What is your definition of justification?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
What is justification if not some observation and/or some logical conclusion?

It seems to me that just some observation OR some logical conclusion can be the source of a belief, but using both observation AND logic is the source of knowledge. This is why the existence of a god can only be a belief and not knowledge. Using both is as justified as you can get. Is there any other type of justification?

I think we can dispense with the terms, belief and knowledge and replace them with interpretation. Knowledge/belief is just an interpretation of sensory data based on prior sensory data and interpretations. The only question is how justified is your interpretation?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:51 pm But if you have beliefs that lead to actions and you get away with them (unscathed) there may well be merit to them.

Probably a lot of our beliefs are like this. We haven't gotten smacked yet for having them.

Sort of a Darwinian view of beliefs.
Pretty much agreed. Knowledge/beliefs are simply place-holders until we have justification to no longer hold them. Think of them as temporary rules by which we interpret live sensory data. The rules are created over time by observing the effects of one's actions that follow one of these rules - kind of like a sensory input / action output feedback loop.
popeye1945
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by popeye1945 »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
Survival.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:05 pm Pretty much agreed. Knowledge/beliefs are simply place-holders until we have justification to no longer hold them. Think of them as temporary rules by which we interpret live sensory data. The rules are created over time by observing the effects of one's actions that follow one of these rules - kind of like a sensory input / action output feedback loop.
We get a bunch of inherited beliefs: from parents, from child peers, from media, implicitly via language (metaphors, for example) and so on. At some point we may rebel or notice anomolies or come under new propaganda/authorities/information and shift beliefs. At some point we may (partially) formalize an epistemology or we may have a powerful experience that raises questions about belief X. Or we may not get much of a return on some belief - perhaps we have some idea about how to be successful or learn or avoid trouble and it just doesn't seem to be working - we might be wrong in that evaluation, but our disappointment could lead to new beliefs, some we might try on for a while like we try on experts and gurus and certain books. We might join a group with different beliefs. We might shift cultural sub-group in some other way - go to university, say.

So, some beliefs get knocked out of us, yes. They don't survive. Others never really get questioned. Others get taken on for a variety of good to not good reasons.

I think most people are epistemologically eclectic, but in philosophy discussions they may seem to present themselves or do present themselves as rigorous about how they choose what is knowledge. I think this is actually rare. People certainly can be rigorous. A number are. But then they have other beliefs, some they may not even be aware of, that they've arrived at through processes not in line with their official epistemology.
Godless
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:16 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Godless »

Age wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 5:03 am
Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
What do 'you' ask 'us' what 'our' definition of 'justification' is, but then 'you' inform 'us' of how 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?

Also, what is the 'justification' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?
Obviously I am asking about epistemic justification
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:37 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:05 pm Pretty much agreed. Knowledge/beliefs are simply place-holders until we have justification to no longer hold them. Think of them as temporary rules by which we interpret live sensory data. The rules are created over time by observing the effects of one's actions that follow one of these rules - kind of like a sensory input / action output feedback loop.
We get a bunch of inherited beliefs: from parents, from child peers, from media, implicitly via language (metaphors, for example) and so on. At some point we may rebel or notice anomolies or come under new propaganda/authorities/information and shift beliefs. At some point we may (partially) formalize an epistemology or we may have a powerful experience that raises questions about belief X. Or we may not get much of a return on some belief - perhaps we have some idea about how to be successful or learn or avoid trouble and it just doesn't seem to be working - we might be wrong in that evaluation, but our disappointment could lead to new beliefs, some we might try on for a while like we try on experts and gurus and certain books. We might join a group with different beliefs. We might shift cultural sub-group in some other way - go to university, say.

So, some beliefs get knocked out of us, yes. They don't survive. Others never really get questioned. Others get taken on for a variety of good to not good reasons.

I think most people are epistemologically eclectic, but in philosophy discussions they may seem to present themselves or do present themselves as rigorous about how they choose what is knowledge. I think this is actually rare. People certainly can be rigorous. A number are. But then they have other beliefs, some they may not even be aware of, that they've arrived at through processes not in line with their official epistemology.
Well said.

There are some fundamental beliefs that we must assume, like realism vs solipsism, and then our other beliefs (if consistent) would stem from these fundamental beliefs. It would be difficult to treat your mother as anything other than a figment of your imagination if you were a consistent solipsist. But, like you said, most people are "epistemologically eclectic", and you can see that in their different discussions on different philosophical topics. Their ethics are not consistent with their religious beliefs, or their politics not consistent with their metaphysical beliefs, etc.

This is why I try my best to recognize this and to attempt to integrate my beliefs/knowledge from all domains, metaphysical, ethical, political, epistemological, real life etc. I will often question myself and expose my ideas to criticism as a means to de-compartmentalize my ideas. Not having an emotional attachment to beliefs for which you have no clear-cut evidence or proof also helps. Sure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Godless wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 5:03 am
Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
What do 'you' ask 'us' what 'our' definition of 'justification' is, but then 'you' inform 'us' of how 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?

Also, what is the 'justification' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?
Obviously I am asking about epistemic justification
And, I AM OBVIOUSLY asking 'you' HOW do 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:07 pm This is why I try my best to recognize this and to attempt to integrate my beliefs/knowledge from all domains, metaphysical, ethical, political, epistemological, real life etc. I will often question myself and expose my ideas to criticism as a means to de-compartmentalize my ideas. Not having an emotional attachment to beliefs for which you have no clear-cut evidence or proof also helps. Sure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
I try to do this also, but I am questioning doing it more and more. I mean, it's good to notice, but I am not sure being consistant is all it's cracked up to be.

And let me look at that last statement....
Sure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
A concern I have - and not as a rebuttal - is what voice/part of us is not motivated by emotion. So, this part decides...ah, there's an emotion involved and on some level evaluates the degree of potential bias and also the reasoned justification. But then, what is it's motivation for choosing that region of belief to focus on, and what biases does this part have not just for that choice but around its evaluations.

And we necessary use intuition in all beliefs, so how do we evaluate out own intuition (and then in each area of belief and evaluation)?

Here I'll paraphrase you're statement into a kind of heuristic (likely unfairly):

Check (regularly) your beliefs. Evaluate the justifications. Those based on intuition or emotion (or both), assess the justification, if any beyond intuition/emotion. This will allow us to no longer conflate the emotional state from the true/false status of the belief.

But then, this entails, I think, some kind of conclusion about intuition, in general, and then one's own and in that specific area. Perhaps your emotions/intuition in that area have a great track record, so going along with it despite the lack of empirical evidence, is something that should not be interfered with. (even to the degree of disabusing ourselves of its truth value).
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:25 am
Godless wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:56 am
Age wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 5:03 am

What do 'you' ask 'us' what 'our' definition of 'justification' is, but then 'you' inform 'us' of how 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?

Also, what is the 'justification' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?
Obviously I am asking about epistemic justification
And, I AM OBVIOUSLY asking 'you' HOW do 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?
epistemic justification = logical conclusions
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:07 pm This is why I try my best to recognize this and to attempt to integrate my beliefs/knowledge from all domains, metaphysical, ethical, political, epistemological, real life etc. I will often question myself and expose my ideas to criticism as a means to de-compartmentalize my ideas. Not having an emotional attachment to beliefs for which you have no clear-cut evidence or proof also helps. Sure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
I try to do this also, but I am questioning doing it more and more. I mean, it's good to notice, but I am not sure being consistant is all it's cracked up to be.
:shock:
The universe is not inconsistent. Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy). Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:07 pmSure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
A concern I have - and not as a rebuttal - is what voice/part of us is not motivated by emotion. So, this part decides...ah, there's an emotion involved and on some level evaluates the degree of potential bias and also the reasoned justification. But then, what is it's motivation for choosing that region of belief to focus on, and what biases does this part have not just for that choice but around its evaluations.

And we necessary use intuition in all beliefs, so how do we evaluate out own intuition (and then in each area of belief and evaluation)?

Here I'll paraphrase you're statement into a kind of heuristic (likely unfairly):

Check (regularly) your beliefs. Evaluate the justifications. Those based on intuition or emotion (or both), assess the justification, if any beyond intuition/emotion. This will allow us to no longer conflate the emotional state from the true/false status of the belief.

But then, this entails, I think, some kind of conclusion about intuition, in general, and then one's own and in that specific area. Perhaps your emotions/intuition in that area have a great track record, so going along with it despite the lack of empirical evidence, is something that should not be interfered with. (even to the degree of disabusing ourselves of its truth value).
I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false. Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis. Only after testing these hypotheses myself and exposing my hypotheses to external criticism that also abandons any emotional attachments to any particular hypothesis, and they endure, then the odds become more in favor of these hypotheses having some validity.

When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are. IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Godless wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:24 pm I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though
I like this definition, but not for the word "justification", it's a great definition for the word "evidence".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1628142 ... 20function.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm :shock:
The universe is not inconsistent.
Mine is. I am regularly dealing with anomolies, significant ones, less often. But then my inconsistancy come in dealing with complicated specific cases. Should I really make sure I hold to a monism all the time? Are there not times when spontenaity and expressiveness are safe and others where they are not? Am I really smart enough to know that this specific situation, should I process it/analyze it/classify it as X, means that I am not responding to subtle cues that it is different from other situations where I do Y, but in fact I am a hypocrite. It would take a genius well beyond anything humans have, I think, to think that the little voice in my head monitoring consistency is tracking (in real time also) all the factors.
Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy).
I disagree. But we could be talking past each other. I think humans have always mixed paradigms. Certainly all Christians have, for example, given that there are several paradigms in their Bible. There are perhaps some tribes that manage to stay within the same paradigmatic metaphors and ideas all the time, but I actually doubt it.
Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
I dunno. I think eclectic people with eclectic epistemologies can say many useful things. I have never met anyone who seemed to have a consistant view (presented in their metaphors and sentences) of identity, relationships, time, communication, free will vs. determinism, and certainly other issues as well. They may well have official positions on these things, but if you follow them around recordning them and tracking their behavior, I don't think anyone comes out clean. And honestly, I'd be afraid of someone who managed.

I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false.
That I agree with.
Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis.
I can say with great certainty that I cannot eliminate my attachments to most hypotheses I consider. Some I care about little, some tremendously, but preferences are always there. And if I couldn't find one, I'd assume there's a good chance I don't want to notice it, which might be a more dangerous (in the sense of fooling myself).


When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are. IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
We get intuitional skills via training and experience that is not organized like training, though it's training of a sort.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:50 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:25 am
Godless wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:56 am

Obviously I am asking about epistemic justification
And, I AM OBVIOUSLY asking 'you' HOW do 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?
epistemic justification = logical conclusions
So, one could say that the definition of 'justification' or 'epistemic justification' is 'logical conclusions'.

However, that would NOT be a VERY LOGICAL conclusion, itself. As one could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY 'logically conclude' that 'the earth is flat', that 'the earth is at the center of the Universe, and/or that 'the Universe began and is expanding', but then, although they may APPEAR to be 'logical conclusions' and/or 'epistemic justifications' they are, IN Fact, VERY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect conclusions, to say the least.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:07 pm This is why I try my best to recognize this and to attempt to integrate my beliefs/knowledge from all domains, metaphysical, ethical, political, epistemological, real life etc. I will often question myself and expose my ideas to criticism as a means to de-compartmentalize my ideas. Not having an emotional attachment to beliefs for which you have no clear-cut evidence or proof also helps. Sure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
I try to do this also, but I am questioning doing it more and more. I mean, it's good to notice, but I am not sure being consistant is all it's cracked up to be.
:shock:
The universe is not inconsistent. Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy). Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:41 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:07 pmSure, we may hold beliefs because it makes us feel good, and that is your valid reason to hold such beliefs, but then we should not conflate one's emotional state about some belief with that belief being true or false.
A concern I have - and not as a rebuttal - is what voice/part of us is not motivated by emotion. So, this part decides...ah, there's an emotion involved and on some level evaluates the degree of potential bias and also the reasoned justification. But then, what is it's motivation for choosing that region of belief to focus on, and what biases does this part have not just for that choice but around its evaluations.

And we necessary use intuition in all beliefs, so how do we evaluate out own intuition (and then in each area of belief and evaluation)?

Here I'll paraphrase you're statement into a kind of heuristic (likely unfairly):

Check (regularly) your beliefs. Evaluate the justifications. Those based on intuition or emotion (or both), assess the justification, if any beyond intuition/emotion. This will allow us to no longer conflate the emotional state from the true/false status of the belief.

But then, this entails, I think, some kind of conclusion about intuition, in general, and then one's own and in that specific area. Perhaps your emotions/intuition in that area have a great track record, so going along with it despite the lack of empirical evidence, is something that should not be interfered with. (even to the degree of disabusing ourselves of its truth value).
I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false. Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis. Only after testing these hypotheses myself and exposing my hypotheses to external criticism that also abandons any emotional attachments to any particular hypothesis, and they endure, then the odds become more in favor of these hypotheses having some validity.

When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are.
To FIND, or WORK, OUT just how LITTLE the adult human REALLY KNEW, back in the days when this is being written, just ask ANY of those so-called 'teachers' or 'students' of 'evolutionary psychology' or that 'branch of biology', which attempts to explain how "our" 'mind' is shaped, What is the 'mind', EXACTLY?

And then wait to SEE what ACTUAL answer you then get.

For ANY one who is CLAIMING to EXPLAIN how some 'thing' is 'shaped', or even 'works', then, SURELY, they would UNDERSTAND what that 'thing' IS, FIRST, right?
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:10 pm IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
HOW the 'world' ACTUALLY WORKS is VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND.

HOW to get adult human beings to OPEN UP and STOP BELIEVING 'things' is ANOTHER MATTER though.
Age
Posts: 14175
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:16 pm :shock:
The universe is not inconsistent.
Mine is. I am regularly dealing with anomolies, significant ones, less often.
That is only because absolutely EVERY 'anomaly' is of your OWN, or another human being's, MAKING.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm But then my inconsistancy come in dealing with complicated specific cases.
LOL It NEVER ceases to AMUSE me that when some 'thing' is YET to become KNOWN and/or UNDERSTOOD then 'it' is then classed 'complicated'.

LOL There is absolutely NOTHING 'complicated' in the Universe. The WHOLE of the Universe and absolutely EVERY 'thing' in Life is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY. ONLY 'you', adult human beings, make 'things' appear COMPLICATED and/or HARD.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:27 pm Should I really make sure I hold to a monism all the time? Are there not times when spontenaity and expressiveness are safe and others where they are not? Am I really smart enough to know that this specific situation, should I process it/analyze it/classify it as X, means that I am not responding to subtle cues that it is different from other situations where I do Y, but in fact I am a hypocrite. It would take a genius well beyond anything humans have, I think, to think that the little voice in my head monitoring consistency is tracking (in real time also) all the factors.
Humans were never inconsistent until we settled down with plenty of extra time on our hands and began to play with language (philosophy).
I disagree. But we could be talking past each other. I think humans have always mixed paradigms. Certainly all Christians have, for example, given that there are several paradigms in their Bible. There are perhaps some tribes that manage to stay within the same paradigmatic metaphors and ideas all the time, but I actually doubt it.
Consistency is a necessary component to say anything meaningful, or useful.
I dunno. I think eclectic people with eclectic epistemologies can say many useful things. I have never met anyone who seemed to have a consistant view (presented in their metaphors and sentences) of identity, relationships, time, communication, free will vs. determinism, and certainly other issues as well. They may well have official positions on these things, but if you follow them around recordning them and tracking their behavior, I don't think anyone comes out clean. And honestly, I'd be afraid of someone who managed.

I guess it depends on what we mean by "emotion" and "intuition". I was merely saying that we should not conflate what makes us feel good or bad with what is true or false.
That I agree with.
Sure, it may make me feel good to know what is true, but to arrive at truth I cannot have an emotional attachment to any potential hypothesis.
I can say with great certainty that I cannot eliminate my attachments to most hypotheses I consider. Some I care about little, some tremendously, but preferences are always there. And if I couldn't find one, I'd assume there's a good chance I don't want to notice it, which might be a more dangerous (in the sense of fooling myself).


When it comes to intuitions, there must be some valid reason (from an evolutionary standpoint) that we have intuitions. Evolutionary psychology is the branch of biology that attempts to explain how our mind is shaped by selective pressures as much as our bodies are. IMO, survival is the best incentive to seek truth - truth in how the world works to better survive in it.
We get intuitional skills via training and experience that is not organized like training, though it's training of a sort.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: What is your definition of justification?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:35 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:50 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:25 am

And, I AM OBVIOUSLY asking 'you' HOW do 'you' define 'epistemic justification'?
epistemic justification = logical conclusions
So, one could say that the definition of 'justification' or 'epistemic justification' is 'logical conclusions'.

However, that would NOT be a VERY LOGICAL conclusion, itself. As one could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY 'logically conclude' that 'the earth is flat', that 'the earth is at the center of the Universe, and/or that 'the Universe began and is expanding', but then, although they may APPEAR to be 'logical conclusions' and/or 'epistemic justifications' they are, IN Fact, VERY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect conclusions, to say the least.
How did you arrive at the correct conclusion to then say that the others arrived at the wrong conclusion, if not by observation and logic?
Post Reply