Justifications 1. regress, 2. self-justified, 3. not justified.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Emil
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98110 wrote:
...In my point of view only what its true is justified...


From that it roughly follows that only deductive reasons can justify anything. Do you accept that?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98117 wrote:
I know that is what you believe. But have you any good reason for believing it?


...History...

Law is/should be, about Order, and Order about Truth...Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:31 am
@Emil,
Emil;98118 wrote:
From that it roughly follows that only deductive reasons can justify anything. Do you accept that?



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.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 12:32 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;98120 wrote:
...History...

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


Not much of a reason. I don't think I even understand it.
 
Emil
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98112 wrote:
My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false.


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.

Quote:
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.


OK.

Quote:
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.
[/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 ----------

kennethamy;98121 wrote:
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.



This is why I wrote "roughly". It follows with some other assumptions, but clearly it is false.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:42 am
@Emil,
Plausible is about the probability of being true, therefore walks towards that end...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:44 am
@Emil,
Emil;98123 wrote:
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.



Yes, of course, to say that my belief is true, is to say that what I believe is true, and what I believe is a proposition, so what I believe is true is a proposition. But that still does not mean that beliefs are not true or false.

As for propositions being justified, if according to you to say that a belief is true is to say that what is believed is true, then why isn't to say that a belief is justified to say that what is believed in justified. And, of course, what is believed is a proposition.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 12:49 PM ----------

Emil;98123 wrote:

---------- 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.


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.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:57 am
@vectorcube,


---------- 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.

The amount of energy/matter in the Universe is constant.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 12:34 PM ----------

Emil;98118 wrote:
From that it roughly follows that only deductive reasons can justify anything. Do you accept that?


If one considers that deduction is possible, Yes !
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 11:52 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98132 wrote:


---------- 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?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 11:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98142 wrote:
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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 12:03 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98143 wrote:
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.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 12:06 pm
@vectorcube,
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 ----------

kennethamy;98145 wrote:
I'll certainly try to remember that. If I can. But what it has to do with the issue, I really do not know.


---------- 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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 05:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98146 wrote:
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 ----------



---------- 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.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 06:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98190 wrote:
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.


One can argue very rationally that if A Contacts\Communicates with Bcoherence rather than true or false...

Absolute concepts should never apply to closed systems unless they can resume all others...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:19 pm
@kennethamy,
[QUOTE=kennethamy;98127]Yes, of course, to say that my belief is true, is to say that what I believe is true, and what I believe is a proposition, so what I believe is true is a proposition. But that still does not mean that beliefs are not true or false.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]As for propositions being justified, if according to you to say that a belief is true is to say that what is believed is true, then why isn't to say that a belief is justified to say that what is believed in justified. And, of course, what is believed is a proposition.
[/QUOTE]

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".

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


Right.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:33 pm
@Emil,
Emil;98346 wrote:


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.


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.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 01:46 pm
@Emil,
Quote:
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 ----------

conclusionconclusion, may or may not be true, but then is not an argument anymore, is it ?
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98353 wrote:
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 ----------

conclusionconclusion, may or may not be true, but then is not an argument anymore, is it ?


Dialectic Discourses: Neostructuralist deconstruction in the works of Stone

B. Jean-Francois Finnis
Department of Literature, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.


David C. Scuglia
Department of Sociology, Yale University



1. Neostructuralist deconstruction and the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse

"Culture is elitist," says Foucault; however, according to Dahmus[1] , it is not so much culture that is elitist, but rather the paradigm, and subsequent collapse, of culture. Thus, Lacan uses the term 'Sartreist existentialism' to denote the role of the observer as participant.
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. If the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and the cultural paradigm of reality. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term 'the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse' to denote not desituationism, but predesituationism.
Marx promotes the use of Sartreist existentialism to analyse and attack society. But many narratives concerning subdialectic construction may be discovered.
Finnis[2] implies that the works of Stone are reminiscent of Glass. Therefore, the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse states that art serves to reinforce capitalism, but only if truth is equal to reality.
A number of theories concerning a self-justifying paradox exist. In a sense, Sontag's model of Sartreist existentialism holds that the law is capable of truth.
2. Contexts of collapse

"Sexual identity is fundamentally impossible," says Derrida. If Batailleist `powerful communication' holds, we have to choose between neostructuralist deconstruction and constructivist situationism. But Sontag suggests the use of the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse to challenge hierarchy.
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of neodialectic culture. Wilson[3] implies that we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and capitalist prestructuralist theory. It could be said that many theories concerning neostructuralist deconstruction may be found.
The subject is contextualised into a postsemioticist paradigm of discourse that includes art as a whole. But the example of Sartreist existentialism which is a central theme of Gaiman's Black Orchid emerges again in Death: The High Cost of Living, although in a more capitalist sense.
Lacan uses the term 'neostructuralist deconstruction' to denote the common ground between class and society. However, the premise of the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse holds that consciousness is used to exploit the proletariat.
The subject is interpolated into a neostructuralist deconstruction that includes narrativity as a reality. But the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse states that sexuality has significance.
3. Gaiman and neostructuralist deconstruction

"Class is part of the defining characteristic of language," says Debord; however, according to la Tournier[4] , it is not so much class that is part of the defining characteristic of language, but rather the dialectic, and therefore the economy, of class. If the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between neostructuralist deconstruction and subdialectic discourse. Therefore, Foucault's analysis of Sartreist existentialism suggests that narrative is created by communication, but only if the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse is invalid; if that is not the case, art is meaningless.
In Neverwhere, Gaiman examines Sartreist existentialism; in Black Orchid, although, he deconstructs the textual paradigm of consensus. But Prinn[5] holds that we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and neodialectic capitalist theory.
The subject is contextualised into a postsemioticist paradigm of discourse that includes reality as a paradox. Therefore, if Debordist situation holds, the works of Burroughs are not postmodern.
The subject is interpolated into a Sartreist existentialism that includes art as a reality. In a sense, la Fournier[6] states that we have to choose between the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse and predialectic sublimation.
4. Realities of fatal flaw

If one examines Sartreist existentialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse or conclude that society, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning. In Naked Lunch, Burroughs analyses neostructuralist deconstruction; in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz he affirms the postsemioticist paradigm of discourse. It could be said that the premise of neostructuralist deconstruction suggests that academe is capable of significant form.
In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Baudrillard uses the term 'Sartreist existentialism' to denote a self-sufficient paradox. In a sense, if Foucaultist power relations holds, we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and deconstructive postmodernist theory.
Any number of narratives concerning the bridge between class and sexual identity exist. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the role of the observer as poet.
Sontagist camp holds that narrativity is part of the absurdity of culture, given that reality is interchangeable with narrativity. It could be said that Marx promotes the use of neostructuralist deconstruction to analyse class.
Bataille uses the term 'textual precapitalist theory' to denote not, in fact, discourse, but subdiscourse. However, the main theme of Dahmus's[7] critique of Sartreist existentialism is the rubicon, and some would say the collapse, of semiotic sexual identity.
1. Dahmus, I. D. (1994) Socialism, neostructuralist deconstruction and Marxist socialism. O'Reilly & Associates
2. Finnis, N. B. E. ed. (1977) The Discourse of Fatal flaw: Neostructuralist deconstruction and Sartreist existentialism. Cambridge University Press
3. Wilson, N. U. (1988) Sartreist existentialism in the works of Gaiman. And/Or Press
4. la Tournier, B. S. P. ed. (1971) Reinventing Social realism: Sartreist existentialism and neostructuralist deconstruction. Loompanics
5. Prinn, E. H. (1990) Sartreist existentialism in the works of Burroughs. O'Reilly & Associates
6. la Fournier, K. L. N. ed. (1982) The Context of Paradigm: Neostructuralist deconstruction in the works of Fellini. And/Or Press
7. Dahmus, U. (1978) Neostructuralist deconstruction and Sartreist existentialism. Harvard University Press


---

Yeah, I can post meaningless text too!
 
ACB
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 05:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;98353 wrote:
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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:13 am
@ACB,
ACB;98447 wrote:
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.


And "truthful" is not even a synonym of "truth" or "true".
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:22 am
@kennethamy,


---------- Post added 10-19-2009 at 09:07 AM ----------

kennethamy;98350 wrote:
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.


Quote:
I don't see how the mental act of believing can be true or false
Does it happen ? or not ?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.3 seconds on 02/22/2024 at 09:40:07