit of benefit isn't monetary, but sometimes it is. We vote with many things, such as ...
- 636
1
vote
How do laws of nature enforce themselves?
Laws of nature are a physical concept currently used in practice. If you want to address this question philosophically, it becomes extraordinarily difficult. You can base a law of nature on empirical ...
- 97
4
votes
Did Daniel Dennet plagiarize Schopenhauer?
Philosopher's borrow. This is quite common in the scholarly tradition. Sometimes it is referenced, though this is a recent innovation and at other times, if the borrowing is distant enough, it is not.
...
- 48.8k
0
votes
On knowing nothing
In logic, truth is a set of judgements that are logically consistent, while falsehood is the counterpart set, that where judgements are logically inconsistent.
"There are no absolute truths, ...
- 8,100
0
votes
On knowing nothing
We have to be careful to keep ontology and epistemology separate. The phrase "There are no absolute truths" implies an ontological claim — an assertion about facts — which is why adding &...
- 24.1k
2
votes
Is the non-physical amenable to research and investigation?
It depends on what you mean by non physical. For example. some physicalists may categorize consciousness as supervening (depending) on the physical, but may still consider it valid to call ...
- 2,727
-1
votes
Is the non-physical amenable to research and investigation?
A brief attempt to answer my own question, primarily building on Lowri's answer.
Case 1: Assuming the non-physical exists and humans have a dual physical/non-physical nature:
Option 1: Non-physically ...
- 4,282
2
votes
Is physicalism an unfalsifiable position?
I think that it is important to not conflate:
"Maintaining a position, being presented with evidence that said position is in error, and then updating one's position to accommodate the new ...
- 885
2
votes
Accepted
Is the non-physical amenable to research and investigation?
You ask:
Is the non-physical amenable to research and investigation?
Ceteris paribus, yes. Many non-physical phenomena are investigated. In the exotic cases for we secular physicalists, we have para-...
- 35.5k
0
votes
On knowing nothing
Socrates used this phrase in his Apology, that is, in his defense against accusations that he had corrupted the youth of Athens with his impiety.
I don't think it had any particular epistemelogical ...
- 2,341
0
votes
On knowing nothing
[Thinking that statement (1) is partially correct] You can extend statement (1) (E.g.: "I know that I know only a few things.”) I mean, ANYONE can think that statement (1) is partially correct.
...
- 3,950
3
votes
Is the non-physical amenable to research and investigation?
If by non-physical, you mean something with no effects on the world, then no, it cannot be investigated.
If you include in the non-physical things that can have effects on the world, then yes, it can ...
- 5,764
0
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
I belong to the "Earth is 100% definitely a slightly oblate sphere" camp.
Some people want to be in an "I cannot know anything with certainty" camp.
If one claims
"...
- 1,960
3
votes
Accepted
How does continental philosophy cope with problems that are present in analytical philosophy
The difference between Continental and Anglophone philosophy (analytic philosophy is a major school in the Anglophone tradition) is essentially a disagreement over the essential method of philosophy:
...
- 24.1k
2
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
Generally, yes, by its own standard, the premise of fallibilism is fallible. It seems to me that whether or not you arrive at a contradiction depends on how you formulate it.
Let me demonstrate it ...
- 21
3
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
That depends on whether you postulate it dogmatically (that's what Popper did), then it's like a religion and not a serious philosophy. If you consider it to be refutable (which you have to do), then ...
- 97
2
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
Fallibilism must admit itself as fallible, but it is important to explain how and why. Fallibilism (IEP) is a thesis that no knowledge is absolutely certain or beyond doubt. It's a general recognition ...
- 35.5k
3
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
Fallibilism is a pragmatic position, and is based on pragmatic truth, where "true" == "useful in characterizing our world experiences"
You are applying a different truth standard ...
- 17.4k
2
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
Just to expand on the hypothetical provided by User198. Fallibilism is less of an explanation of the world around us and more an explanation of the limit of human knowledge. Fallibilism subjects ...
- 95
4
votes
Accepted
Does Bayesian epistemology provide mechanisms to prevent arbitrariness in the selection of one's priors and belief update rules?
What you are referring to are called strong priors in that they are highly concentrated around a particular value.
This is not always bad: In the classic example of medical testing, the base rate is ...
- 4,121
2
votes
Does Bayesian epistemology provide mechanisms to prevent arbitrariness in the selection of one's priors and belief update rules?
No because there is no objective way to define your priors. Bayes’ theorem is a human constructed system for updating your belief in a hypothesis after coming across certain evidence. But it tells you ...
- 2,727
3
votes
Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
I think that fallibilism is not a self-refuting idea, because:
Person A (the fallibilist): "We can never know any statement with 100% certainty."
Person B (trying to disprove fallibilism): &...
- 291
0
votes
Consistency and special pleading in absolute truth claims
If one believed one knew nothing, it would be hard for one to think...
... lacking knowledge of concepts and abstractions and logic and reasoning...
... lacking knowledge of inference, and deduction ...
- 1,960
2
votes
Accepted
Consistency and special pleading in absolute truth claims
The resolution is to use a sentence S such as, "Nothing can be known with perfect certainty."
Then we interpret the word "belief" to mean having a credence in a proposition above ...
- 18.9k
1
vote
Wittgenstein vs Nietzsche in a debate about the existence of absolute truth
The "Tractatus" is worth reading, but only if you follow up by reading the "Philosophical Investigations".
But to get at your real question here, let's look at the philosophical ...
- 24.1k
5
votes
On knowing nothing
The following fragment is handed down from the Greek philosopher
Xenophanes at about 550 BCE:
“But as for certain truth, no man has known it, Nor will he know it;
neither of the gods Nor yet of all ...
- 42.4k
2
votes
Wittgenstein vs Nietzsche in a debate about the existence of absolute truth
The Wittgenstein that wrote the Tractatus is known as the early Wittgenstein. This work is based on logic and very ambitious: it seeks to solve philosophy and Wittgenstein claimed that he had ...
- 2,341
0
votes
Wittgenstein vs Nietzsche in a debate about the existence of absolute truth
Not an answer, but only a comment from the point of view of someone thinking that philosophy is not a science but we stiil have to try to base it on "facts". Thus, interpretations of ...
- 41.1k
0
votes
Hume and mathematics
Does Hume suggest that the math ideas are connected in the same way [wrt particular ideas]?
No; see Treatise, Bk.I, Part III where Hume helds the view that mathematical propositions assert relations ...
- 41.1k
1
vote
Sorites paradox and emergence
Thanks for this interesting and clear question.
I will start by noting that a heap is a most simple form of structure: elements are randomly stacked upon one another, without strong connections ...
- 3,284
Top 50 recent answers are included