tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post416335327284231911..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Being Skeptical of doubtJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84505799497142196902018-02-12T15:46:29.493-08:002018-02-12T15:46:29.493-08:00Hmmm..... Well, if pragmatism isn't it, what&#...Hmmm..... Well, if pragmatism isn't it, what's your measurement for "truth?" <br /><br />If the grounds of math and logic aren't settled and established, as I suggested, do you still have a big overarching signifier that grounds yourr beliefs? <br /><br />;-)Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37034889028852352902018-02-11T18:18:01.942-08:002018-02-11T18:18:01.942-08:00An argument based on equating "useful" w...An argument based on equating "useful" with "true"? You should know better.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5603483473158832822018-02-11T17:50:30.350-08:002018-02-11T17:50:30.350-08:00well, Euclidean geometry is "useful" whe...well, Euclidean geometry is "useful" where things have sufficient (approximate) flatness. To build things, eg. <br /><br />Moral systems are useful too, perhaps, when people don't want to kill each other quite so often or whatever.....<br /><br />From a pragmatic pov, it' would be hard to say that geometry is more useful than morals? <br /><br />What makes geometry more "true" than morality then? <br />Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45816054969953251742018-02-11T16:42:28.168-08:002018-02-11T16:42:28.168-08:00Don't kid yourself.... Not even the laws of ma...<i>Don't kid yourself.... Not even the laws of maths and logics are settled.</i><br />- To the extent that rules of logic are demonstrated to be false, we should not consider them to be fact. To the extent that they are applicable in some domain, we should regard them as factual within that domain.<br /><br />For example, you might point out that there are alternative geometries. Does that imply that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not facts? No. But we have to recognize the domain of applicability.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13668714618329976152018-02-11T16:34:27.431-08:002018-02-11T16:34:27.431-08:00"Why people don't like AC" .....
ht..."Why people don't like AC" .....<br /><br />http://www.goodmath.org/blog/tag/axiom-of-choice/Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5975156124065016012018-02-11T16:18:41.460-08:002018-02-11T16:18:41.460-08:00But don't you "believe" that observa...<i>But don't you "believe" that observation is the only true epistemic justification for belief?</i><br />- I believe that we should avail ourselves of every legitimate source of knowledge. I also believe we should examine the sources we have to find out how reliable they really are, and to understand what might be sources of false knowledge. <br /><br /><i>differences of opinion about something doesn';t mean that there's no fact of the matter.</i><br />- True. But it is a <i>prima facie</i> indicator. One should then ask whether there is an objective fact to be observed. I don't see it. Can you point it out to me? I think all you can do is to state your own opinion. If you think there's a fact there, show it to me.<br /><br /><i>You're just assuming, without argument, that observation is the only route to knowing objective facts.</i><br />- That's what you say.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72152693380926386612018-02-11T16:17:58.118-08:002018-02-11T16:17:58.118-08:00Rules of math and logic, on the other hand, are co...<i> Rules of math and logic, on the other hand, are considered objective fact. And just like every objective fact, they are observable. We understand them because we observe how things work in our world, and we observe that these rules always hold.</i><br /><br />Don't kid yourself.... Not even the laws of maths and logics are settled. There's lots of alternative systems that also work, & like everything else, the axiomatic systems that math and logic are assumed to be based in (eg the ZF set theorectical axiomatiration) have been challenged many times with differing accounts. The extent to which the existing predominant systems have held on not because they're better than other proposed options but just because they're entrenched is an open question too.Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53290244603298670532018-02-11T16:08:58.460-08:002018-02-11T16:08:58.460-08:00That was my point: the idea that there's only ...<i> That was my point: the idea that there's only one legitimate foundation is wrong because it can't satisfy its own conditions.</i><br /><br />Well, it may not be wrong! It could still be right, but it's still unjustifiable? (If I understand you right?) <br /><br />Yeesh, these convo's! Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89672082830508624522018-02-11T13:25:44.638-08:002018-02-11T13:25:44.638-08:00- I don't "believe in" observation. ...<b>- I don't "believe in" observation. I accept one foundational assumption: the evidence of the senses provides epistemic justification for belief. Now you may say it's really just a belief, but if you do, you would have to say the same thing about your own foundational assumptions, whatever they may be. I that case, you are saying that everybody bases their beliefs on circular reasoning. We all need to make some kind of foundational assumptions, or we would have no reason to believe anything at all. The one that I make is perfectly reasonable. It is the single most universally accepted foundational assumption in epistemology.</b><br /><br />But don't you "believe" that observation is the only true epistemic justification for belief? I agree with you that observation is ONE epistemic justification for belief but not the only one. For instance, the belief you have that observation is a justifiable foundation for belief is not itself based off of an observation. Yes, we all have to have foundational assumptions in order to form beliefs. That was my point: the idea that there's only one legitimate foundation is wrong because it can't satisfy its own conditions.<br /><br /><b>- Here, it is important to distinguish between different kinds of belief. You van believe something as a matter of fact, or a matter of judgment. "Grapefruit tastes good" may be something you believe, but it is not an objective fact. Matters of judgment or opinion don't require epistemic justification of the same sort as matters of fact. That includes statements about morality and rights. Yes, I know many will insist that these things are objective facts, but they aren't. Different people have different opinions about them. Rules of math and logic, on the other hand, are considered objective fact. And just like every objective fact, they are observable. We understand them because we observe how things work in our world, and we observe that these rules always hold. Claims about things in other categories like intentionality ("aboutness"), souls, and the like are not based on objective observation, nor are they beliefs that are rationally based.</b><br /><br />You assume that beliefs about rights and morality are matters of taste or judgment because there are differences of opinion about them. But differences of opinion about something doesn';t mean that there's no fact of the matter. You would have to make an actual argument for why one (differnces of opinion) mean the other (no fact of the matter). You're just assuming, without argument, that observation is the only route to knowing objective facts.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25036618560516977802018-02-11T12:41:24.252-08:002018-02-11T12:41:24.252-08:00Skep you statement cold be interpreted in a bad li...Skep you statement cold be interpreted in a bad light, When I realized that is what I was doing I broke off the attach. It could just as easily be understood innocently I would rather see it that way,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3939643766334969342018-02-11T10:42:19.344-08:002018-02-11T10:42:19.344-08:00How is it pretentious and self aggrandizing to say...How is it pretentious and self aggrandizing to say "If you are serious about epistemology, you owe it to yourself to discover genuine sources of knowledge"? Pretentious and self-aggrandizing is this: "My argent is written for intellect people with a sophisticated educational background". That is the stuff of a pompous ass.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2760402388178058142018-02-10T22:54:10.806-08:002018-02-10T22:54:10.806-08:00you totally ignore what I said about military rese...you totally ignore what I said about military research on the intuitive showing that it can be effective, so it depends upon the context, It depends upon what kinds of thing you are trying to learn from it.<br /><br />- You totally ignore what I had to say about intuition.<br /><br /><b>that's because it;bull sit, since ignore the research you don't even live up to your own so called "empiricism"</b><br /><br />God does reveal the same things a lot of times But the major reason he doesn't generally is because we have to filter knowledge trough the deep suture of our own mental and cognitive and precognitive faculties.<br /><br />- Isn't it ridiculous that God is unable to communicate more effectively?<br /><br /><b>Isn't it ridiculous that we don't listen when he talks? isn't it seditious that we hind behind the myth of objectivity to justify our own subjective prejudices?</b><br /><br />that is pretentious and self aggrandizing<br />- The wording I chose was carefully considered. <br /><br /><b>I'm sure it was, most pretentious, pompous self aggrandizing is</b><br /><br />Read it again, but leave out the parts that I didn't say. I didn't advocate any particular position or belief. I didn't say mine is better than yours. This is something that makes conversing with you difficult. You always want to read things into my words. You always try to make me out to be some kind of ideological extremist, when in fact I'm nothing of the sort.<br /><br /><b>you can;t bull shit a bull shitter,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34358899178079321782018-02-10T22:53:54.281-08:002018-02-10T22:53:54.281-08:00m-skeptical said...
We expect you to take the heav...m-skeptical said...<br />We expect you to take the heavily ideological side. We probably all do this as well.<br />- Joe, I'm not nearly as ideological as you seem to think. I'm much more pragmatic. I use what works. Religion produces false beliefs. Science works. Empiricism works.<br /><br /><b>when you say:It works: you only mean it works to bolster your bigotry. Neither science nor epistemology work to disprove religion,they are not possessed to religion.<br /> Epistemology doesn't "work" it's not part of atheism, it's not a technique or a party line.</b><br /><br /><br /> That's why I call myself an empiricist. It's not any kind of ideological devotion. It's simply a matter of examining the possibilities as objectively as I can, and using the things that work (as best I can tell), and rejecting the things that don't.<br /><br /><b>empiricism is an ideology, It's not equivolant to epistemology it;s a subset,</b><br /><br />you sound like you are speaking for an organization, the epistemology scouts.<br /><br />- I think there's some projection going on here. When I say "we", I mean humanity in general, or any subset of it that is pertinent to my point. I don't belong to any organizations. I have no affiliations to which I must be loyal.<br /><br /><b>party line</b><br /><br />that's a real mistake. you asserting that if subjective feeling doesn't give you the answer to all kinds of questions then it has no place in life. Feeling ca,'t be trusted because it doesn't lend itself to objective answers. you are tailoring your prejudice to what you think is the basis of religious belief.<br /><br />- No, Joe. I am asserting that subjective feelings produce false beliefs (much more so than objective reality as discerned by the senses). I think that the reason you are so attached to them is because they do give you the answers you want to hear. But that doesn't make those answers true.<br /><br /><b>there is no objectivity. People are only capable of varying degrees of subjectivity Intuitive sense works in some areas as and it Ephesians the subjective nature of feeling because it;s based upon pretension. The myth of objectivity is a smokescreen behind which hides all manor of subjectivity. </b><br /><br />Religious belief employs the same verity of epistemic approaches as does any other kind of thinking.<br /><br />- Religious belief is prone to accepting the validity of epistemic approaches that are rejected by more objective observers due to their unreliability.<br /><br /><b>No it's not That is only the casein certain forms of popular piety</b><br /><br />of course you are over looking the fact that mystical experience is proven to be an effective life transforming agent.<br /><br />- That's your interpretation of the data. You need to show causation, and you haven't done that.<br /><br /><b>No that's the position of the majority of people who study it,</b><br /><br /><br /><br />9:43 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28699477234671118302018-02-10T09:43:46.447-08:002018-02-10T09:43:46.447-08:00We expect you to take the heavily ideological side...<i>We expect you to take the heavily ideological side. We probably all do this as well.</i><br />- Joe, I'm not nearly as ideological as you seem to think. I'm much more pragmatic. I use what works. Religion produces false beliefs. Science works. Empiricism works. That's why I call myself an empiricist. It's not any kind of ideological devotion. It's simply a matter of examining the possibilities as objectively as I can, and using the things that work (as best I can tell), and rejecting the things that don't.<br /><br /><i>you sound like you are speaking for an organization, the epistemology scouts.</i><br />- I think there's some projection going on here. When I say "we", I mean humanity in general, or any subset of it that is pertinent to my point. I don't belong to any organizations. I have no affiliations to which I must be loyal.<br /><br /><i>that's a real mistake. you asserting that if subjective feeling doesn't give you the answer to all kinds of questions then it has no p;ace in life. Feeling ca,'t be trusted because it doesn't lend itself to objective answers. you are tailoring your prejeuidce to what you think is the basis of religious belief.</i><br />- No, Joe. I am asserting that subjective feelings produce false beliefs (much more so than objective reality as discerned by the senses). I think that the reason you are so attached to them is because they do give you the answers you want to hear. But that doesn't make those answers true.<br /><br /><i>Religious belief employs the same verity of epistemic approaches as does any other kind of thinking.</i><br />- Religious belief is prone to accepting the validity of epistemic approaches that are rejected by more objective observers due to their unreliability.<br /><br /><i>of course you are over looking the fact that mystical experience is proven to be an effective life transforming agent.</i><br />- That's your interpretation of the data. You need to show causation, and you haven't done that.<br /><br /><br /><i>you totally ignore what I said about military research on the intuitive showing that it can be effective, so it depends upon the context, It depends upon what kinds of thing you are trying to learn from it.</i><br />- You totally ignore what I had to say about intuition.<br /><br /><i>God does reveal the same things a lot of times But the major reason he doesn't generally is because we have to filter knowledge trough the deep suture of our own mental and cognitive and precognitive faculties.</i><br />- Isn't it ridiculous that God is unable to communicate more effectively?<br /><br /><i>that is pretentious and self aggrandizing</i><br />- The wording I chose was carefully considered. Read it again, but leave out the parts that I didn't say. I didn't advocate any particular position or belief. I didn't say mine is better than yours. This is something that makes conversing with you difficult. You always want to read things into my words. You always try to make me out to be some kind of ideological extremist, when in fact I'm nothing of the sort.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72034853832252677622018-02-10T03:37:02.340-08:002018-02-10T03:37:02.340-08:00Skep this is the statement of yours that set me of...Skep this is the statement of yours that set me off: "<br />"If you are serious about epistemology, you owe it to yourself to discover genuine sources of knowledge. If you have a different agenda, you can pursue that, possibly at the cost of sacrificing truth."<br /><br />that is pretentious and self aggrandizing, But as Dylan says:<br /><br /><br /> In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach<br />Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach<br />My existence led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow<br />Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now<br /><br />Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect<br />Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect<br />Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow<br />Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that nowJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73417121801792600382018-02-10T03:23:52.695-08:002018-02-10T03:23:52.695-08:00hey Skep the armature comment was a joke,I appreci...hey Skep the armature comment was a joke,I appreciate your depth of thought on epistemology.<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82910752353191053722018-02-10T00:41:24.450-08:002018-02-10T00:41:24.450-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28015817843066213352018-02-10T00:39:38.560-08:002018-02-10T00:39:38.560-08:00(1) Religious belief employs the same verity of ep...<b>(1) Religious belief employs the same verity of epistemic approaches as does any other kind of thinking.<br /><br />(2) Religious experience itself is not merely based upon subjective feeling, The subjective feeling goes with it as a kind of side effect,it's not the basis of mystical experience. The point of it being "mystical" is that it so transcends our ordinary experience that it defies an actuate and comprehensible description; of course you are over looking the fact that mystical experience is proven to be an effective life transforming agent.So un that case the feelings are indicative of one thing beyond both reason and feeling that is valid.<br /><br />*3) you totally ignore what I said about military research on the intuitive showing that it can be effective, so it depends upon the context, It depends upon what kinds of thing you are trying to learn from it.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />And it turns out that divine revelation is another category of inner feelings. Why doesn't God reveal the same thing to everybody? Could it be that it isn't objectively real?<br /><br /><b>No it's not.revelation employs a variety of forms. God does reveal the same things a lot of times But the major reason he doesn't generally is because we have to filter knowledge trough the deep suture of our own mental and cognitive and precognitive faculties.</b><br /><br />If you are serious about epistemology, you owe it to yourself to discover genuine sources of knowledge. If you have a different agenda, you can pursue that, possibly at the cost of sacrificing truth.<br /><br /><b>listen to the amature instruct the experts, I know far about philosophy than you ever will young man. (I got young manned once myself I've been waiting years to do it to someone else,-)</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69007396671198845362018-02-10T00:20:57.477-08:002018-02-10T00:20:57.477-08:00m-skeptical said...
I don't know if you read m...m-skeptical said...<br />I don't know if you read my answer to 7th Stooge at 1:49 PM. We all make foundational assumptions. That's not circular reasoning. But you raise a good point. If one makes a limiting assumption as you describe, and then bases their beliefs on that, I would agree with you. Notice, however, the way it was stated. I didn't say "only". That is not the fundamental assumption of empiricism.<br /><br /><b>True, good point But it's not us it's you. Or it's both both. You tend to overstate your position and lean to the ideological at first then correct yourself ok but you never acknowledge your fault. We expect you to take the heavily ideological side. We probably all do this as well.</b><br /><br /><br /> We believe the senses are a source of valid information upon which we can base our beliefs.<br /><br /><b>you sound like you are speaking for an organization, the epistemology scouts.</b><br /><br /><br /> The question then becomes What other sources might there be? It turns out that there is overlap between different epistemologies. We accept the validity of logic. We just disagree on where it comes from. But there are other things, like subjective feelings, that we have examined closely, and we can see that these things are deeply flawed. We know that our emotions make us believe things that aren't true. That's simply a fact. It's not a trustworthy source of belief.<br /><br /><b>that's a real mistake. you asserting that if subjective feeling doesn't give you the answer to all kinds of questions then it has no p;ace in life. Feeling ca,'t be trusted because it does't lend itself to objective answers. you are tailoring your prejeuidce to what you think is the basis of religious belief.</b><br /><br /><br /> <br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44448499455777768542018-02-09T20:26:23.286-08:002018-02-09T20:26:23.286-08:00I don't know if you read my answer to 7th Stoo...I don't know if you read my answer to 7th Stooge at 1:49 PM. We all make foundational assumptions. That's not circular reasoning. But you raise a good point. If one makes a limiting assumption as you describe, and then bases their beliefs on that, I would agree with you. Notice, however, the way it was stated. I didn't say "only". That is not the fundamental assumption of empiricism. We believe the senses are a source of valid information upon which we can base our beliefs. The question then becomes What other sources might there be? It turns out that there is overlap between different epistemologies. We accept the validity of logic. We just disagree on where it comes from. But there are other things, like subjective feelings, that we have examined closely, and we can see that these things are deeply flawed. We know that our emotions make us believe things that aren't true. That's simply a fact. It's not a trustworthy source of belief. And it turns out that divine revelation is another category of inner feelings. Why doesn't God reveal the same thing to everybody? Could it be that it isn't objectively real?<br /><br />If you are serious about epistemology, you owe it to yourself to discover genuine sources of knowledge. If you have a different agenda, you can pursue that, possibly at the cost of sacrificing truth.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70058386195303930122018-02-09T17:55:31.414-08:002018-02-09T17:55:31.414-08:00IM, I agree. No point in arguing about these thing...IM, I agree. No point in arguing about these things. Nothing will convince you that what happened to me was anything other than coincidence. Nothing will convince me that it was mere coincidence. So there we are.<br /><br />But as for the topic of circularity (which I also mentioned, calling it "begging the question"), it isn't quite true that our beliefs about epistemology necessarily result in circular reasoning, or that everyone bases their beliefs on circular reasoning. The issue of circular reasoning most often arises in cases where someone's beliefs narrowly limit a topic. Then, from within that limitation, they assert the reasoning for that limitation. Certain kinds of Christians use what the Bible says to support why the Bible should be taken as literally true. That's obviously circular.<br /><br />But I could say, "My epistemology says knowledge can come from the five senses, or from abstract logic, or from divine revelation, or from many other possible sources." It is not then circular reasoning to say, "My knowledge that knowledge can come from many sources, has probably come from one or more of those sources." Because the statement is not self-limiting, it is not circular. However, to say, "My knowledge that knowledge can only come from sense data, comes itself from sense data," is circular. Can sense data alone tell us that knowledge can only come from sense data? How can it do so? Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10394729820593948072018-02-09T17:30:38.642-08:002018-02-09T17:30:38.642-08:00Kristen, I once had a conversation with a Christia...Kristen, I once had a conversation with a Christian who told a story about a miracle that he had personally witnessed. He said he was in his home, drinking with some friends. There was a stack of video games on top of the TV. He closed his eyes for a moment, and then the video games were on the floor, half way across the room. He insists that nobody touched them. I suggested a plausible explanation for this event that doesn't involve a miracle. He became emotionally upset with me, and refused to believe that it could have been anything but a miracle. I don't believe it was a miracle, despite his protestations. I think that's what he really wanted to believe. I didn't try to argue with him any further.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55953205323045048042018-02-09T17:13:55.103-08:002018-02-09T17:13:55.103-08:00IM, I know that you have to account for things tha...IM, I know that you have to account for things that don't seem to fit into your view of things, by coming up with an explanation for them. We all do that. And so you explain my stories as coincidences viewed through confirmation bias. I don't blame you; you didn't experience them. But I will say that it is simply not the case that I have commonly felt an overwhelming urge to pray for someone I didn't even know, and sought to find out why, and discovered that it was just my imagination, that nothing was actually wrong-- and so the one time there was (by coincidence) something actually wrong, I remembered only that and forgot the others. This is simply not true. <br /><br />It is also not true that my sister commonly or frequently woke up screaming from nightmares, and so this one time, when something real (by coincidence) corresponded to her nightmare, we all remembered only that occasion, and forgot all the others. No, my sister was not subject to nightmares, or to waking up screaming, as a common or frequent thing at all. These are not things I can convince you of, so there's no point in saying any more. But you were not there, and I was. That's all. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7404338088777962242018-02-09T13:49:33.485-08:002018-02-09T13:49:33.485-08:00Your belief in observation can't depend on an ...<i>Your belief in observation can't depend on an observational basis without circularity.</i><br />- I don't "believe in" observation. I accept one foundational assumption: the evidence of the senses provides epistemic justification for belief. Now you may say it's really just a belief, but if you do, you would have to say the same thing about your own foundational assumptions, whatever they may be. I that case, you are saying that everybody bases their beliefs on circular reasoning. We all need to make some kind of foundational assumptions, or we would have no reason to believe anything at all. The one that I make is perfectly reasonable. It is the single most universally accepted foundational assumption in epistemology.<br /><br /><br /><i>There are justifiable beliefs we have that aren't based on observations, ie beliefs about rights, morality, math and logic, consciousness, intentionality, rational norms, etc.</i><br />- Here, it is important to distinguish between different kinds of belief. You van believe something as a matter of fact, or a matter of judgment. "Grapefruit tastes good" may be something you believe, but it is not an objective fact. Matters of judgment or opinion don't require epistemic justification of the same sort as matters of fact. That includes statements about morality and rights. Yes, I know many will insist that these things are objective facts, but they aren't. Different people have different opinions about them. Rules of math and logic, on the other hand, are considered objective fact. And just like every objective fact, they are observable. We understand them because we observe how things work in our world, and we observe that these rules always hold. Claims about things in other categories like intentionality ("aboutness"), souls, and the like are not based on objective observation, nor are they beliefs that are rationally based.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88232010003591020272018-02-09T12:55:32.780-08:002018-02-09T12:55:32.780-08:00You, skep, say that you base your beliefs on obser...You, skep, say that you base your beliefs on observation, but that grounding is itself based on a belief. Your belief in observation can't depend on an observational basis without circularity. <br /><br />There are justifiable beliefs we have that aren't based on observations, ie beliefs about rights, morality, math and logic, consciousness, intentionality, rational norms, etc. So I agree with you that it's rational to base (some) beliefs on observations, but that rational basis can't depend on an observation and not all rational beliefs are observational.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.com