New answers tagged

1

'Best' is a value judgement, and science is not geared to give knowledge about human values. If you ask on what 'scientific' grounds they have determined that science is the 'best' source of knowledge, you'll get: incoherent ramblings or elliptical logic overt statements of belief scoffs, sneers, or snide remarks What you will not get (In my experience) is ...


2

The approach that (at least) some Gettier cases are the result of misdescribing beliefs due to disregarding linguistic conventions (such as Grice implicatures) is still actively pursued and even rediscovered. See for example Jose-Mabaquiao, Resolving the Gettier Problem in the Smith Case: The Donnellan Linguistic Approach (2018), Ludlow-Segal, On a unitary ...


0

There are actually three different distinctions in play here. Analytic vs. synthetic, necessary vs. contingent, and a priori vs a posteriori. Analytic/synthetic is a linguistic distinction. It aims to distinguish between propositions that are true in virtue of the meanings of their terms, and those that aren't. In fact, there are at least four different ways ...


0

There are Gettier cases that don't have this alleged problem. There is Gettier's second example, which involves disjunction, from the original paper. Smith has a justified false belief that Jones owns a Ford. Because p entails p or q, Smith deduces that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. It turns out that Brown is in Barcelona, which Smith didn't ...


-2

The distinction between analytical propositions & synthetic propositions DOES NOT come from Kant. KANT used his own definition which almost no one followed. It is certainly not used today without specifically mentioning Kant. If Kant is not mentioned his definition is not used. A new context was given to those terms. When Philosophy textbooks speak on ...


1

This question takes some untangling, and the untangling I'm inclined to do will strike some people the wrong way, mostly for the wrong reasons. There's too much politics in science these days. But at any rate... First: 'Scientism' is a particular thing-in-itself that is only tangentially related to any particular philosophy of science. Scientism is a type of ...


0

Conifold is right; mathematics was originally invented to allow the number of goats in a herd to be tracked, etc. By cleverly investigating the properties of numbers in themselves (independent of goats), it became clear that there was nonobvious structure contained within the realm of numbers, and the more complex the number realm was allowed to be within ...


-1

If one accepts imagination as a sufficient condition for something to exist, some counter-examples are needed to disprove it and if these examples can be formulated in such a way that they violate the laws of the universe, then we can say that imagination may involve physically impossible situation because of a contradiction. A Counter-example may be: (1) I ...


0

This is a very interesting question, brings to mind firstly the idea that the pictures of objects in our mind are amalgamations of objects we've experienced directly. Kant said in critique of pure reason that one can define anything as long as it's logically consistent, I can define a Barney as a purple animal with horns and 10 legs. A barney is an ...


0

It follows from the principle of verifiability itself (because nothing counts under logical positivism unless it is verifiable). Under logical positivism, the only things that are verifiable are those that are falsifiable, but falsifications don't count unless they themselves are verifiable. It's a vicious circle.


0

In general, from a philosophical perspective (debatable), the object is the counterpart of the subject in the interactive process of knowledge. That is, Schroedinger's cat is the object, and Schrodinger is the subject, or also, the observer. If the object, or concept is something that exists in the mind, the thing is what corresponds to the physical world. ...


0

For mathematical objects, the formal reality is the objective reality. By formal i mean the logical definition of the thing and by object i mean the thing referenced by its idea. Kant believed in the correspondence theory of truth so the idea or proposition has to agree with its object. So he does think about "thinghood" as an object of our mental ...


2

I'll say up front that it is foolish to enter this particular debate without acknowledging that almost all lines of argument therein are deeply and inherently prejudicial. People like Hitchens are not neutral, curious philosophers seeking out deeper understanding; they are pundits with a definite political agenda, largely incapable of working with (much less ...


1

TLDR: 1 yes, unsupported assumptions are necessary to establish knowledge. 2 this is not "faith" as the word is usually used in religious debates. What you are describing here is the Munchausen trilemma, the idea that in order to prove anything, to justify any knowledge, our set of proofs must be either: circular infinite (a case you don't mention,...


0

The main point to take into account is that belief and faith are psychological conditions. Belief is more or less certain and many of our beliefs are very uncertain, in particular because they are revisable. I believe, without being certain, that my neighbour is an honest fellow, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I learned that he didn't declare all his ...


1

I would read Kant's ethical work. This is because Kant makes some actual positive claims about things in-themselves (noumenal realities) such as god, freedom, immorality of the soul. While he denies in the critique of pure reason any meaning to these things from arguments of speculation (without reference to the world of possible experience those things are ...


-1

Yes, they are. But that is also irrelevant. Belief is when you assume something about reality, then you have a belief about reality Knowledge is when that belief can shown to be correct, through evidence Faith is when that belief has no evidence, but you still keep trusting it to be accurate. Side note... However, is it even possible to believe in ...


1

The answer above does not take a philosophical approach, so I'll try. In this context, it seems to me that in the case of Did Hitchens personally research the Big Bang? what you should be thinking about is that has the evidence for that belief has been accumulated in a scientific fashion? That meaning, whether the evidence went through the scientific method ...


0

Consider the phrase "I know that I know nothing." This would be a logical contradiction so you must be certain of something. Now that we dispelled global skepticism (the idea that we cannot be certain about anything) we can analyze how we came to this notion. If you are not a mystic, there are only two ways for gaining knowledge: the senses and ...


0

No, it usually wouldn't be fallacious. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. It occurs when the rules used to form a conclusion from a set of premises don't logically necessitate a true conclusion. If I say, "experts say X is true, therefore X is true," then that is a mistake in reasoning because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the ...


0

If you assume perfect determinism (and having the necessary knowledge to confirm the question at hand), then your claim say is correct. Opinion does not matter. The simplest example of such a case is mathematics. No matter how many experts agree that 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't matter until there is irrefutable proof. However, real life is usually not as cut-and-...


1

The superlative 'best' is an extension of the term 'better', which compares values on some measurable dimension or dimensions. A community of experts has access to acumen, skills, tools, and methods for making such comparisons analytically; as such, their assessment of 'best' within their particular domain will be far more useful and accurate than the ...


2

This is an appeal to authority. Whether or not it's fallacious would depend on the details (and whether it's fallacious is also fairly subjective). In a debate I would probably say it's fallacious if it's a core part of the point you're trying to make in a debate. If you were arguing, for example, in favour of veganism, someone might say "meat is ...


7

This is less a question about logic (which the term "fallacy" would indicate) than a question about the theory of science; perhaps it would be better to ask "how reliable is an opinion of experts?" Typically, of course, the answer will be more reliable than any single opinion because the chance that a majority of any number of experts is ...


9

Ullah's answer gets to the heart of the question. The term fallacious implies the use of a standard of logical conclusion and in that strict sense, it is false to argue that a conclusion by experts can by a link in a syllogism. I would add that once we are thinking about how reliable experts are, it is interesting to consider how any opinion was arrived at. ...


1

Argument from Authority is generally fallacious if used on its own. But reliance on authorities can sometimes be justified in conjunction with other evidence, which aims to demonstrate that there is more objective evidence for the conclusion than against it, that the experts have considered both sides, that the experts are competent, free, and motivated to ...


31

Well, if I asked a community of non-experts how to perform key-hole surgery and I also asked a community of doctors, I am more likely to get a better answer from the second group. But of course, these doctors may not be surgeons as so they might plead ignorance. The point is the advice is more likely to be correct. It's a question of probability and not ...


Top 50 recent answers are included