This is not a proof but a vague “hypothesis” or theory. The problem is that your taking perceptual faculties to be reliable evidence. However, you still haven’t gotten around to clearly demonstrating perception is reliable other than to say that the empirical evidence suggests that it is. It seems to me that there is no non-circular way of arguing for the reliability of one’s perceptual faculties and empiricism.
Not only are you evading the question, you re-engaged inconsistent reasoning. If we have ideas, we must must have evidence via experience to validate them? This is patently untrue. We do not have validate with empiricism knowledge derived from other means. Where is this written?
Special pleading here. In addition, I don’t need to defend a position I don’t hold. I’m not arguing empiricism isn’t valid, I just don’t agree with it as being valid an epistemology, which holds that the source of all knowledge is sense based.
Mathematics isn’t about making true statements, it’s about finding proofs that can go beyond sense experience. Mathematics is axiomatic as they employ rules and are not tautologies.
2 is 1+1. 2 is twice 1. If you don’t know that, you don’t know what 2 is. Also, we’re not talking quantities and the perception of whether they are being added or not, we’re talking about reason.
Rational thought is either about sense experience, in which case it can lead to knowledge in a manner totally compatible with empiricism, or it is reason alone, divorced from the observed and incapable of providing knowledge.
As an empiricist, that’s your assertion that rational though is incapable of providing knowledge. *Dubito *alone dispels this assertion.
What I want to do is discuss your assertion that thought is sense experience. You’ve been dodging the question ever since you made the assertion. The question is what senses are used to experience thought?
I’m here to discuss epistemology. Clearly you want to cloud the matter by expanding the scope to include other disciplines which are not topical. Furthermore, my Christian beliefs is not relevant for the purpose of this discussion.
If you are perceiving that you are thinking, what senses are being used?
Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.
Well, do you perceive that you are thinking? I think you do! I can certainly say that I am aware of my thoughts, even if I am not sure how I am able to ‘hear’ them. I’m sitting here using 1st person to engage you directly, wherever you are right now, anticipating that just for a moment I am controlling your brain. You are forced to follow my thoughts by reading and understanding me… [evil cackle]. Can you honestly say you do not know your own conscious mind?
No one needs to show that perception is ‘reliable’. That is asking something which cannot be done. Reliable with regards to what? There is no standard against which to compare the fruit of perception, except for more perceptions. If you were to live as if no perceptions mattered, you’d constantly be plagued by those unimportant feelings and perceptions of a wasted and painful life.
There are many that argue that mathematics is axiomatic, hence your argument that others may hold it to be tautological does not make it true, the argumentum ad populum fallacy. To elaborate, there are many that argue (in fact pretty much everybody today) argue that empiricism as a theory of knowledge is dead and yet here we are dealing with you. Furthermore, presuming a mathematical statement as tautological does not make all mathematics necessarily tautological, which is a form of the fallacy of composition.
Simply, your are aware of your thoughts, you are not perceiving them. Awareness and perception are two different things. Your are engaged in equivocating when you conflate the two. For example, I may be aware that a certain person exits but I may not be necessarily perceiving them at the moment.
Again, you are presuming thoughts are perceived.
This is a bit of a straw man argument. That’s not what Dubito asserts. Please refer to the previous posts as to what it really entails.
If perception is not reliable, then how do we know them to be true? If they are not known to be true then it isn’t knowledge but a belief. You are building your argument on the fact that we know perception is a source of knowledge because we can perceive it to be the case, which is why epsitemological empiricism fails as a theory of knowledge. The reasoning is self-refuting.
Again, you are attempting to shift the argument to something that isn’t relevant. We are not arguing that perceptions do not matter, we are arguing, from an epistemological sense, that *perception does not represent the **sole *source of knowledge.
I have asserted a non-contradictory empiricism, and have evidenced it. This continued discussion about rationalism fits in with point 2 above on evidence for empiricism. You are objecting to the idea that reason alone provides no knowledge, and I am countering. As such, you are already addressing empiricism as a hypothesis, and are challenging it based on evidence.
(Then G-d does not deal with the empirical world)
It has everything to do with epistemology. Pi is not knowable; it is stateable. The circumference of the earth is knowable, but pi will not tell you it. You have to first look at the earth and find out (empirically, need I say?) that it is not spherical. As a result, pi will not be accurate. This is the same as saying that euclidean geometry may help you, it may not. One has to be dealing with an empirical arrangement that fits the specific models of maths for those models to assist with knowledge.
Precisely. There is no overlap. Maths can be true, but does it give knowledge? That is the real question we should turn to.
As I have said before, and as is obvious, being able to verify something does not make that thing false. Even if the principle of verification cannot be verified; other things still can.
No, deliberately missing the point here I think. Where there is only evidence in favour of a proposition and none against, it is reasonable to assent to the proposition.
This is the non-problem of the reliability of perception.
I have already told you. If we are to consciously engage in a project of doubt, we have to doubt that we are doubting; therefore if successful we are not certain of anything, and we have nothing about which to gain knowledge. You forget who you are and what you’re doing, you don’t think you exist… If that’s the hallmark of reason (which it isn’t) that’s what you’re throwing at empiricism with dubito.
Reality can be described using numbers, that is all we know. How does the universe depend upon numbers exactly? Or how does the universe follow logic? One might say: ‘Something cannot be in two places at once’, as if that proves the universe is governed by logic. However, things can be in two places at once… Think about subatomic stuff. As Krauss says, we should learn from the universe, not impose our ideas onto it about what it can and cannot do.
The non-problem of the reliability of perception.
No, not quite what I was saying. Maths is ‘axiomatic’ in a sense that differs from the ordinary use of the word. I don’t know what mathematical axioms are in practice and I don’t know how to use them. Do you? I searched ‘axiom’ on wikipedia and found that maths has logical axioms and non-logical axioms. So maths can be both axiomatic and tautological, there is no need to oppose these.
Did you ever perceive this person? Yes, so what you mean is that you are recalling a prior perception; the link between perception and awareness is not broken. Actually, we can go further and say that you are not aware that a person exists unless you are perceiving them now. They could have left the room and promptly died, as morbid as that thought is.
You’re using an appeal to authority. Having a graduate level mathematics skills in no way settles an argument. Regardless, you’ve admitted that mathematics isn’t necessarily tautological, so it’s a step in the right direction. As for the demonstrated arithmetic, it only appears tautological because is not clearly applied from your framework. You can define 1+1=2, but then you still have to determine whether it is equal to 3-1. There isn’t a definition for each mathematical proposition as it would require in infinite number of such propositions. You need a set of logical axioms to demonstrate proofs, hence, mathematics is axiomatic in nature.
Regardless of whether or not I have perceived this person, I’m demonstrating the differences between awareness and perception, so don’t try to circumvent the point, which is they are not one in the same. I could say that I am aware of the fact 1+1=2, without ever having to perceive it.
I’m not sure how logical and non-logical axioms equates to being axiomatic and tautological. Axioms are axioms, whether logical or non-logical in nature.
1…where is 2?, I don’t see any 2…1…where is the 2? I still don’t see any 2…still no 2…still no 2…where are you getting this 2? Oh wait! you are adding a quantity of 1 and another quantity of 1…1+1=2. 2!!! knowledge gained.
This demonstration shows why mathematics propositions are axiomatic. In this case, you apply rules of addition to get to the proof.
Where do you get the notion that either logical or non-logical axioms are tautological? Mathematical propositions use logical or non-logical axioms. They’re both described as axioms and, hence, are axiomatic in orientation.