I went to uni in Jena no way :D It's a nice city

Both of the above examples are practically useful, but I do not believe they are epistemically useful.

I love this story. I live in a small town called Sherbrooke in Quebec and I am involved in politic their. We elected our first "mairesse" and, during the celebration party, while being a bit drunk, I told her that Sherbrooke could be a new Jena : small town, rich and diverse university life, beautiful surroundings. I still believe we can build a community of friends here, something that can at least give birth to a thinking needed for our time.

In philosophy, we tend to think that arguments are won by reasons, I believe it's more a matter of being the right person at the right moment in the right circles at the right place and at the right time : the best we can do, is prepare ourselves to be make those conditions actual.

>You can believe that you have JTB knowledge

&nsbp;

Yes, I just think that under the reasonable belief paradigm that this is a contradiction. I think the idea of believing certain things are true has to be given up or surrogated with something else like the belief that something is empirically adequate. The contradiction could just be ignored I guess but arguably that also undermines the point of doing this kind of thinking which I think is to reduce things like that; after all, why was the reasonable belief paradign asserted in the first place. I think everyone probably inevitably tolerates some level of contradiction or paradox in their views though.

 

>The difference between being taught something that's based on cherrypicked evidence and doing the cherrypicking yourself is that in the former case, you don't have the evidence necessary to tell that there's cherrypicking happening.

 

I don't think you have the evidence to tell there is cherrypicking happening when you do it yourself either though. You think your picking of evidence is completely reasonable and isn't cherry picked at all. On the contrary, you will think the opposition are cherry picking evidence and ignoring your evidence.

 

>That said, if we're aware that evidence and teaching can be flawed then we logically ought to check our sources.

 

Yes, but we have more confidence in some sources or evidence than others to the point we don't think we need to check. We would consider this reasonable yet its possible the confidence is misplaced (and often is).

 

>and grant credence or disbelief to those sources appropriately.

 

And what is appropriate will seem different to different people.

 

>Different people ought to come to different conclusions about a belief if they start with different evidence or different premises. Conspiratorial thinking is what renders a belief unreasonable, not the conclusions it generates.

 

Its hard to see what separates conspiratorial from reasonable here because they are just coming from different evidences and premises too.

Hey that’s my uni! Tiny and boring little town. It is also considered to be the birthplace of the German flag and of the student societies.

Perhaps you could consider it a hobby? I am here after years of schooling at the durnoid table. Every sesquipedalian I come across means writing it all down and reaserching endless big words, not supposed to be here crossed my mind.

Recently I saw a news story, a fella totally unrelated to archeology decided to work out what the dots were on the animals die to a hunch. He unlocked the language that scholars have been banging their gigantic heads against their walls for years trying to figure it out. Maby your exactly where your supposed to be, somewhere that makes your sound passionate.

That's not really true. The study of truth goes across many subfields, including metaphysics and logic as well. In fact most of the work today on truth is on its metaphysics.

For example, I wrote my PhD thesis on truth and I don't consider myself to have an AOS in epistemology whatsoever; I'm firmly in metaphysics.

[deleted]

Interesting article. The only thing I would say is we are still in a market-based system that requires not only sellers but buyers for goods and services. Corporations that would own the AI machinery would not simply let their customer base deplete through lack of means to buy their product. AI is perhaps not as infallible as its makers persist.

Well, those are the kind of thems around which our entire existence revolves and around which a good deal of discussion takes place.

ethics, politics, laws... and a logical evaluation is the only one you can make if you want to determine which are correct/acceptable and which are not

Those are just subjective statements. you don't even need logic or facts, at the end of the day you can feel one way and other people can feel differently, and neither will be right or wrong.

>so far

Well, I want this to be my very last post at reddit. I'm not an english native speaker, so it may not be quite precise on the language. But let's try.

I'm posting it here because I consider it as related to philosophy, but it's also me venting something. So, either because it doesn't get considered as philosophy or because it gets too boring, it may be deleted.

*

I studied a lot of different subjects, and it showed me many relations I never thought it could be possible. The Metaphysics also showed itself as the meta-thought, that is, there is the chaotic information on a subject, but then you may create categories on it. The more you think about these categories themselves, the more the thought jumps from the particular topic to a general way to think about ordering. This metathought, that is the thought about the thought, opens the door to the sense of Metaphysics.

Anyway, by doing these studies, I actually got pretty much depressed. I mean, a lot. I summarize this experience like this: one thing is to get to know the evil (the imperfect, the ugly or whatever). It's easy to see, and easy to imagine. The more you know evil, the less you believe there is good, and whatever shows as good seems to you like something disgusting, because you end up believing intuitively there's an imperfection hid somewhere. The other way, though, hurts more: if you get to know good, the more you try to get to know higher goodness, the more you realize the lack of it around. Notice this: one thing is evil, the other thing is lack of good. They are, let's say, the same "gap of goodness", but the first way you see it as expected or disgusting; the second way you see it as what it could be of good. And that hurts much more. The more you train this vision, the more you start to see how the world could be of good, and realize it is not that. Evil doesn't matter, but the lack of goodness is saddening. It is Tristesse, like Chopin expressed it.

So, I went through this path and from my experience I tell you guys: Plato said evil is the lack of knowledge, and it seems he's pretty much right. Knowledge has a theleology: any knowledge can be used to direct an intelligence to understand itself. In the center of intelligence, the mechanism that makes it work, there's Good. But I won't prove it here, since this is my last post ever, or so I hope. For anyone who wants to investigate it, try paying attention to your insight: when it happens, how it happens, what it brings, what it is related to, how does this relation builds the insight content and so on.

​

Anyway, I consider today as the end of my journey. I found out something that is my limit. I call it (for now) "the map of learning".

I studied my culture and the public education of my country as much as I could, and it led me to realize some lacks, great lacks. It's not quite the fault of anyone, it just happened that no'one seems to have thought about these ideas (according what it can be read through the main educational discussion). And I'm no'one, I shouldn't even have investigated none of what I did. I was supposed to be a worker and nothing else, but my curiosity led me to some weird tracks. And now is the time to head back to the main path.

So, anyway, this map is about the problems of learning. I already had made a "map" on how many of cultural works end up being close to useless because the author wasn't really sincere about it. Now, even though the person is sincere, still there may be some errors.

I mean, imagine when you try to learn a language. You can either:

I) Learn it by a course (a formal list or order)

II) Learn it by yourself (chaotic)

I knew too many people who passed through courses and didn't learn almost anything. But chaotic learning also mostly doesn't work. The idea of today was to organize my experience on this. This is kinda Lao-Zi's search of Tao. Well, by the end, I found out some things really sad. And that was the final blow. I'm officially depressed lol

So, well... I know it's not written entirely, nor explained and so on, but I just needed to share this somewhere. And that's all. I got bored of all of this search for knowledge. I want to do my destiny, which is to be a hard worker. I wasn't supposed to be here, I wasn't invited to the symposium, I got here by accident and feel very ashamed for trying to usurp a place I wasn't supposed to be in.

So, I didn't appear very much here, but I've read posts here and comments, and I'd like to thank you guys for them.

And also I'd like to thank for all the reddit. This is really a great place. I like this structure, which is close to old forums. Facebook and specially Instagram don't have enough space for a real discussion.

Thank you for reading this venting.

Did I ever suggest to the contrary? A combination of checking the validity of the premises and the logic of the argument is the only tool we have.

yeah, and starting from different false premises you can easily get to the opposite outcome (slavery non acceptable / Godfather not the Greatest).

How do you establish which is the best conclusion (truth or merely acceptable) if not on the basis of a rigorous check on logical reasoning?

Me too. Especially if the point is worth discussing.

Wait so you’re saying that there is almost certainly hidden variables? Because every experiment so far has failed to reveal any hidden variables and it really does appear that particular states really do randomly fall within a probability distribution. So yes the past and state of the universe does limit the possible future states but only within the probability distribution.

If you accept that starting from a false premise counts as a fallacious argument that's easy. Example:

• The bible is the source of all valid ethics
• The bible approves of slavery [demonstrably true]
• Therefore slavery is ethically acceptable

or

• The quality of a movie can be assessed by its reviews in the media
• Media reviews of the Godfather were more positive than for all other films in history [almost certainly not true]
• Therefore the Godfather is the best movie ever.

I would say that this only moves the problem backwards.

If you are forced to consider the empirical evidence for the Big Bang more convincing than the Bible because of a chain of cause-effect stretching back to the Big Bang, why should I rate this opinion higher/better than being forced consider the empirical evidence for the Big Bang less convincing than the Biblical claims because of the same invincible chains of cause-effect?

"Slavery is ethically acceptable" or "The only true meaning of life is chasing pleasure" "The Godfather is the best movie ever"

Demonstrate that I'm wrong/right with a illogical and fallacious arguments.

Ah, here I can see how one's epistemological framework plays a role. Speaking as someone who subscribes to empiricism, I would say that there is more convincing evidence for the Big Bang than for Biblical claims.

Example?

This is true only for empirical conclusions. "The grass is green" might be a correct statement even if I reach it with illogical argumenets.

But if don't have empirical counter-factual elements (and you don't have them in many fields) a sound logic is all you have.

I think the question of "importance" is one thing, and there's certainly differing opinions there, but the person I was replying to seemed to be making a much more particular claim that under determinism people cannot be hurt, which seems far stranger.

Your point is understandable enough that if they're hurt they were determined to be and so it could not be otherwise so maybe worrying about it is a waste of time, but while that's all very relevant to the free will debate, I'm still just hung up on claiming that "hurt" isn't possible outside of any of that.

His distaste for utilizing fallacies based on how his students reacted, says more about the teaching style or the way it was explained rather than fallacy theory itself. He further goes on to say that "arguments that are deemed ‘fallacious’ according to the standard approach are always closely related to arguments that, in many contexts, are perfectly reasonable", which would, to me, seem to imply the arguments are indeed fallacious but are close to being logically sound. This doesn't really address the problem with fallacy theory.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not like blowing a 'whistle' nor does it automatically make you win an argument. There is actually a fallacy, aptly called the argument from fallacy (or argumentum ad logicam), which talks about the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, the conclusion by itself is false.

Fallacies are just a framework to correct the logic within arguments, and in most cases that is to prevent incorrect conclusions. Fallacies are pretty crucial in discussions and debates because what we try to achieve most of the time is a logical outcome, which can be a better understanding, deciding what is true or what is false. A big part of this process is logically sound thinking and arguments.