« first day (4 days earlier)      last day (17 days later) » 

Dcleve
Dcleve
15:45
@pygosceles -- Your reply remains an unsupported set of claims. It is a COMPLEX set of claims, which you invalidly asset resolves the Munchausen Trilemma. This assertion falls under the category of the circular argument leg. I also consider it to fail to even successfully be circular.
IF things are intuitively known to us to be "true" as you claim, THEN we humans need not do empiricism and reasoning about that empiricism to infer what is true. One should then expect babies to know intrinsically key aspects of our world from birth. But this is not the case. The development of an inferred world-model is not present in babies at birth, but is developed piece by piece, as developmental psychology shows.
The same is true of self-models, and the inference to other minds. Human development, as we have discovered thru empirical study, is directly contrary to your starting assumption.
Additionally, our more mature adult understanding of how our world works, without this sort of careful empirical investigation, has been demonstrated to be grossly in error. Our understanding of our own psychology, of the nature of physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology have all changed radically as a result of scientific investigation of each of these areas.
Our informal empiricism that each of us use to build world-models as we did as babies, is also inadequate in the face of the immense complexity of our world. Contrary to your intuitive claims, our world is immensely complex, and how it behaves in many cases is very non-intuitive.
Meanwhile, tying this infallibilistic intuitionism to a particular religious view is both demonstrably wrong, due to the failure of convergence between religions, and is further refuted by the demonstrated history of schisms of interpretation in all world religions.
It is not only wrong, it is personally dangerous. Ideologies that claim infallibility of their intuitions are incapable of correcting any errors of reasoning THRU dialog and reasoning. The holders of any ideology that deny questioning it, are doomed. There are millions of differing ideologies, and either all, or all but 1, are wrong in at least some particulars. But by denying questioning, the holders of any false ideology will never be able to escape it.
It is also sociologically dangerous. Ideologies that assert certainty are easily infected with intolerance views, and the religicide of those who disagree on even minor issues of doctrine is a terrible and bloody part of our history. "Morality based" religious violence is in a close race with ethnic nationalism for winner in the world's body count.
 
4 hours later…
Dcleve
Dcleve
20:06
@JSLavertu -- As an aside -- your test of "If I measure the wavelength of light coming from the sky and it doesn't land within roughly 450-495nm, the claim would be wrong." is failed by sky light. The light from the sky is actually a continuous range of frequencies, which happens to peak in the violet, rather than being limited to the blue range.
WHY we see the sky as blue, is probably because our eyes are a lot more sensitive in the green range than the violet, and the sensitivity x power level is integrated by our brains in a way that produces a "blue" appearance.
 
3 hours later…
pygosceles
pygosceles
22:37
You know that unaided reason is incapable of proving anything.
Therefore the only way to use it in proofs is to supply knowledge which is extrarational.
The lemma I provided is that an infallible Being may supply such knowledge.
This is obviously true, and there is nothing dangerous about it.
What is dangerous is making assertions such as you are making, that a person devoid of knowledge may safely contradict one who has knowledge.
It is this precise condition of disowning all absolute knowledge while still pretending to have it that enables the present conundrum of vast swaths of society p…
"One should then expect babies to know intrinsically key aspects of our world from birth. But this is not the case."
Children have an innate sense of morality, but they must mature and grow into their faculties and obtain and develop the use of their perceptions before their connection to conscience becomes robust enough to be entirely dependable.
Conscience does not contradict the existence of knowledge that requires effort to obtain or derive. That is one of the reasons why reason itself exists. It complements and enables further use of the faculty of Conscience. The two are complementary.
Since you are astute enough to notice the damaging effect of invalid epistemologies advanced unquestioningly as absolute truth, remember what happened last century when people thought their dogmatic social institutions were better than Conscience.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

« first day (4 days earlier)      last day (17 days later) »