Juan: laminustacitus:all I'm doing is proving that I am willing to converse with an illusion of my mind that I have no control of. Out of curiosity, what's the point/your point ? Are you trying to prove that the fairy tales of revealed religion are just as true, or just as false as any other assertion because ultimately, according to you, all 'knowledge' is just 'faith' ?
laminustacitus:all I'm doing is proving that I am willing to converse with an illusion of my mind that I have no control of.
Irregardless, he is correct. If BAWAA actually believes that the act of arguing is proof of an objective reality (which, before you blow a gasket, I believe exists) then he needs to take an introductory philosophy course.
And just because faith is necessary in your beliefs as well as Christians and spiritualists doesn't mean that the degree of faith, or number of assumptions, are equal.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak:Irregardless
zefreak: he is correct.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Oh dear zefreak King of the Positivists!, how do you define 'faith' - how do you measure 'degrees of faith' ?
The more premises that are assumed to be true for a position to be valid determines the degree of faith that belief in that position requires.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No such word exists.
No such word exists.
Regardless
Knight_of_BAAWA: You fail to recognize the ground for the concept of arguing/discourse. You fail to grasp the prerequisites. You, like he, steal the concept.
You fail to recognize the ground for the concept of arguing/discourse. You fail to grasp the prerequisites. You, like he, steal the concept.
This is all semantics. Do you ever dream? Have you ever argued with someone in that dream? Under your definition such a thing is impossible. If you stand by your concept of argument, Lam can simply state that he is not arguing (your usage) with you, but doing something else, like arguing in the colloquial usage, which doesn't require multiple entities.
Juan:Oh really ? Do you weigh the premises somehow ? Or do you just count them ?
They are of course weighted, although this is hardly done by conscious effort. The more an unjustified premise is implied by evidence or other, justified premises, the lower the degree of faith required.
Juan:Sorry, you implied that the important thing was the number of premises. So, a system with only one premise, such as "whatever the bible says is true is true" is less faith-based that say, electrical engineering, with relies on a lot of 'premises'.
EE doesn't require many premises for which there is not enormous evidence. EE is actually based on very few unjustified premises, and obviously has enormous practical and explanatory power.
Juan:Of course, now you added a qualifier - the issue is whether the premises are justified or not. So, how do you know if a premise is justified ? Is that a matter of faith, again ? Or ?
A premise is justified if there is a valid argument based on sound premises that supports/concludes it. Of course, those premises must also be justified, hence the infinite regress and need for some set of axioms, or unjustified starting points, taken on faith (to me, faith is synonymous with unjustified). If one small set of axioms with ample evidence implying their truth value (first law of thermodynamics, gravitation are accepted "on faith" but with enormous evidence backing it) has a great amount of explanatory power, then it is more reasonable than a large set of axioms, or even a small set with minimal evidence or explanatory power.
Knight_of_BAAWA: zefreak:IrregardlessNo such word exists.
Obligatory wikipedia "reference": Irregardless
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
...Of course, those premises must also be justified, hence the infinite regress and need for some set of axioms, or unjustified starting points, taken on faith
zefreak:This is all semantics.
zefreak:Do you ever dream?
Juan:...Of course, those premises must also be justified, hence the infinite regress and need for some set of axioms, or unjustified starting points, taken on faith axiom : 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. (random house) 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; (american heritage) axiomatic : not needing to be proved; self evident (longman) I don't think that axioms and premises taken on faith are the same thing. At least, not according to ordinary language...and, I'd say, not according to common sense either.
In logic, an axiom is "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."
That's a rather malformed definition of axiom.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And dreaming has the prerequisite of sleep or at least unconsciousness.
And dreaming has the prerequisite of sleep or at least unconsciousness.
Not really relevant, but dreaming is unbounded consciousness, or consciousness not bound by the inputs of our sensory organs.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That's a rather malformed definition of axiom.
Oh?
I am using axiom in the following context.
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 13 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
That is merriam-webster
It's funny, the guys who believe in objective ethics are lecturing the moral subjectivist (sorry if I misrepresent you here zefreak) about how he's not sceptical enough.
BAWAA is definately a "Hoppean" by the way. He doesn't just believe in his argumentation ethics but his argumentation strategy. One confronted with somebody who disagrees with you, repeat but in CAPS.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Knight_of_BAAWA:And dreaming has the prerequisite of sleep or at least unconsciousness.
zefreak:Not really relevant
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's a rather malformed definition of axiom.
zefreak:Oh?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap