Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote:Predicitions

How is that pronounced, Belina?

Harbal wrote:

Belinda wrote:Predicitions

How is that pronounced, Belina?

A dyslexic ghost lives in my keyboard.

Isn't this just a dumbing down of the word "justified"? Hume (and others) meant it as iron-clad proof. Deductive arguments are absolutely justified. Earnshaw just says inductive proofs are reasonably justified, probabilistic. Therefore the doubt still creeps in. That hardly solves the issue.

One: there's no justification of any proposition because words and categories and definitions are indeterminate so you can say whatever you want but it doesn't ptove anything about the world or logic because you can't lay dowm an assertiom without exposing yourself to the inherent limitation of the words you fancy yourself controlling, which brings the author to the second point; whatever is stated is fabricated by it’s speaker by virtue of statements being made and makers having purpose behind their creations.

With all due respect, Hume's fork isn't a problem to be solved, it's an insight to be understood; every sage understands one thing and one thing only: the menu is not the food.

"every sage understands one thing and one thing only: the menu is not the food."

Clearly the sage has never eaten at this restaurant.

I've solved that and much more and no one will believe me either.