Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
You simply don't have to; sure, one can argue that you'll suffer for that (which can't be known), or simply doesn't have to do anything at all. Further still, one can pick something other than empiricism.
2nd part; empiricism doesn't produce the same answer consistently; you've probably made mistakes in what you thought you've perceived before. Although you could say that you assume empiricism generally provides correct answers, but you could say the same for the coin (as it probably won't be exactly 50/50). And yes, you would have to assume, at least, that you could sense the coin, but that's all the empiricism you'd have to assume. Alternatively, you could assume "Everything I currently think is true" or "Every 5th statement I make is true" and so forth (and you could add the word "generally" to each of those), and these two have nothing to do with sense data.
For your last part; While I do not think it would qualify as sense, you're right when you say non-sensory input isn't more likely to be true than sensory input; however, my point was to show that there was an alternative, and, as such, the the first option wasn't inevitable. |
1. So you're arguing that those judgments aren't necessary because you might not actually have to eat, sleep or breathe because only sensory evidence says we need to? If not, what are you saying? Why, exactly, are the sense judgments avoidable? How do you propose avoiding them in everyday life?
2. NO YOU COULD NOT SAY THE SAME. 51/49 is not equivalent consistency with 99/1. And the coin would randomly be wrong more often than right as often as it would be right more often than wrong, so IMO that comparison is totally bankrupt.
3. Fair enough, as long as you remember you're speaking hypothetically.
|
1. Our sensory data doesn't say anything; it's what we make of it. And when you ask how we can avoid them in everyday life, you're already assuming there is such experiences such as "everyday life", a concept created by our judgements.
2. You could, if you got lucky (lucky enough to have a higher consistency rate, like 60%). Also , the constitency rate for empiricism is much less than 99% (dreaming every night ruins that by itself). In any event, one could make up a method of truth that had 100% consistency ("Everything that I believe to be true right now is true). But consistency is not an argument.
3. Yes, I'll try to keep it hypthetical.
