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

[shunyadragon]

But there are scientific truths about which there is general, if not universal, agreement, such as that the earth revolves around the sun, the speed of light, that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level, etc. This is not to say that they do not depend upon contexts, just as the fact that 2+2=4 is true within base ten, but we're not talking about philosophy of science after all, i.e the ontological status of scientific truths. We're talking about scientific claims that have been decided upon as true.

Already addressed this in many posts. Nowhere in science do we deal with proofs. I believe science has demonstrated that science is based on 'decisive knowledge, but arguing semantics here concerning science.

Where are the 'decisive truths' other than referencing science, and simple observed facts. None presented by your definition.

[Stoic]

Oh stop Stoic, I responded to you.

Yes, you responded to me, while ignoring what I actually said. And we can continue that way indefinitely, while never actually getting anywhere.

You just don't seem to like questions you can't answer.

It gets irritating when you ask questions that I just answered. Like, "Why is non-circular logic sacrosanct?"

And when you claim, "See you have no real world example!", when I just got done pointing out that I don't need one.

And when you try to shift the burden of proof. Your claim is that the LONC is absolute, and you want to use that claim to support an argument for God. I have given good reasons to doubt that the LONC is absolute, and instead of acknowledging that there is really no good reason to believe it is absolute, you want to play word games.

[seer]

Yes, you responded to me, while ignoring what I actually said. And we can continue that way indefinitely, while never actually getting anywhere.

No, I'm looking at the consequences of your beliefs, hence my questions or points.

It gets irritating when you ask questions that I just answered. Like, "Why is non-circular logic sacrosanct?"

Well why is it? Seeing that you question the most fundamental principle of logic. Why argue that circular reasoning is suspect when you don't even believe that first principles are absolute? Why the double standard?

And when you claim, "See you have no real world example!", when I just got done pointing out that I don't need one.

And when you try to shift the burden of proof. Your claim is that the LONC is absolute, and you want to use that claim to support an argument for God. I have given good reasons to doubt that the LONC is absolute, and instead of acknowledging that there is really no good reason to believe it is absolute, you want to play word games.

I said it before Stoic, axioms or self-evident truths are not proven but accepted. And you are claiming that true contradiction are possible. I can at least support my axiom with experience. I can find no exception to the LONC, and you have yet to produce a real world example of a true contradiction.

[Stoic]

It wasn't a simple fact until science figured it out. Just the opposite. So is it a proven fact?

It's a fact in the sense given by Stephen J. Gould:



So while the earth revolving around the sun is "possibly wrong" in principle, it is still a proven fact.

[seer]

It's a fact in the sense given by Stephen J. Gould:



So while the earth revolving around the sun is "possibly wrong" in principle, it is still a proven fact.

I agree, it is a proven fact.

[Stoic]

Why argue that circular reasoning is suspect when you don't even believe that first principles are absolute? Why the double standard?

Allow me to repeat myself:

If you allow circular reasoning, then anything can be proved. You can use circular reasoning to prove B, and then you can use circular reasoning to prove not-B. Or you can simply use circular reasoning to prove (B AND not-B).

People used to think that this was the case for true contradictions, also; that if you allowed even one contradiction to be true, then anything could be proved. This is called the Principle of Explosion. But then logicians figured out ways around it, like denying the validity of disjunctive syllogism or disjunction introduction (see the article).

To put it in other words, allowing circular reasoning has horrible consequences. The same is not (quite) true of abandoning the LONC.

I said it before Stoic, axioms or self-evident truths are not proven but accepted. And you are claiming that true contradiction are possible. I can at least support my axiom with experience. I can find no exception to the LONC, and you have yet to produce a real world example of a true contradiction.

What you seem unable to comprehend is the difference between accepting an axiom, and accepting that that axiom is "absolute". I accept the LONC, because it's hard to reason with other people without it, and because it makes sense to me. As I said before, it is grounded in human language. Maybe that makes it absolute for anyone who can't imagine any other way of thinking, but I don't think that's the kind of absolute you are aiming for.

I only claim that a true contradiction is "possible" in the sense that the only reason to believe otherwise is the LONC, and it is possible to reject the LONC and remain rational. I'm using "possible" in the epistemic sense, where I consider something to be possible when I don't know that it is impossible. Not being able to find exceptions isn't quite enough to make a rule "absolute".

[seer]

Allow me to repeat myself:

If you allow circular reasoning, then anything can be proved. You can use circular reasoning to prove B, and then you can use circular reasoning to prove not-B. Or you can simply use circular reasoning to prove (B AND not-B).

People used to think that this was the case for true contradictions, also; that if you allowed even one contradiction to be true, then anything could be proved. This is called the Principle of Explosion. But then logicians figured out ways around it, like denying the validity of disjunctive syllogism or disjunction introduction (see the article).

To put it in other words, allowing circular reasoning has horrible consequences. The same is not (quite) true of abandoning the LONC.

If we can allow for some true contradictions with out undermining reason, why can't we all allow for some circular arguments? If logicians can monkey with the fundamental law of logic with no harm to reasoning, why not with a much less important principle? Second, I have not seen any criterion as how to apply this in a real world situation.

[Stoic]

If we can allow for some true contradictions with out undermining reason, why can't we all allow for some circular arguments?

I can't think of any way you could allow circular reasoning without undermining reason. Perhaps you can.

I've explained a number of times how it would be possible to allow a true contradiction without undermining reason.

If logicians can monkey with the fundamental law of logic with no harm to reasoning, why not with a much less important principle?

Good question. Perhaps it isn't a much less important principle.

Second, I have not seen any criterion as how to apply this in a real world situation.

I can't help you there. Nor do I see any reason to. The theoretical possibility of a true contradiction is enough for me.

[seer]

I can't think of any way you could allow circular reasoning without undermining reason. Perhaps you can.

I've explained a number of times how it would be possible to allow a true contradiction without undermining reason.

Good question. Perhaps it isn't a much less important principle.


I can't help you there. Nor do I see any reason to. The theoretical possibility of a true contradiction is enough for me.

I don't think it there is possibility of a true contradiction in the real world. But there is also the problem of how you could possibly judge such things. Look at it this way: at this moment I'm sitting at my computer typing, and not sitting at my computer typing. I claim that both are correct. A true contradiction - how could you possibly refute my claim? Based on what criterion? So any claim of a true contradiction has to at least be accepted as possible - so I do not see how that doesn't completely undermine rationality.

[Stoic]

I don't think it there is possibility of a true contradiction in the real world. But there is also the problem of how you could possibly judge such things. Look at it this way: at this moment I'm sitting at my computer typing, and not sitting at my computer typing. I claim that both are correct. A true contradiction - how could you possibly refute my claim? Based on what criterion?

Why would there be any need to refute your claim?

So any claim of a true contradiction has to at least be accepted as possible - so I do not see how that doesn't completely undermine rationality.

Just like any other statement about reality, a claim of a true contradiction can be tested by observation. Or if it can't, one may withhold judgment.

[Tassman]

So the earth revolving around the sun is not a proven fact?

All proper scientific laws and theories are falsifiable. Falsifiability is synonymous with testability. Hence ALL scientific laws, even those beyond reasonable doubt such as the heliocentric universe, are falsifiable in principle.

[seer]

Why would there be any need to refute your claim?

So it is possible that my claim is true? Really?

Just like any other statement about reality, a claim of a true contradiction can be tested by observation. Or if it can't, one may withhold judgment.

So you can observe the sun existing and not existing at the same moment? This is the problem Stoic, we don't see such things in nature. I read your link about five times now, and it seems like verbal gymnastics. Though I have to admit I'm not getting the point (perhaps you can expound). Using language to suggest that something is possible is not evidence that it is possible in the real world. And there is no reason to believe that true contradictions are possible.

[mattbballman31]

Agrippa's trilemma is dumb.

Soft-foundationalism dissolves the idea that foundational beliefs are dogmatic.

And it doesn't even address non-propositional knowledge.

[Stoic]

So it is possible that my claim is true? Really?

Only in the sense that it's possible that gravity will stop working tomorrow.

So you can observe the sun existing and not existing at the same moment? This is the problem Stoic, we don't see such things in nature. I read your link about five times now, and it seems like verbal gymnastics. Though I have to admit I'm not getting the point (perhaps you can expound). Using language to suggest that something is possible is not evidence that it is possible in the real world. And there is no reason to believe that true contradictions are possible.

If all you've ever observed are white swans, then a black swan is impossible. Until you see one.

[seer]

If all you've ever observed are white swans, then a black swan is impossible. Until you see one.

Is your statement both true and not true? How could we know?