New answers tagged

-2

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. The foundation of analytical knowledge: [I] Semantic meanings exist. [II] Semantic meanings are encoded using language. this forms a valid counter-example to the Münchhausen trilemma of the ...


0

I would have just placed this in a comment, but the comments are spilling over. I am probably missing something here, but I just don't see the problem. Kant does seem to use "intuition," "understanding," and "concept" in evolving ways, but I don't think, for starters, "understanding" and "concept" are ...


1

In math axioms are usually belong to the most foundational level as inference rules of a deductive system. So in arithmetic, we need below axioms to derive your correct true proposition "2+2=4". Normally mathematicians won't treat a higher level non-simple relation such as "2+2=4" as an axiom in their theory, it should be more ...


1

Inasmuch as the simulated reality in The Matrix was created by The Architect - an AI - the OP's question becomes one about AI singularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible Which doesn't suggest a convergence to a "quantity that may ...


2

Usually this is presented in a more elaborate fashion as: if we can make simulations this good already, a civilization thousands of years ahead of us is so much better at making simulations that we necessarily or possibly live in some such simulation of an advanced civilization. Post-human civilizations would have enough computing power to run hugely many ...


1

As Tetlock says, having skin in the game is facilitative: more specifically, it adds a sense of salience and urgency. If someone has to decide whether to take a business trip, they will be more focused, attentive, and judicious with the question if they have to pay for the trip themselves than if the company pays for it. But like anything else, perspective ...


-1

"How does one fashion a book of resistance, a book of truth in an empire of falsehood, or a book of rectitude in an empire of vicious lies? How does one do this right in front of the enemy?" -from Only Apparently Real by Paul Williams, a biography of Philip K Dick Bladerunner is only loosely based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (DADES), ...


0

I think your two questions are not equivalent, so I'll answer one and then the other. First Question A thought experiment is an analysis of what a theory claims will happen to a system assuming an initial state. A theory is about all possible situations; a thought experiment is about one specific situation. Here are some examples. Theory: Newtonian Mechanics ...


-1

Epistemology in basic terms is not only "how we know what we know" which should be more appropriately called methodology. To really possibly enlighten you, you may think of epistemology as an impossible mission like a philosophical paradox, this paradox is called Problem of the criterion first espoused by Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus ...


0

Experiments distinguish between theories, between paradigms. Thought experiments can engage with paradigms directly. Einstein's riding a light-ray. Maxwell's Demon. Schroedinger's cat. These all draw attention to a contradiction in general terms, between paradigms. There is also a degree of theatricality even hyperbole, and we remember not so much the ...


0

Prove in its most strict linguistic sense usually only fits in deductive systems like a formal logic system or mathematics. In addition. we need necessary premises (axioms, definitions) to prove any non-tautological non-trivial proposition with truth value of your interest to possibly and hopefully prove or disprove. Other than above theoretical realms, most ...


1

Experimental technique is a skill that can be taught, and a key part of the scientific method. While it is possible to design and execute an experiment according to these rules and then convince a scientist that you are performing an experiment, the level of proof depends on the skepticism of the beholder. If the beholder is not a scientist, no level of ...


4

To expand slightly on what Conifold mentioned, according to IEP the "modest foundationalism" has Alvin Platinga as a prime exponent; Wikipedia mostly covers that under "reformed epistemology" although it does say under "modest foundationalism" that: Reformed epistemology is a form of modest foundationalism which takes religious ...


0

According to Wikipedia referenced here for foundationalism. In the 1930s, debate over foundationalism revived.Whereas Moritz Schlick viewed scientific knowledge like a pyramid where a special class of statements does not require verification through other beliefs and serves as a foundation. In the 1950s, foundationalism fell into decline – largely due to ...


0

I'm not a published author or what, but I do have an argument or line of reasoning to offer on behalf of foundationalism. The reasoning is a response to the no-inference-from-nonbeliefs objection to foundationalism from experiences. The objection is that one cannot infer things from nonpropositional structures like bare experiences. So far, oh well. But don'...


-1

Knowledge is a rational belief. A belief is rational if you can explain (to yourself) why your belief is true. An explanation is only valid if it is rooted in the belief in objective reality as its first premise. In other words, knowledge is what we believe to be objectively true. Sounds simple, but there is a catch. Unfortunately, no one can be told what ...


1

It's not clear from the q if you're making any distinction between knowledge and belief as modals. Assuming (e.g. based on your math SE questions) that this was some kind of homework/study/exam question, it was probably intended to use a [uni]modal logic in which these concepts are the same (K = B). In that you're asserting (for all p): T = ¬B¬Bp → B¬p (were ...


4

I think this SEP article does a decent job at that: Bonaventura (ca. 1217–1274), one of the most renowned theologians of the time, explicitly places emphasis on the sign's relation to the significate, claiming that … a sign has a twofold comparison: both to that which it signifies, and to that to which it signifies; and the first is essential and the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included