Verifying Epistemologies

logic to evidence and to conclusionsyou drop a hammer it falls down, you drop a feather it drops down you drop anything it drops down you drop a helium filled ballone it flies up.illogical conclusion faries hate helium so they do not sit on the balone and it flies up, while they like everything else so they sit on it and it falls down.logical conclusion do to gravity everything is attracted to the mass of the erth, the helium filled balones follow the law of buoyancy so they float up

By 'the basics' I mean simple philosophical and logical concepts, like validity, logical worlds, truth, epistemology.JonEdited by Jon, : -Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

You confuse empiricism and logic.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

If by "the basics" you mean that I accept that whatever one believes to be true is true then I would rather not.If by "the basics" you mean that I become unable to confidently say that the Earth is not flat then I would rather not.If by "the basics" you mean that every conclusion one can pluck from ones epistemological arsehole along with every other equally shit ridden conclusion is as valid as a hard fought product of investigation - Then "No thanks".If by "the basics" you mean that I become as unable to answer simple questions and prone to evasion as you - Then (again) thanks but - No.Other conscious entities either exist in a shared reality OR they do not.If they don't you are arguing with yourself.If they do everything I am saying about objectivity is valid.Which option are you taking?Why are YOU refusing to answer this question?You evasion continues Jon.

from Epistemology - Wikipediato moste of those questions, logic is a foundation for the anwsers at least when it comes to scientific knowledge.

Still unable to answer this one I see.Why am I not surprised? What are you confusing logic with?Answer the above and we'll see.

Yes, logic is one of the foundations of science. But logic and empiricism are not the same.What is illogical about fairies? While agreeably not very scientific, they're certainly not logical impossibilities.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Here are some clues for you , Jon.There's more than one meaning to the word "valid".One of the meanings is used in logic, and another in science.Science builds and organizes knowledge, and is sometimes described as a "body of knowledge".Epistemology is theory of knowledge.Logic is the study of argument (not knowledge). The use of the word "valid" in logic has no direct relation to knowledge, but is only concerned with internal consistency; that a conclusion must follow from premises.Example:All planets are flat.Earth is a planet.Therefore, Earth is flat.Logically valid, but not scientifically valid, and epistemology would be concerned with whether or not the premises are justifiable beliefs (true), and how we can determine whether they are true, and therefore decide whether they (and therefore the conclusion) constitute knowledge.It is impossible to establish anything about knowledge using logic in a void.

Knowledge based on what? Right you are. Epistemology being a rather philosophical study, and the desire to avoid use of epistemological axioms (such as those used in science), I thought it was clear which definition we were using. I should not have assumed.My foul; we're using the one related to logical argumentation: 'It is not possible for a conclusion of an argument to be False while its premises are True'. I think it safe to say, however, that any definition of validity that allows p ∴ q v ~q to be valid sucks, and so the addition of 'the conclusion must be derivable from the premises' to our definition is perhaps required. Any disagreement?Apologies if it was too unclear. Hopefully this will get our conversation back on track.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : Fixed & Posted

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

That's not the meaning of valid in logic or anywhere else. That is the meaning of valid in logic (but not in science or anywhere else).As you can see, it's got nothing to do with knowledge. The argument is considered valid, regardless of whether the premises are true. It's not the study of argument, though. It's the study of knowledge.

Indeed. Where have I argued otherwise? I know. Where have I argued otherwise? Sure it is; just because it is not a full definition does not mean it is wrong. But since you agreed that 'the conclusion must be derivable from the premises' is an adequate definition, and since 'it is not possible for a ...' is simply a less specific subset of 'the conclusion must be ...' (less specific in that it does not mention a relational component), there is no reason to argue on the point of 'it is not possible for a ...' being relevant to the definition.Any argument with the property 'the conclusion is derivable from its premise(s)' will necessarily also have the property 'it is not possible for the conclusion to be False while the premise(s) are True'. Of course, if you think the two unrelated, that is fine; we can stick to using the 'derivable' definition solely; it won't affect the validity of my arguments.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Bill, based on his epistemology, has concluded that gravity will cease at noon tomorrow and that the world will end. Will you be saying your goodbyes tonight? Or are you as confident as I am that Bill’s epistemology is as much use as a chocolate teapot when it comes to reliably making conclusions about objective reality?Bill has also derived the conclusion that your claim that all internally consistent epistemologies are equally valid is wrong. Bill knows that only his epistemology and the conclusions derived from that are valid.Is this a legitimate conclusion? I believe that you are citing internal consistency as the only criterion for validity?So how valid is Bill's conclusion above regarding the invalidity of your conclusion?Oh dear......

An internally consistent epistemology is constructed and the conclusion that not all internally consistent epistemologies are valid is derived from this.Is this conclusion 'True'?

Only if the premises you're using to reach the conclusion are true.

Precisely.So then you would agree that not all internally consistent epistemologies lead to equally reliable conclusions?Thus we must have some indicator other than internal consistency by which to judge the relative worth of different epistemologies?According to one internally consistent non-empirical epistemology (coincidentally the same one from which last Thursdayism was concluded) gravity is going cease and the world as we know it is going end tomorrow at noon.According to empiricism gravity is going to continue to operate as per normal for the foreseeable future.What do you think will happen and why?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.