Philosophy Now Forum

I certainly don't support the JBT criteria, but I don't see why, "your airplane may or may not crash," would not be a true statement, since it is only asserting that the future cannot be predicted with an example. So you agree that it's true. It's justified given there's plenty evidence t...

For a truth claim to be considered knowledge it has to be supported by evidence or proof or logic. However because evidence is the remit of science which is primarily an inductive discipline ... What damage Hume has done to philosophy. The only part of science that can remotely be call, "induc...

The Gettier problem ... The real problem is JTB. It confuses the question of how what one believes can be known to be true knowledge with the question of what true knowledge is. There is only one thing that determines what is and what is not knowledge, reality. The real problem with JTB is its inab...

The absence of evidence for the existence of abstract things, such as truth, may not mean they don't exist. But it does mean that to believe they do exist is irrational. The burden of proof is with those who claim they do - Platonists, for example. This is a very interesting and rather absurd claim...

But Peter claims there are no categories inherent in reality. So your assumption is uncalled-for; explicitly, humans are not the sum total of reality. Called or uncalled for - it's forced upon us and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We may not be the sum total of reality, but we can only...

A radical distinction between what we say and what say it about is what I'm advocating, because the failure to make that distinction has befuddled philosophers for at least two and a half millennia. Anybody who subscribes to a deflationary theory of truth would say that this distinction is worthles...

But countries dont exist for birds or clouds. Existence is existence for, unless you are talking metaphysically about existence itself. Sure. Different kinds of categories exist for those entities. Hemispheres exist for birds - that's why they migrate. Hemispheres exist for clouds - that's why ther...

And there are no categories inherent in reality. This is demonstrably false. There are often no physical borders yet to claim that countries don't exist would be ludicrous. Or closer to Daschund's argument: there are sections of the autobahn with speed limits, and sections without speed limits. To ...

There are many mistakes in your argument. (...) But it's not a moral claim at all. Moral claims contain words such as right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to. You are implying that Dachshund's essay should contain less mistakes. Why is that not a moral claim? We have to work it out on our own,...

In the brain, there are lots of parts that does not think. It's only there for some other reason, like the rock in the person's hands. The person still thinks no matter what. From the above it seems then that the sufficiency criterion for the claim "the universe thinks" is satisfied as lo...

I assume you are Univalence under another name.I detect the same faulty reasoning, misrepresentation and misfiring questions. You seem to have appointed yourself as the paragon and arbiter for "reason", and anybody who points out the contradictions in your argument is guilty of "faul...

I haven't 'simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective"'. I'm arguing that it is subjective - and showing why that's the case. If you disagree, please refute my argument by citing a moral fact and showing why it's true, independent of opinion. Sure. But in order to make such an argu...

Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on. Would it be fair...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:52 pm And apparently, Atheism kills more people than any other ideology, by orders of magnitude....well over 100 million in the last century, more than all other causes combined. So that hardly looks like a win.

False dichotomy. Everything that isn't theism is not atheism.

Of course. We have rigged the system in such a way that the answer is always "yes".

* There is absolute truth is absolutely true.
* There is no absolute truth is absolutely true.

I lean towards the latter.