Justifying falsity

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Justifying falsity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:39 am
Other than propositional negation, has refusal been axiomatised?
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:48 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;148117 wrote:
Other than propositional negation, has refusal been axiomatised?


I know this is completely off topic, but if I may,

How would you write that sentence in concrete terms? Is it philosophy if only the initiated can decipher the message?

i just have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:05 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148119 wrote:
How would you write that sentence in concrete terms?
Well, quite, as far as I can see. Falsity can only be defined apropos truth, which is, itself, a dubious notion. So, it seems to me that the notion of, at least, default, needs to be axiomatised by mathematicians, et al, before the rejection of assertions can be upheld.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:10 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;148123 wrote:
Well, quite, as far as I can see. Falsity can only be defined apropos truth, which is, itself, a dubious notion. So, it seems to me that the notion of, at least, default, needs to be axiomatised by mathematicians, et al, before the rejection of assertions can be upheld.


Yikes, it made more sense to me the first time. So are you saying that because false is the antithesis of truth it does not exist? Kind of like cold is only lacking heat or dark is only lacking light and not actually a thing unto themselves?
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:12 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;148117 wrote:
Other than propositional negation, has refusal been axiomatised?


huh???

As a grad philosopher I don't even get this.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 02:15 AM ----------

ughaibu;148123 wrote:
Well, quite, as far as I can see. Falsity can only be defined apropos truth, which is, itself, a dubious notion. So, it seems to me that the notion of, at least, default, needs to be axiomatised by mathematicians, et al, before the rejection of assertions can be upheld.


What does the acceptance or rejection of assertions have to do with the difficulty in finding an acceptable notion of "the true" people can agree on?

Aren't you confusing the difference between validity and truth? and justification and truth?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:22 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;148126 wrote:
As a grad philosopher I don't even get this.
You may've been spoon fed so far, but your understanding is your own responsibility. Work on it.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:27 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;148131 wrote:
You may've been spoon fed so far, but your understanding is your own responsibility. Work on it.


No, really. I seriously don't undertand it. No one does except you.

What does the ability to axiomatize a theory have to do with the question of whether or not that theory is true, or veridically represents the way the world is, etc., etc.

Justification and truth are not the same thing. You seem to want "the Truth" before you can know whether or not you are justified in believing x, y, and z. Good luck in that task. They are not even the same thing anyway.

Never mind. This thread is already dead.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:34 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;148133 wrote:
No one does except you.
Your inability to understand might well be an individual limitation. Please dont insult the other members.
Extrain;148133 wrote:
What does the ability to axiomatize a theory have to do with the question of whether or not that theory is true
Your question has no meaning on this thread. The axioms of a formal system are rigorous descriptions of the behaviour of those who employ that system.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Justifying falsity
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 06:30:58