...In my point of view only what its true is justified...

I know that is what you believe. But have you any good reason for believing it?

From that it roughly follows that only deductive reasons can justify anything. Do you accept that?

...History...

Law is/should be, about Order, and Order about Truth...

My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false.

My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge.

To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified stipulation, but right now, I don't see why it is.

It really does not follow from that, that only deductive inference (I don't thing that reasons can be deductive or not) justifies. It is consistent with the post that an inductive conclusion can be justified, but only if it is true.

But I disthink that it is true. I think that when we say that a belief is true that should be taken as a shorthand for that what is believed is true. Alternatively one may accept that beliefs are really true or false just when what is believed (propositions) is true and false, respectively. This is rather ontologically un-parsimonious. That's why I don't accept it.



OK.

[/COLOR]

What do it means to say that a proposition is justified, do you think? I think it is close to nonsense. It may be a stipulation. I did not claim to know it, though I may do.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 06:37 PM ----------




This is why I wrote "roughly". It follows with some other assumptions, but clearly it is false.

From that it roughly follows that only deductive reasons can justify anything. Do you accept that?

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 12:05 PM ----------

The way i see it, when I say that there is a GESTALT EFFECT on each vector of Reality i state a deduction...not an inference.

!

What difference does it make how you see it, unless you have good reasons for how you see it?

History and the past makes exactly, what you are, who you are, and were you are, today...so contact and communication between things or entities of reality does not have to be direct, or tu put it better, local is Universal...that's why ! ...The Past is Present !

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

I'll certainly try to remember that. If I can. But what it has to do with the issue, I really do not know.

What I say is that this is not intended as a inductive argument from the beginning...

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 01:15 PM ----------



Don?t need to be sarcastic, i?m only giving you my point of view, not imposing an idea...

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 02:04 PM ----------

If we think in Hegel Dialectics, or in general Einstein Relativity, one can argue that an event as not to be prior to another to be its cause...it only as to relate to it...that is the bottom line of the entire argument itself. what one can say is that this causal link is not disclosed till it came to pass for one given observer...a bit odd to common sense I admit, but nevertheless a valid idea...accordingly in a Deterministic perspective, we can speech of a "Gestalt effect" as i did in the beginning, as a deductive conclusion between U and P...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

But I do not think in Hegelian dialectics, and I don't see why Relativity theory implies that the cause does not precede its effect, and if it implies the contrary, I would have a reason to reject Relativity. What one can say, or what one can argue, is one thing. For people can say or argue what they please. But what people can argue or say rationally may be a very different thing.

It is false, but still, it does not imply that only deductive justification is proper justification. It may be that he meant that. But, maybe not. He probably did not distinguish between the two.

Anyway, it is both false that the conclusion of an inductive argument has to be true, and it is false that only deductive arguments are justificatory.

Italics are mine.

Perhaps that when you (personal pronoun) say "My belief is true" you mean that as a shorthand for "What I believe is true". But perhaps some people really do think that their beliefs, in themselves, are true/false. Perhaps even that beliefs are the (sole) carriers of truth/falsity. I'm pretty sure that that idea has been defended in the past even though most people seem to prefer some sentence theory.

And no, it (marked with italics) does not logically imply that beliefs are not true/false. However if we accept that if there is no explanatory value in saying that beliefs are true/false, then by the principle of parsimony, we should believe that they are not true/false. This is exactly what I do. Propositions are the only things that are true/false.



Even though the cases are similar in one aspect, it does not follow that they are similar in other aspects. I'm skeptical about 'arguments from analogy'.

But the problem with this analogy is that it is question begging. It assumes that utterances such as "My belief is justified" is a shorthand for something else. This is what I dispute and so it cannot be assumed in an analogy. If it did not assume this, then there is no similarity between utterances such as "My belief is true" and utterances such as "My belief is justified".



Judging from his posts, he did not mean anything. Or he was completely unable to write understandable english.



Right.

Anyway, it is both false that the conclusion of an inductive argument has to be true, and it is false that only deductive arguments are justificatory.

An Inductive argument as to be true...if inconclusive, means that is not arguable by itself alone...it misses an X

---------- Post added 10-18-2009 at 03:40 PM ----------

An inductive thought is true to its owner until disproved by confrontation with reality... then changes, it is not the same thought, it acquires something...its original premiss is not questionable anymore...memory evolves !

The bottom line was that by truthful I meant self coherent...otherwise would be a "non thought"...

Stating the obvious clich? about induction and deduction does n?t bring anything new, so I?m trying a new approach...just that.

The conclusion was the word that I miss in the correct analysis of what was in debate...
I still think that an inductive argument must be true in its "mind field" in order to be considered an argument, and therefore justified witch I see as a synonym...now, it?s natural conclusion, may or may not be true, but then is not an argument anymore, is it ?

The bottom line was that by truthful I meant self coherent...otherwise would be a "non thought"...

But "truthful" is not a synonym of "self coherent".

In any case, I am not sure that all thoughts are self coherent. Many religious beliefs, for example, have a degree of vagueness which accommodates self-contradictory elements. This also seems to be the case with thoughts about infinite quantities.

The noun, "belief" is ambiguous. It may refer to what it is that is believed, which is to say, the proposition, or, it may refer to the mental act of believing, what goes on "in your head", namely the acceptance of the proposition believed. I don't see how the mental act of believing can be true or false. But what can be true or false, of course, is that the mental act of believing (or acceptance of a proposition) is going on in someone's head. That is, that it is true that some individual, A believes that some proposition, p, is true.

"Right" Right.

I don't see how the mental act of believing can be true or false