On assumptions...

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:00 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:36 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:56 pm
Let me make it simple for you. You either have solid proof or evidence for a premise or not. In the first case, you can easily make a proof. But you might want to know what is the result of a premise when you don't have proof or evidence for it. Your argument is not proof in the second case though.
So, once again, you agree exactly with what I have been saying and pointing out here, correct?
No, you totally were against the idea of assuming.
LOL I was NEVER totally against the idea of assuming.

What I was totally against was what 'you' and "others" were claiming was absolutely true, right, and correct here.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:47 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:00 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:36 pm

So, once again, you agree exactly with what I have been saying and pointing out here, correct?
No, you totally were against the idea of assuming.
LOL I was NEVER totally against the idea of assuming.

What I was totally against was what 'you' and "others" were claiming was absolutely true, right, and correct here.
Ok.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=497605 time=1613784974 user_id=11118]
[quote=Online Etymology]
[b][size=150]assume (v.)[/size][/b]

early 15c., "to arrogate, take upon oneself," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad "to, toward, up to" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take," from PIE root *em- "to take, distribute."

[b]Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted without proof as the basis of argument"[/b] is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on fictitiously" (an appearance, etc.) is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes. Middle English also had assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), from the Latin past participle.[/quote]

I'm opening this thread to try to help alleviate confusion about what 'assumptions' are and WHY they are necessary in context to beginning constructive arguments among ourselves here. Philosophy begins its serious enquiry by beginning with language and logic. [I placed this in Philosophy of Language but is coinciding with the heading under "Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics."]

While we do NOT like assumed claims, most original philosophers had to address this concern in light of the fact that regardless of what seems obvious to each of us prior to arguing, there is no other way to initiate 'proof' without them. While some may not recognize facts that we know without doubt is not about assuming, because we cannot all agree in practice to what IS [i]obvious[/i] without negotiating terms, assumptions with respect to proving something is understood to default to include those things we 'know' (or believe we know) without a doubt. This is because what may be 'true' about totality as a whole may be so perfectly inclusive of absolutely everything real AND not real, we would still require setting up LIMITS to help delineate what we mean in LOCAL contexts.

To be perfectly unbiased would to 'not assume anything' right? But given that "not anything" can be equivalent to "absolutely nothing", many cannot agree to accept arguing FROM the state of absolutely nothing, as many of you have argued against my own preference to do this. The only alternative here when trying to 'prove' anything to others is to try to argue FROM the other person's perspective. Yet, if this is not done with respect to your own perspective, the one you are arguing with might [i]presume[/i] that their own position is proven without recognizing that they were given 'charity' to their perspective. If one's argument though is strictly dependent upon eliminating ANY other person's perspective, you are still 'assuming' regardless. As such, assumptions are an unavoidable first step that people within a discussion require laying out with clarity or you risk leaving holes in your capacity to prove anything....especially where everything [i]may[/i] be true at least SOMEWHERE in Totality if not our particular Universe.

Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
[/quote]

Knowledge is justified belief. Assumption is to take action where the information available is insufficient to make a well-reasoned decision, regardless of whether that action was necessary or whether there was epistemological fault beforehand in failing to gather sufficient information.

The lowest possible fact is that experience sometimes replicates. Everything else can be built up from there.
Post Reply