That may be true, but then, where does that leave your criticism of the conventional wisdom? The conventional wisdom that the Sun will rise the next day has turned out fine. So, it is not true that we can never trust it to be right. I am all in favor of the conventional wisdom being vetted by science, and corrected when necessary. But are you advocating that the CW should simply be tossed out as worthless, even before vetting? What is you view now?

Since I know of no unicorns on this planet at this time, I cannot answer your question, but if we should find the remains of a unicorn, we might find some of those answers too. Even if they don't exist on Earth, there's a lot of worlds on which unicorns might exist.

Samm

How could a unicorn evolve? From what other magical beast. Do magical beasts have a DNA? The question is whether you think not that unicorns are logically possible, but whether they are physically possible. That is, whether their existence is consistent with the laws of nature. In this instance, with the laws of biology.

I think you and I are working with different concepts of what a unicorn is. To me, if it is at least very approximately horselike and has a big single horn projecting straight from its forehead, it is a unicorn. Magical? I don't see that as an essential trait. What sort of magic is associated with unicorns?

Samm

My view is that conventional wisdom is conventional and may or may not be accurate. If I want to justify a belief then I must remove doubt about that belief. Conventionality doesn't do it for me.

The question is whether you think not that unicorns are logically possible, but whether they are physically possible.

I wonder what sort of thing would justify a belief for you, then. We are fallible, so we can never remove all doubt. All we can do is provide good reason for our beliefs, and conventional knowledge can be good reason. If you don't think so, that's fine, but I would interested in what sorts of things you think can justify a belief. Most things I can think of have at least some margin of error.

Luckily for me, I'm not looking for only certain true beliefs. I'm looking for not obviously false beliefs. Those are easier to come by.

Beliefs which correspond with conventional knowledge are obviously false?

When something is logically impossible, it's because it results in a contradiction. What reasoning brings you to determine something is physically impossible? Is it the fact that you've never seen x and therefore x is physically impossible? But aren't those two separate issues?

6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the
simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences.


6.3631 This procedure, however, has no logical justification but only a
psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing
that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.


6.36311 It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this
means that we do not know whether it will rise.


6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has
happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.

When something is logically impossible, it's because it results in a contradiction. What reasoning brings you to determine something is physically impossible? Is it the fact that you've never seen x and therefore x is physically impossible? But aren't those two separate issues?

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:26 PM ----------



.

I don't recall writing that.

Luckily for me, I'm not looking for only certain true beliefs. I'm looking for not obviously false beliefs. Those are easier to come by.

Mermaids are physically impossible = the existence of a mermaid is inconsistent with the laws of nature. (In this case, the laws of biology). Another example: it is physically impossible for anything to exceed the velocity of light = it is inconsistent with the laws of nature (physics) for anything to exceed the velocity of light.

Then what did you mean here? Because we had just been speaking about conventional knowledge, and how you didn't think it was good justification.



So, all you meant here was that, in general, you're not looking for obviously false beliefs? Ah, I see. Well, thanks for that insight :detective:

No, I meant what I wrote. I'm looking for beliefs that are not obviously false. Well tested and successful is what I'm after, not the "truth".

How would you know? You can't tell the difference between something that can't exist and something that doesn't exist. They look exactly alike.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 11:35 AM ----------



.

But I suppose that we can tell that something that has a velocity that exceeds the velocity of light physically cannot exist since such a thing would be inconsistent with the laws of physics.

Well, you ought to be seeking the truth. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? You want to know what's true, not what's false.

But I won't bicker with you over that. I just want to know how you think this relates to our discussion of conventional knowledge. Or did this have nothing specifically to do with conventional knowledge as a means of justification?

So, you know that something can't exceed the speed of light because it's a law of physics. And you know it's a law of physics because you've never seen it happen?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between something that you've never seen and something that can't exist.

I also want to live forever but I'm not out looking for a way to achieve what seems highly unlikely.

Very interesting. So you don't believe that humans can know anything? (because that would mean that humans had access to truth; one cannot know what is false, only what is true)