Re: Mechanical Dualism versus Naturalized Epistemology

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:20:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wolfekir@xxxxxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Curt Welch wrote:
>> lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lester Zick) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>History is rife with assumptions to the contrary, suggesting that
>>>there is some positive basis for science in the identification of
>>>positive facts. However none of these positive facts can be proven
>>>universally true and this is the reason why. All you can do is
>>>reiterate the facts as if they were true in the absence of proof but
>>>never understanding why or how.
>>
>>
>> All your arguments are based on the belief that truth exists. It's the
>> foundation on which you seem to build all your arguments. How do we know
>> truth exists and it's not just an assumption you have made?
>
>"Truth exists" is a meaningless axiom (or assumption) IMO.

Is your humble opinion true?

> It
>hypostatises "truth", ie, it rests on the belief that nouns name things.

Of course this is true for Canadian english teachers. That's why
language in Canada requires the auxiliary concept of French.

>I prefer the assumption that truth is a relation.

Your preferences for assumptions are duly noted and ignored.

> It's an axiomatic
>relation, too, like composition ("and, or"), direction ("up, down"),
>etc. Such relations are used to frame axioms. Their meanings consist of
>the rules used to derive consequences from the axioms.

What are the rules of these rules?

>The axioms themselves are of course undefined, a point that Zick has
>never accepted (I don't know whether he understands it, actually.)

Naturally Zick doesn't understand this point. Which is why he prefers
truth to Canadian english.

> He
>has never, it seems, understood that to define an axiom is to introduce
>other axioms ("meta-axioms").

So now Canadian english has been elevated to the status of meta
language so you can assume the truth of Canadian assumptions?

> Or, to define the terms of an assumption
>is to introduce other assumptions.

In other words you just assume the truth of your assumptions.

~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... There is no such thing as "the" axioms of arithmetic. ... of axioms "containing a truth". ... > math facts cannot be proved within math, ... math facts" can be proved within math?). ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... > Dik T. Winter schrieb: ... By means of axioms you can produce conditional ... I am interested in absolute truth. ... If you want to find absolute truth you should not look at mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Except apparently for axioms and definitions. ... I don't know what sense Eckard is trying to convey. ... Cantor "not having evidence" for his idea ... Well empirical evidence would certainly be one criterion for the truth ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... For obvious reasons, ... >no set of axioms such that we can tell what's an axiom and what isn't. ... If that person rejects "axioms" as the "true statements which are ... the basic logic sense of a logical truth condition. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... the scientific standard of truth is not derived from axioms. ... show no inconsistency between the paradigm and theory. ... >> axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. ...
    (sci.econ)