Does the one who presupposes less hold a superior ontology/epistemology?

[Chris-D]

Here is the context for where this post derived from

Long story short, if one DOES NOT presuppose that the supernatural exists and one DOES presuppose that the supernatural exist…does the one who DOES NOT presuppose the supernatural to exist until the supernatural can be demonstrated to exist hold a superior ontology/epistemology?

Superior meaning that which leads to fewer false beliefs and greater true beliefs than the alternative.

@Neithan and I were having a back and forth that one cannot conclude the cosmological argument (for example) without introducing an explanation that lies outside of the natural universe…I do not agree.

 

[Neithan]

So how do you escape a radical skeptical view, like Pyrrhonism, which holds that nothing can be known?

Would you consider yourself a “strict” agnostic?

 

[Wesrock]

Why presuppose it at all? There seems no reason to presuppose the supernatural or take it for granted that it exists. We start with the world of sense. Though that doesn’t mean we must rule out things beyond the world of sense from the start (that in itself makes additional presuppositions) but we don’t presuppose it. It takes work to get there.

 

[Wesrock]

However, I do think “presuppositionless” philosophy is a dead end. This isn’t about the supernatural at all, though. We can’t suspend basic concepts such as knowledge or doubt, and you can’t go anywhere if you don’t accept from the start that reason is capable of tracking truth. You can reflect on that and see if it’s a worthy judgment, but you can’t suspend it entirely.

 

[Dovekin]

Suppose it was two blind men. Would they be better off presupposing the existence of light or the non-existence?

It depends on what really exists, doesn’t it?

 

[Chris-D]

I don’t try to escape a “radical skeptical” view. I think skepticism is an easily defended position as I don’t see where 100% knowledge would ever be needed.

I’ve never heard the term strict agnostic, but if it means (from the wiki) that the existence of a deity is unknowable…it would depend on the deity claim.

Ex. a god that does everything I want if I only pray I can conclude with 100% certitude does not exist.

Ex. A god that works in mysterious ways and is not empirically demonstrable, I see no way of falsifying. As is hard solipsism and brain in vat metaphysics.

Does that help answer your questions?

 

[lelinator]

However, I do think “presuppositionless” philosophy is a dead end.

How so?

Doesn’t not presupposing what’s true actually leave one with a greater freedom to explore what’s possible? Presupposing doesn’t expand one’s horizons, it restricts them.

We can’t suspend basic concepts such as knowledge or doubt, and you can’t go anywhere if you don’t accept from the start that reason is capable of tracking truth.

Aren’t presuppositions the antithesis of reason?

 

[Chris-D]

This is a good point. To clarify I do not presuppose that the supernatural DOES NOT exist, I’m just waiting for a demonstration of the supernatural (in a reliable fashion) before accepting that it does exist.

Same with black swans. I do not presuppose black swans do not exist, I’m just going to hold off concluding they DO exist until we have a demonstration.

 

[Chris-D]

The two blind men would be best off not presupposing anything.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality, and if they have no way of verifying that light exists then they don’t get to claim light existing is true or not true.

 

[Chris-D]

Presupposing what’s actually true is not logically possible, so I agree with you. Agrippa identified that all philosophical positions ultimately result in fallacies (circular, infinite regress, or presup), but it doesnt mean we can’t reason. A presupposition is by definition something that cannot be shown to be false but is rather an axiom by which all other findings can correspond.

You cannot reason your way to a presupposition, rather you must presuppose reason is efficacious first and reason would then be your presupposition.

I could be wrong but this all seems to logically follow. Granted the only way we can presuppose logic is through logic so according to Agrippa’s trilemma this is where we must default to circular reasoning because one cannot get any more properly basic.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

However, I do think “presuppositionless” philosophy is a dead end.

How so?

Doesn’t not presupposing what’s true actually leave one with a greater freedom to explore what’s possible? Presupposing doesn’t expand one’s horizons, it restricts them.

I specifically noted concepts (or intuitions would probably be a better term here) of knowledge and doubt, and whether or not reason is capable of tracking truth. We can’t necessarily presuppose a full theory of knowledge or what that exactly is, but that we know something (any old concept, not speaking of the outside world here) is simply a presupposition we can’t suspend or negate. It’s just something we know by virtue of the fact that we are knowing. Same with doubt in regards to what you know. These things we just do and are aware of, and if we can’t or try to backtrack to a state before knowledge there’s no way forward. It’s a dead end.

We can’t suspend basic concepts such as knowledge or doubt, and you can’t go anywhere if you don’t accept from the start that reason is capable of tracking truth.

Aren’t presuppositions the antithesis of reason?

Many are. But you can’t reason to whether you’re capable of reason without presupposing reason and that you have intuitions/concepts to reason with, and whether that reasoning process is capable of tracking truth.

 

[Neithan]

Does that help answer your questions?

It kind of looks like you’re contradicting yourself: saying that 100% knowledge is never needed; but you can conclude with 100% certainty that a god of a particular kind does not exist. And as for a percentage of knowledge, at one point do you know something, if anything? 51%? 66%? If you can falsify things, then you must have some knowledge of other things. How do you attain knowledge?

 

[Chris-D]

So the 100% certitude was hyperbolic. Within an empirical point of view yes 1 failed “pray and not get anything” is a demonstrable method of falsifying the god proposition that always gives you what you want. Metaphysically we can’t be 100% sure of anything, empirically it would appear we can for logically contradictory gods.

Regardless though to accept your opinion I can acquiesce. Would it come across more intellectually honest to say we can never posses 100% certitude but we can get as close to it as possible at times? For example, if we hypothesize a god that materializes gold bricks in my hand when I pray, then I pray, and I do NOT receive a gold brick. We can conclude with as much certainty as possible that this god does not exist.

Relative to “knowledge claims” I take the consensus of philosophers on this position and accept fallibilism. I do believe we can “know” things with certainty (ex. I know that I exist because I have experiences, math creates certainty, as do the logical absolutes). These are called a priori knowledge claims.

 

[Dovekin]

The two blind men would be best off not presupposing anything.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality, and if they have no way of verifying that light exists then they don’t get to claim light existing is true or not true.

Huh?

They are presupposing light exists or not. They are not verifying it or claiming it. If light exists, then the one who presupposes it exists has fewer false beliefs; if light does not exist, the one who presupposes it exists has more false beliefs. Your definition says nothing about verifying or determining what is true:

Superior meaning that which leads to fewer false beliefs and greater true beliefs than the alternative.

 

[Chris-D]

Good points. I think the fewer presuppositions one can hold, the more properly basic ones ontology, so the “blind men” would best of NOT adding “light exists” to their presuppositions.

To clarify, I am not saying they should presup that light does NOT exist, that is a different position and that would technically be a presup. The fewer the better.

Does that help clarify my position?

*btw great username!