What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[John]

Yes, it would be zero for practical purposes and that's what a lot of people assumed until Hume came along. By taking induction to its logical conclusion he exposed the problem that was hidden away from view. That is, there is no logical necessity when it comes to matters of fact. "All practical purposes" is not good enough when push comes to shove. Kant, one of the greatest minds of the age was forced to agree with Hume. However, he came up with his own unique method in order to try and get around the problem of induction.

I'm aware of the problem but I think it's implications are often overstated by those fixated on the idea that all foundations are built of shifting sands and we can never truly know anything. I agree that we can never truly know anything but so what? Probabilities are useful and so is past behaviour, even if not infallible. Although I don't know the Sun will rise tomorrow it would be irrational for me to base a single decision on the probability that it might not so for all intents and purposes I can treat it as true. Even if it turns out not to be true and the Sun doesn;t rise tomorrow I was still correct to think that it would.

It is sensible to act as though past behaviour is predictive of future behaviour unless you have good cause to question that. Even though we have all the observational evidence that humans need oxygen we also understand the biological mechanisms at work so we can say that humans need oxygen to breath. When philosophers say things like "you don't know with certainty that humans need air to breath" scientists snigger at them and then get back to the work of actually doing things that produce results. And people wonder why the likes of Hawking criticise philosophers?

As to whether a human like entity who has evolved to breath some other combination of gases actually exists somewhere eg some other solar system is a matter of debate. However the point is that if we can even conceive of such a state of affairs then this state, no matter how unlikely does not have a zero probability. Hume, Kant and Popper would all agree with me.

I certainly never said that a human like entity could evolve to breath without oxygen. I said that it wouldn't then be human which you yourself concede by referring to it as "human like".

[Ginkgo]

I'm aware of the problem but I think it's implications are often overstated by those fixated on the idea that all foundations are built of shifting sands and we can never truly know anything. I agree that we can never truly know anything but so what? Probabilities are useful and so is past behaviour, even if not infallible. Although I don't know the Sun will rise tomorrow it would be irrational for me to base a single decision on the probability that it might not so for all intents and purposes I can treat it as true. Even if it turns out not to be true and the Sun doesn;t rise tomorrow I was still correct to think that it would.

It is sensible to act as though past behaviour is predictive of future behaviour unless you have good cause to question that. Even though we have all the observational evidence that humans need oxygen we also understand the biological mechanisms at work so we can say that humans need oxygen to breath. When philosophers say things like "you don't know with certainty that humans need air to breath" scientists snigger at them and then get back to the work of actually doing things that produce results. And people wonder why the likes of Hawking criticise philosophers?


I certainly never said that a human like entity could evolve to breath without oxygen. I said that it wouldn't then be human which you yourself concede by referring to it as "human like".

I can't really argue with all of that. Hawking is probably right. I guess that is the inherent problem with philosophy. But I think you and Kant are right. There may well be no logical necessity for arguing that the sun will rise again tomorrow, but there may well be a psychological necessity.


Sorry about the last bit I misunderstood your example. Also sorry about the "Gingko wrote" quote. It is obviously your quote, not mine.

[MJA]

Absolute certainty can be found by removing everything that is not.
Decarte had a good method for this.
Einstein too.
And here is a real tip: Start by removing the uncertainty of measure!

=

[lancek4]

[quote="Ginkgo"="SpheresOfBalance"]

Just one question.


How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

Well, that fell on deaf ears.

Not at all, I had missed your post, until now. It would seem your impatience breeds your presumption.

I don't know to what extent you believe induction comes into play, as you have not conveyed the crux of that point using your language as far as my ears are concerned.

One can claim what ever they want, remember we are talking of language, speech that is simply sound that humans grunt. There is no necessary meaning in any particular human grunting. In order for human grunting to have factual, truthful meaning, the particular grunts have to have been assigned and agreed upon by the masses that use a particular language in order for factual, truthful ideas to be conveyed.

As such, it has been scientifically proven, specifically within the field of study dubbed Biology, that O2 is the single constituent of air that allows for human life processes to function. As a matter of fact, both the aviation and space community utilize liquid O2 that is converted to it's gaseous form to supplement the human need, to sustain it's life, under low or no O2 conditions.

Such that one can say what ever they want, but if one deprives their human bodies cells of O2, that the human bodies lungs extract from earths air, they shall surely die. If you don't believe me, do it to yourself! Of course this is not to say that one of mans machines that he has built for this very purpose, can't bypass the lungs and uses the vascular system as an entry point for this human life requirement of O2.

The point is that human life requires O2 how ever it's delivered to the bodies cells. But it's a fact, the absolute truth, that the natural way in which this is done is via the human lungs and earths air.

No one can prove this incorrect, thus it is one of the absolute truths, that nature provides, despite mans words or beliefs.[/quote]



Yes, but you used language to establish your proposition in the first place. I want to use the same language principles and the same language techniques you applied in establishing your truth to deny that truth. Why would it be the case that just because you have established this position you can lift it to a higher level of reality whereby it must remain untouched?

You can never prove your statement with certainty, but you can always disprove it with certainty. If I found one contrary example of someone who didn't need O2 in the air then the statement. All, humans need O2 would be false. By the same token the statement remains true only until I find this person. The chances of me find such a person would be next to impossible. But it can never be a zero chance.


I think that's a good proof against the term 'absolute ' truth. Thank you G
So I don't have to prove you statement incorrect. If I can conceive of a state of affairs whereby humans don't need O2 (I can imagine this) then it has a probability factor. That's the problem of induction.[/quote]

[SpheresOfBalance]

but SOB is in Red

I still want to know of sob: how do You You You You differentiate between what you believe is absolutely true and what is not your belief. ??

You're such a cheeky little bastard, as if the "You" key got stuck on your keyboard. This is not about Me Me Me Me. It just blows my mind that some people use words in such a way that they actually believe it disproves something in nature. I'm just smart enough to realize that when something like that occurs, it's mans words, and not nature that is mistaken, as mans words are merely labels that represent those things found in nature. Mans relative words can never be as potent as the absolute truth of the nature that has allowed man to create such relative words.

One of you vacillating moves is that you speak of the absolute truth that man has uncovered and then speak of how what you know may be merely belief. You have even spoken about how what man has uncovered may also be not absolutely true.
What is this ?

Do I vacillate? Or is that merely your perception, as with your not understanding the context, in which I speak of these modes of mans truth, that you see as contradictory.

I see that you often ask how I can know these truths, as if the knowledge is instantaneous, of that moment, that I am somehow responsible for them. But I assure you, I have nothing to do with it in that moment, and that actually they come from mans history, and are the culmination of much work. My small part is only in their verification, as is everyone's.

Perhaps at least some of the problems of this absolutely true world of yours is due to people not taking responsibility for them.

And, I am honestly asking: how do you? How. By what mechanism, by what synthesis, by what means, what method do you invoke or use, to know of this Ab truth - so I might use your method and thus be able to be as certain as you. Tell me, please. Tell me how you know this.

OK Lance, my old buddy, let me put you in the hot seat and ask you for your resolve. And let's not make this a vocabulary lesson, OK?

Would you say that you 'believe' the Earth is a spheroid? Why?

If so, is it 'true' that the earth is a spheroid? Why?

If so, is it 'absolutely true' that the earth is a spheroid? Why?

Do you believe that the shape of the Earth, regardless of what anyone calls it, would be the same as it is, at the moment of the asking? Why?

If yes, do you believe that constitutes an absolute truth? Why?

If it is not absolute, what is it? Why?

I can say that it is absolutely true, but as Chaz stated, the term 'absolutely ' is unnecessary and basically meaningless. It is extraneous.
I disagree, because of all the falsehood that people try and pass off as truth, as a result we need a qualifier to differentiate what is actual.

It is true with reference to the manner of knowledge by which we understand the universe. Truth is contextual in this way.
I disagree, as this is to say that we are removed from the universe, which is not true. In fact, we are of the universe, we are in it, but more importantly, it is in us, so how is it possible that we do not know of the absoluteness that we are children of. We are just a permutation of all that is the universe. It is inside us, each and every one of us.

It is only absolute if I or we were gods and could remove ourselves from our universality sufficiently enough to prove that our knowledge reflects absolutely true knowledge, as if we can know the object in-itself.
See my previous, as it answers this as well!

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is no problem that a rational human being would have. You, therefore, must be irrational. This is an example of you having an agenda, due to your limitation, such that you subscribe to a belief that is in fact false. You cannot provide such a person, but I can provide proof via the records of Biology, as the biologists have already done the work for me.

It's not my fault. Hume, Kant and Popper are the ones saying your inductive statement has no logical necessity.

You agree your statement about humans needing O2 is inductive? You do agree it is inductive, don't you?

Who cares about my statement, what I meant to convey or what you understood of my conveyance, it's meaningless. We're talking about the absolute truth that stands on it's own regardless of what anyone says, that's the whole point. But so as to make you happy, because you are lost in the land of mans words, it would seem that many cannot see the truth for the words, I shall give it to you using deductive reasoning:

Oxygen is required in cellular respiration for all complex life.

Man is a complex life form that utilizes cellular respiration.

Therefore, Oxygen is required by man.

Does that make you happier? But this then is the exact point, no matter how you or I say it, whether we do, or whether we don't, it is still absolutely true. Our words do not change the truth, the facts! They are true, in an of the actual thing, in and of itself, no matter what any human says.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is no problem that a rational human being would have. You, therefore, must be irrational. This is an example of you having an agenda, due to your limitation, such that you subscribe to a belief that is in fact false. You cannot provide such a person, but I can provide proof via the records of Biology, as the biologists have already done the work for me.


It's not my fault. Hume, Kant and Popper are the ones saying your inductive statement has no logical necessity.


You agree your statement about humans needing O2 is inductive? You do agree it is inductive, don't you?

That his arguments are inductive reasoning is more (absolutely) true than his assertions about men and O2.

There is no absolute truth - which is true, but not absolutely true.

This really has nothing to do with your or my words, and only a fool would think otherwise, as they do not cause true or false, they are merely labels so as to speak of the true or false.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can never prove your statement with certainty, but you can always disprove it with certainty. If I found one contrary example of someone who didn't need O2 in the air then the statement. All, humans need O2 would be false. By the same token the statement remains true only until I find this person. The chances of me find such a person would be next to impossible. But it can never be a zero chance.

It would be zero for all practical purposes though but let's say you did find someone who did not need O2. Their biology would need to be radically different to those humans who do need O2 so would this non-O2 person actually be human?

Exactly John. Basically I used one of the constituents of the long biological definition of what it is in being human, such that one cannot deny the requirement of O2, otherwise they are no longer talking of humans.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is no problem that a rational human being would have. You, therefore, must be irrational. This is an example of you having an agenda, due to your limitation, such that you subscribe to a belief that is in fact false. You cannot provide such a person, but I can provide proof via the records of Biology, as the biologists have already done the work for me.


It's not my fault. Hume, Kant and Popper are the ones saying your inductive statement has no logical necessity.


You agree your statement about humans needing O2 is inductive? You do agree it is inductive, don't you?

That his arguments are inductive reasoning is more (absolutely) true than his assertions about men and O2.

There is no absolute truth - which is true, but not absolutely true.

Let's have a look at the statement, "All humans need O2 to survive". This is an inductive statement based on observation about how humans have lived. Providing a scientific explanation for this process changes nothing. It is still an inductive statement based on observation. It is no different than observing the sun rising every morning and making into a general proposition about the behaviour of the sun. We can use mathematics to explain how the sun will rise and where it will rise but this gives us no absolute assurance that it will rise tomorrow. There is a chance it may not rise again tomorrow. If there was 100 percent chance the sun will rise tomorrow then physics, biology etc would be an absolute science. It is of course not.

There are probably absolute truths, but you won't find them in induction.

Incorrect my proof was deductive not inductive and even if it could be said to be inductive, then it was indeed STRONG induction. No, VERY VERY STRONG induction!

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can never prove your statement with certainty, but you can always disprove it with certainty. If I found one contrary example of someone who didn't need O2 in the air then the statement. All, humans need O2 would be false. By the same token the statement remains true only until I find this person. The chances of me find such a person would be next to impossible. But it can never be a zero chance.

Yes, it would be zero for practical purposes and that's what a lot of people assumed until Hume came along. By taking induction to its logical conclusion he exposed the problem that was hidden away from view. That is, there is no logical necessity when it comes to matters of fact. "All practical purposes" is not good enough when push comes to shove. Kant, one of the greatest minds of the age was forced to agree with Hume. However, he came up with his own unique method in order to try and get around the problem of induction.

As to whether a human like entity who has evolved to breath some other combination of gases actually exists somewhere eg some other solar system is a matter of debate. However the point is that if we can even conceive of such a state of affairs then this state, no matter how unlikely does not have a zero probability. Hume, Kant and Popper would all agree with me.

Incorrect, by your own admission they would not be human, they would be 'human like,' I specifically spoke of humans.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's kind of true that Philosophy is the Father of all Science, but it's more accurate that it's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather of Science and as such many of it's older propositions and their philosophers are antiquated. So why do fools still play age old games with age old words that are in fact meaningless in the face of today's science, which has superseded these dated propositions. Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

[Arising_uk]

If a thing is necessarily true then that things implies a set of criteria; causal criteria. So why is it you think absolute and necessary are interchangeable? Surely a thing that is absolute is, by definition, not reliant on any criteria. The clue is in the word absolute.

We'd have to agree what is meant by "causal criteria", as whilst I think we both agree that some state of affairs or things existing is the basic criteria for anything or everything my take is that although the propositional tautologies would not be if there was 'nothing' there is no cause that could prove them false, they are true under all conditions and as such cannot be refuted, hence they are absolutely true.

You might need an example. The point about a paradox is that it is an apparent contradiction without a clear solution.

I think I would. I agree that to find a contradiction in a deduction may be paradoxical but, for me, this leads to the conclusion that one of the premises is false. Whereas the propositional contradictions, e.g. a thing can be and not be(P and ¬P), are always false regardless of the truth of the premises so their negations are tautologies and therefore 'absolutely' true.

I think it is the word given that I object to. Maths and Logic are the means of description. It is the world that gives.

I think we agree as its the existence of a state of affairs or things that means that Logic must hold.

Induction is a form of reason based on the habit of observations that lead to general observations. Those roundiish things that are on a thing we usuall call a table are most often know as oranges, when this event occurs it is usually described by 'oranges on a table'. You can call it reason if you like, but it is just observation.

Hmm, I think you have to have a certain type of memory as the other animals observe but I think little induction occurs, as you say, its a 'form of reason'.

They are 'necessary' within the framework. But most often these objects don't exist except in abstract form. Thus in a framework in which 2 and 2 oranges is 4 oranges it is necessarily true that 4 less 2 is 2. What the f*** is absolute about that?

It is not always true, and it is only true when we have agreement about the meaning of 2,4, and 'orange'. What makes that absolute. It is not true in another language. It is not even true for each orange.

You are talking about Maths here and like I said I'm not sure about their 'truths' but logically it is 'absolutely' true that those oranges either exist or they don't, that it cannot be the case that they exist and don't at the same time, whether they are abstract or concrete entities.

[Ginkgo]

It's kind of true that Philosophy is the Father of all Science, but it's more accurate that it's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather of Science and as such many of it's older propositions and their philosophers are antiquated. So why do fools still play age old games with age old words that are in fact meaningless in the face of today's science, which has superseded these dated propositions. Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

If you are unhappy with old philosophers such as Kant and old propositions, perhaps we can consider modern scholars and their updated version.

Do you think a posteriori propositions require to be further extended into necessary a priori propositions?

Is it meaningful to talk about synthetic a priori propositions or is it more accurate to classify them as analytical apriori propositions?

[Ginkgo]

S O B You say:

"Incorrect my proof was deductive not inductive and even if it could be said to be inductive, then it was indeed STRONG induction. No, VERY VERY STRONG induction".


I say it doesn't really matter how deductive it is, or how inductively strong it is because this form of reasoning had it beginnings with Aristotle so it is outdated. Right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's kind of true that Philosophy is the Father of all Science, but it's more accurate that it's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather of Science and as such many of it's older propositions and their philosophers are antiquated. So why do fools still play age old games with age old words that are in fact meaningless in the face of today's science, which has superseded these dated propositions. Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

If you are unhappy with old philosophers such as Kant and old propositions, perhaps we can consider modern scholars and their updated version.

Do you think a posteriori propositions require to be further extended into necessary a priori propositions?

Is it meaningful to talk about synthetic a priori propositions or is it more accurate to classify them as analytical apriori propositions?

I see that a priori is non existent, it is fiction, and that all knowledge is in fact a posteriori.