New answers tagged

0 votes
Accepted

Proof for the absence of free will?

What I follows is not meant to be a definitive answer, but to offer - after consideration of the answers and comments both here and to linked questions I have asked on this stack - an evolution of the ...
user avatar
  • 1,190
1 vote

Can we doubt all knowledge?

Actually it is logic that leads to doubt , so to doubt logic , one first have to doubt doubt. So it is vicious circle with no definite answer, One has to hold on to Logic, Faith , Love or Self belief ...
user avatar
0 votes

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

Algorithms are time-bound sets of instructions. Logic is an atemporal transfer of properties among classes and their instances. A logical proof (in principle) takes no time and makes no changes. The ...
user avatar
-3 votes

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

What exactly is the relationship between an algorithm and logic? Dictionary definition: Algorithm: A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be ...
user avatar
  • 3,785
0 votes

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

Logic is the formal expression of the rules of reason. An algorithm is a process, which must be based on logic in order to be useful for an individual or a computer. An algorithm is not "a form ...
user avatar
  • 4,824
0 votes

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

Simply put, according the Curry-Howard isomorphism a program is an isomorphism to a logical proof. From WP: [T]he Curry–Howard correspondence is the observation that two families of seemingly ...
user avatar
  • 11.4k
2 votes

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

It is neither. A proof that an algorithm solves the problem (it claims to solve) is typically deductive in computer science, but in AI it's more likely to be inductive, i.e. based on benchmarks/...
user avatar
  • 1,779
1 vote

What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?

Algorithms are more closely related to deductive reasoning, but it's not quite as straightforward as that. Suppose for simplicity that by deductive reasoning, you roughly mean a proof given in a logic ...
user avatar
  • 1,010
1 vote

Can we doubt all knowledge?

No because that leaves us no knowledge to justify our rationales for doubting. The idea we can or should assume a view from nowhere in the interest of neutrality is fundamentally nonsense. If we must ...
user avatar
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

I'll take a slightly different tack on this. Most knowledge builds upon previous knowledge, and so if you were to find fault with the previous knowledge, then everything that resulted from it would ...
user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

Can we doubt all knowledge?

Can anyone who claims that everything is doubtable prove it rather than keep building endless layers of doubt? endlessly building layers of doubt means that we will never reach the proof that rational ...
user avatar
  • 288
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

Yes, we can doubt reason. Suppose you believe that the world is as it appears to your consciousness -- people walking around, air, earth, sky, sun, etc. There are people in this world whose reasoning ...
user avatar
  • 488
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

I refer to an answer I made to a similar question: There's two types of knowledge: Knowledge from looking at the universe, and created knowledge. To be skeptical of created knowledge makes much less ...
user avatar
  • 159
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

I don't know if you can do it but I can doubt it ;) This is partly same as @philosodad's answer. Scepticism and the famous Cogito, ergo sum of René Descartes. What is different from his answer is that ...
user avatar
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

We may be able to know one thing; that 'We know at least one thing'. If we claim that 'We know nothing', we find that this can't be true, because the statement, if true, would mean we know at least ...
user avatar
  • 1,190
2 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

So I think I can be almost 100% certain of the following: The experience of being me exists. There is an explanation for the experience of being me that is not the experience of being me. I don't ...
user avatar
  • 1,565
2 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

If you doubt everything, wouldn't you doubt that you doubted everything? Wouldn't it be possible that you didn't doubt anything, then? But so if doubting everything logically transforms into believing ...
user avatar
6 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

This question resembles the "Can we reach certainty?" question, answering with "No" is self-refuting because that would render the answer itself as uncertain, since it is knowledge ...
user avatar
  • 61
1 vote

Can we doubt all knowledge?

Should we question all knowledge from all sources? Yes. That's the only way one can rationally have confidence in one's beliefs. Regarding doubting reason, reason can't be proven, it is perceived and ...
user avatar
1 vote

Can we doubt all knowledge?

Can we doubt all knowledge? First, we could not logically claim that we know we don't know anything. This leaves the possibility nonetheless that we may only believe what we think we know. Anything ...
user avatar
  • 3,785
0 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

I mean theoretically yes. Practically it gets rather complicated. Because that would mean that you'd also have to doubt your own emotions and I don't mean in the sense of optical illusions, which are ...
user avatar
  • 996
11 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

You can of course do anything you want... But to doubt all knowledge is to indulge in radical skepticism, is it not? If we were all radical skeptics, then we'd be living in a world in which knowledge ...
user avatar
2 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

The short answer is “no”. Philosophers have basically concluded that our world is contingent, and a priori reason cannot tell us what our contingent world will look like. This was the main point of ...
user avatar
  • 4,814
14 votes

Can we doubt all knowledge?

To answer the question in the title: Yes. That's a key trait of any good scientist. To answer your last question in the body: Because we have no better option to depend on or behave according to.
user avatar
  • 275
2 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

The case of black holes is illustrative of the conclusion I am going to offer, so I'm going to dwell on this case to some extent. Now, one might construe our knowledge of black holes as having been a ...
user avatar
0 votes

Proof for the absence of free will?

Suppose I make a cup of tea, and the question is whether I did so voluntarily. Before I made a cup of tea (act 2), I decided to make a cup of tea (act 1). What is wrong with saying that act 1 was ...
user avatar
0 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

What difference could there be between "(most) important" and other claims? Do you not think "What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of ...
user avatar
2 votes

Proof for the absence of free will?

The most glaring problem, here, in my eyes at least, is a "bad company" objection. Premise (3) is meant to be the kicker, in that (though this is not explicitly stated) an infinite regress ...
user avatar
1 vote

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

If I have to start from some premise, I might as well start from the premise that it matters whether what I believe is true. If I believe that it does, and I’m wrong—what does it matter?
user avatar
  • 357
2 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

Is logical argument alone ever enough for us to accept claims which can't (yet?) be demonstrated? Everyone is in agreement that logical arguments can lead to acquiring knowledge. The issue is about ...
user avatar
  • 784
5 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

Suppose for a moment that these arguments are robust. Is logical argument alone ever enough for us to accept claims which can't (yet?) be demonstrated? In the limit case, an individual, as far as I'm ...
user avatar
  • 1,565
2 votes

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

Are there any instances of humans accepting consequential claims (claims which impact the ways in which we think about the world and/or operate within it) via logic alone; in the absence of ...
user avatar
  • 996
4 votes
Accepted

What, if any, are the most important claims to be considered proven in the absence of observation; ie: claims derived from logic alone?

We use logic to convince ourselves or each other that something is the case without going the extra mile of obtaining direct empirical evidence. Most people routinely rely on logical inferences to ...
user avatar
  • 3,785
1 vote

Proof for the absence of free will?

I'd already attack you're premises. Like what does that mean: Note: here, an 'act' is defined as 'a thing done', as per Oxford Languages definition #2. And henceforth: A decision is an act. Like ...
user avatar
  • 996

Top 50 recent answers are included