The Gettier Problem and epistomology

[Outis]

LOL Wikipedia.

Would you prefer the IEP, where the problem above is Gettier Case I? I'd also be willing to direct you to the Stanford EoP, but they don't have an article specific to that topic.

Laughing at, or deriding, the source of the information when the information is accurate is a form of ad hominem.

It's not a matter of just resolving one Gettier problem, but resolving all of the different types of Gettier problems.

I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that I don't have the space to develop a proof in a TWeb post.

[Outis]

I don't recall Plantinga ever calling his warrant theory teleological, only myself, and I later conceded that it may have been an inaccurate description. He invokes "function" analagous to the "function" biologists assign to various biological structures.

If you're referring to the "proper function" of the brain, and your definition of "proper" means working according to the "design plan" (Warrant and Proper Function, p 21), you're appealing to teleology.

[Paprika]

If you're referring to the "proper function" of the brain, and your definition of "proper" means working according to the "design plan" (Warrant and Proper Function, p 21), you're appealing to teleology.

And again, in p14, he invokes "design plan" as analagous to "design" in biology.

[Outis]

And again, in p14, he invokes "design plan" as analagous to "design" in biology.

Which is, again, teleological language. Considering that Plantinga firmly rejects naturalism and prefers intelligent design, the conclusion that he argues from teleology is inescapable.

[Paprika]

Which is, again, teleological language. Considering that Plantinga firmly rejects naturalism and prefers intelligent design, the conclusion that he argues from teleology is inescapable.

Given that biologists use teleological language , with "many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology [believing] that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role", I don't consider anything untoward of Plantinga's usage.

[Outis]

Given that biologists use teleological language , with "many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology [believing] that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role", I don't consider anything untoward of Plantinga's usage.

As soon as you are the authoritative source of what is "untowards," I'll consider your opinion on the issue relevant.

Plantinga's notions of knowledge are firmly rooted in his theistic preconceptions: his concept of warrant is teleological, despite your handwaving.

[Paprika]

Plantinga's notions of knowledge are firmly rooted in his theistic preconceptions: his concept of warrant is teleological, despite your handwaving.

Teleological concepts can also be based on naturalistic conceptions (as I have pointed out in my previous post). Now, though his teleological warrant theory may be theistically motivated, it doesn't mean it is thus invalidated. Does his teleological axiom require, implictly or explicitly, a designer? If no, I suggest addressing the argument, instead of trying to handwave it away.

[MaxVel]

As soon as you are the authoritative source of what is "untowards," I'll consider your opinion on the issue relevant.

Plantinga's notions of knowledge are firmly rooted in his theistic preconceptions: his concept of warrant is teleological, despite your handwaving.

Outis, you seem to be verging on an ad hominem rejection of Plantinga, something you yourself decried in post #31.

[Outis]

Outis, you seem to be verging on an ad hominem rejection of Plantinga, something you yourself decried in post #31.

I am not. I do reject teleology as a concept in biology, based on Occam's razor and _some_ elements of the "argument from bad design." As I am agnostic, I can neither reject nor accept his theology, thus because his theology is so foundational to his arguments, I have to view his arguments as factually unfounded.

As far as the man himself, I'd love to sit down with him for a cup of coffee and a discussion of these issues.

[shunyadragon]

Given that biologists use teleological language , with "many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology [believing] that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role", I don't consider anything untoward of Plantinga's usage.

False in science do not use teleological language of 'design' as Plantinga and other theist philosophers use it.

[shunyadragon]

Teleological concepts can also be based on naturalistic conceptions (as I have pointed out in my previous post). Now, though his teleological warrant theory may be theistically motivated, it doesn't mean it is thus invalidated. Does his teleological axiom require, implictly or explicitly, a designer? If no, I suggest addressing the argument, instead of trying to handwave it away.

Plantinga's teleological axiom requires a designer and rejects a Naturalist evolution. That is the purpose of his whole argument.

[Paprika]

False in science do not use teleological language of 'design' as Plantinga and other theist philosophers use it.

Plantinga's teleological axiom requires a designer and rejects a Naturalist evolution. That is the purpose of his whole argument.

Asserted, not shown.

[shunyadragon]

Asserted, not shown.

Plantinga's argument for design/theistic evolution, and against Naturalism were present in 1993 and 2008. The following is a summary of his 2008 argument.

In his discussion of EAAN, Michael Ruse described Plantinga as believing in the truth of the attack on evolution presented by intelligent design advocate Phillip E. Johnson, and as having endorsed Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. Ruse said that Plantinga took the conflict between science and religion further than Johnson, seeing it as not just a clash between the philosophies of naturalism and theism, but as an attack on the true philosophy of theism by what he considers the incoherent and inconsistent philosophy of naturalism.[32]

Plantinga has stated that EAAN is not directed against "the theory of evolution, or the claim that human beings have evolved from simian ancestors, or anything in that neighborhood".[38] He also claimed that the problems raised by EAAN do not apply to the conjunction of theism and contemporary evolutionary science.[39] In his essay Evolution and Design Plantinga outlines different ways in which theism and evolutionary theory can be combined.[40]

In the foreword to the anthology Naturalism Defeated? James Beilby wrote: "Plantinga's argument should not be mistaken for an argument against evolutionary theory in general or, more specifically, against the claim that humans might have evolved from more primitive life forms. Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic."

[Paprika]

Plantinga's argument for design/theistic evolution, and against Naturalism were present in 1993 and 2008. The following is a summary of his 2008 argument.

[shunyadragon]

I will take that as an agreement that: Plantinga's teleological axiom requires a designer and rejects a Naturalist evolution. That is the purpose of his whole argument