Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[appolose]

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
1. Of course, we've all had memories we thought we're true that turned out they weren't, right (Which is another argument against empiricism, as judgements on sense data, when compared to other judgements, are being compared via memory)?  Now, about the logic objection: logic is not dependent on whether or not we remember the premesis (how do you pluralize that?) correctly, because when we get the conclusion part of a logical argument, and if our memory had suddenly changed to a different premise, then the conclusion would follow in light of that premise.

2. By explain sensory data, I take it that you mean incorporate it, right?  And I've said our judgements on sense data are totally arbitrary (apart from consistency), so any judgement you make could be made to fit any theory. Like the Matrix: "Everything is a simulated computer experience, and everything I sense is made to perfectly fit what would be sensed otherwise.  I sense this and detect nothing unusual" would make perfect use of sense data judgement. 

1.  But if you are working on the tenth step of a logical problem, and you didn't actually do the first nine steps but only think you did, there is no assurance that the entity behind this deception did them correctly.  So the logic is not dependent on you actually doing the work, but the logic may be invalid. 

2.  But if you posit "the world is exactly as I sense it and the Moon is made of green cheese" and you go to the Moon and it is not in fact made of cheese of any color at all, then sense data does not support that view.  I think you are blinding yourself to all the nonsense views precisely because they are inconsistent with empirical evidence, but when you say "ANY theory" you have to mean it.

1.  If you think you did, you did.  If you didn't (that is, actually forgot what premesis you were using), you would find yourself not being able to make a conclusion, as you didn't know your premesis (I'm referring to premise-premise-conclusion, the method of logic).  You could suddenly have an altered premise, but that would also alter your conclusion, so whatever conclusion you have now would follow.

2.  Sense data, as we agreed, does not say anything in and of itself; it's our judgements, and our judgements are arbitrary.  So when we got to the moon, we could say of what we sensed "Ah ha, green cheese indeed!" or we could say something else.  My point is, there is no reason to suppose that our sense data supports any view we have, as whatever judgement process we have cannot subject itself to itself without assuming itself.

 Itself