Final-Fan said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
1. For your example; If I had divided by zero, that would have been an error of my use of logic, not memory, so that doesnt relate to this example. And I don't need to not rely on memory; if my memory has different premesis remembered, then 'd notice that they wouldn't fit my conclusion, and would have to change accordingly.
2. That's my contention this entire time; "Concluding that the moon is made of rock is just as much a fantasy as concluding it's cheese", that conclusion is a fantasy, an assumption. I think you went of track with your last post. And your left with assumption if no input (input here, I take it, is any method of truth) is useful (true). You can only assume your method is correct.
|
BUT HOW WOULD YOU NOTICE? |
Okay, sorry.
1. Ah, but what if such an error was implanted into the work you only think you did but in reality was given to you half-complete by an unknown agency? (By which I mean the work is incorrect, not just that there's a wrong number but the following stuff doesn't have the problem.) Then if you go back into what you remember as your work and say "OK, everything checks out" then you'd have to rely on your MEMORY of what your conclusion was and the work you did to get there. How do you know that that's valid? Do the work again? Certainly you remember it being valid, but is it really? You could chase your tail for eternity and be no more assured of correctness.
2. If you responded to my first question here, I didn't get it.
As for the rest: Some sort of interpretation of sense data is necessary for anything other than the zen contemplation of nothing. What you call empiricism is simply Occam's Razor or what might be called "the path of least faith". Other views, including theism, involve accepting sense data but not at face value, rather putting their own spin on it for whatever reason.
It's not that that empiricism involves NO assumption, but theism certainly requires more.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
|
No prob :P
1. The only way an error could enter into your line of thought was if you got it wrong in the first place. Unless you're saying what if something came along and screwed up your mind to make something that didn't follow; in that case, that wouldn't have anything to do with your memory, but your ability to be logical.
If that's what you're saying.
2. Now we're back to square one; thinking that empiricism somehow has an evidence going for it. It has been my contention thus far that sense data says nothing (agreed) and that our judgements of sense data are arbirtrary. Thus, assuming empiricism takes utter and complete faith (as it were). Are arguments about consistency were about those positions.
On a side note, I disagree with Occam's razor, as it doesn't follow that the idea that assumes the least amount of statements is the most likey correct, because it is unknown if reality, in reality (lol), depends on only a few things or a trillion things (or infinite things).
