Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hornet View Post
    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
    I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:

    The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
    The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
    The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

    None of these are rationally acceptable but I think it is all we have. I lead towards the axiomatic position.

    Here is another view of the problem:

    An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.

    A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.

    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:
      I've never been convinced by this. It may apply to discursive claims, but not non-discursive ones. Not all knowledge is inferential, thank goodness. And if the axiomatic option relies on stuff I'm just asserting, that sounds epistemically annoying, haha. Discursively, I like an aspect pressed by revelational epistemologists that (per a soft foundationalism perhaps) it's not an axiom at the fundament of my epistemic structure, but a person (or, more precisely, a trinity of persons). But I digress.

      A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
      [/I]
      It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.
      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
      George Horne

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
        I've never been convinced by this. It may apply to discursive claims, but not non-discursive ones. Not all knowledge is inferential, thank goodness. And if the axiomatic option relies on stuff I'm just asserting, that sounds epistemically annoying, haha. Discursively, I like an aspect pressed by revelational epistemologists that (per a soft foundationalism perhaps) it's not an axiom at the fundament of my epistemic structure, but a person (or, more precisely, a trinity of persons). But I digress.



        It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.
        Hey Matt, long time no see. If I understood what you just said I could respond.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Hey Matt, long time no see. If I understood what you just said I could respond.
          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
          George Horne

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
              It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.

              Can you give an example of a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging stop (in English)?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:

                The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
                The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
                The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

                None of these are rationally acceptable but I think it is all we have. I lead towards the axiomatic position.

                Here is another view of the problem:

                An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.

                A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.

                A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
                What do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
                1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
                2. I am feeling pain.

                What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.

                Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?

                Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
                Last edited by Hornet; 01-02-2020, 01:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                  What do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
                  1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
                  2. I am feeling pain.
                  With the first, I think, we would have to assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic). The second would be circular. How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?

                  What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.
                  Even if that is valid, that is where it ends. You could not logically move to anything else - for instance that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality (the Matrix thing).

                  Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?

                  Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
                  Again, wouldn't both require that we assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic)?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Can you give an example of a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging stop (in English)?
                    Sure! I was responding to this:

                    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
                    Maybe it depends on what 'principally feasible' means. I took it to mean 'feasible' based on 'principle'. The only kind of feasible break from searching, based on principle, which would be a random suspension of PSR, would be an irrational or arational suspension, depending on whether the randomness of the suspension violated rational norms or was such that it was without any norms at all.

                    Examples of these kinds of violations or these kinds of breaks would be any kind of fallacy or form of unjustified reasoning or any kind of metaphysically incomplete explanation. Fallacies are obvious enough: they violate rational norms. But perhaps you might flout epistemic norms in toto: perhaps you're a postmodernist. Norms are phallic hangovers of a bygone logocentrism, an idiotic sublimation bubbling up into a European, colonial mindset that invented truth as a power-structure to subjugate other ideologies, etc., etc., and on and on. In this case, you have an instance of flouting epistemic norms, of it being such that you don't have any norms at all. IF the norms were real, this definitely would be an example of a random suspension of PSR.

                    Okay, when I refered to a break that would be non-arbitrary or non-question-begging, what I was trying to say was that you could have a feasible break, based on principle, that would NOT be a random suspension of PSR in the ways I just specified. That is, it wouldn't involve fallacies, instances of unjustified reasoning, being such as to flout all epistemic norms, or being such that it is a metaphysically incomplete explanation (or being such as to include commitments with incompatible entailments). If it isn't any of these things, there doesn't seem to me to be any possibility of randomly suspensing PSR, even if you "break searching at a certain point".
                    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                    George Horne

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                      Sure! I was responding to this:



                      Maybe it depends on what 'principally feasible' means. I took it to mean 'feasible' based on 'principle'. The only kind of feasible break from searching, based on principle, which would be a random suspension of PSR, would be an irrational or arational suspension, depending on whether the randomness of the suspension violated rational norms or was such that it was without any norms at all.

                      Examples of these kinds of violations or these kinds of breaks would be any kind of fallacy or form of unjustified reasoning or any kind of metaphysically incomplete explanation. Fallacies are obvious enough: they violate rational norms. But perhaps you might flout epistemic norms in toto: perhaps you're a postmodernist. Norms are phallic hangovers of a bygone logocentrism, an idiotic sublimation bubbling up into a European, colonial mindset that invented truth as a power-structure to subjugate other ideologies, etc., etc., and on and on. In this case, you have an instance of flouting epistemic norms, of it being such that you don't have any norms at all. IF the norms were real, this definitely would be an example of a random suspension of PSR.

                      Okay, when I refered to a break that would be non-arbitrary or non-question-begging, what I was trying to say was that you could have a feasible break, based on principle, that would NOT be a random suspension of PSR in the ways I just specified. That is, it wouldn't involve fallacies, instances of unjustified reasoning, being such as to flout all epistemic norms, or being such that it is a metaphysically incomplete explanation (or being such as to include commitments with incompatible entailments). If it isn't any of these things, there doesn't seem to me to be any possibility of randomly suspensing PSR, even if you "break searching at a certain point".
                      OK Matt I get this, so can you give me an actual example of such a feasible break? I could imagine many non-arbitrary or non-question-begging breaks that have no correspondence with reality or truth.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Can you give an example of a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging stop (in English)?
                        My grandfather would yell "Just SPEAK SPLAIN!!!"
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          My grandfather would yell "Just SPEAK SPLAIN!!!"
                          Well I think Matt is a professional Philosopher, so he thinks and speaks in terms unfamiliar to us mere mortals...
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Well I think Matt is a professional Philosopher, so he thinks and speaks in terms unfamiliar to us mere mortals...
                            Understood... some of my colleagues got FAR more out of seminary than I did, and got infected with the language and stature.... well, they surrendered the ability to speak to common people.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              well, they surrendered the ability to speak to common people.
                              Are you calling me common!
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X