New answers tagged

0

Following this line of reasoning, even the most radical empiricists are rationalists. Not necessarily! One reasonably well-known empiricist school of thought is Behaviourism, which holds that: The individual is an Agent, characterised in terms of their actions (e.g. reflexes and stimuli response) rather than their reasons. Agents learn to act through ...


0

I mean, you seem to be demanding a rational explanation from a radical empiricist for how humans can take sensory data and do with it everything that we do: claims of truth or knowledge, or moreover abstract reasoning, language, art, etc. Their position sort of excludes the possibility of an explanation for that. This checks out: recognizing the broad brush ...


0

No, at least not in the way you present in the body of your question. It seems there you are referring to the verification principle. The verification principle can be a definition for “meaningful” and contain no contradiction. One such example would be A statement which is not a truth of logic is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable. This ...


1

Most people can picture things and places when their eyes are closed. Some people apparently can't. These people are said to have aphantasia. If you're asking this question, maybe that's you? People with aphantasia say they use words and concepts to represent things they're thinking about, rather than drawing mental pictures. It is not a disability, ...


0

We have a minimum of 4 other senses to perceive our surroundings. By some counts we have at least 42 senses, though many of them are of internal states. We constantly seek consilience, convergence of evidence from different senses, to help us decide what is real. We build up a mental collation of information about our surroundings. Our focal area for vision ...


-1

Implications manipulating the similar variables to then disrupt the principal as a whole . Ex. T (the variable of truth + of greater value with verification of principle ) F ( the implication the - in the equation ment to give verification of principle ) So ..... T +F = ( Consept of verified truth . ) ( Sense ) ( THE CORRECT AMOUNT) (THE TRUTH) THE MAIN ...


1

As a former History Instructor, I will be glad to answer your question. There is a problem with your phrase, "true historical information"....What exactly does that mean? The way in which History or a historical event is verified, is through the presentation of reliable, demonstrable and authenticated evidence. If no such evidence exists, then the ...


1

To comment out of context would be a fool's errand. Not one commentator has addressed hr. Nietzsche's german words. Du has t recht aber ich habe meine ruhr.


0

The word, "gnosis", can have a variety of contexts and meanings, though it tends to be used in a more profound and deeper context. "Gnosis", is more akin to a word, such as awareness-(i.e. The Delphic inscription, Socrates). The word, "Episteme", is actually, the Greek word for Science. The Modern Greek word for University is, &...


0

The problem with this dilemma is the set of conceptual definitions assumed to set the problem. If definitions are precise, the problem tends to get a solution per se. Given there is no strict and clear definition of good and God previous to a formal problem statement, therefore, every member in the discussion can enter into subtle details of the problem, ...


0

Your question is related to the question: how can a deductively valid argument tell you something that you don't already know? Human beings are not logically omniscient, i.e. we do not know the logical consequence of everything we know. One of the purposes of a good proof is to take a potentially non-obvious logical consequence relation and express it as a ...


1

Well, first of all, the probability of a conjunction of two events is never more, and usually less, than the probability of either event alone. P(A ∩ B) <= P(A) and P(A ∩ B) <= P(B) for any events A and B. Therefore, if a "complex" hypothesis is a conjunction of several simpler ones, it must have lower probability (or at best the same ...


1

I would say, don't be afraid to read the major texts by the principal philosophers themselves. One of the reasons the great philosophers are considered great is that they are worth reading. That said, some are hard to understand. Some of the greats of the 'modern' era are Spinoza's Ethics, David Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature, and Kant's Critique of Pure ...


Top 50 recent answers are included