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.

I'm looking for a better example to illustrate the one I already gave of a complex logic problem.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU NOTICE?

*cowers*... *reassembles courage* Notice what?  What are you referring to?

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).

1.  No.  If your memories are false, it's like someone handed you a problem with half the work done and said, "Here, you do the rest."  So you can be perfectly logical and have a flaw in your remembered work.  And like I said, if you tried to double check the work you could never KNOW that it was really you who double checked it and not your untrustable memory. 

2.  IMO you're abusing the words "utter and complete".  Suppose I'm on a mountain and lost and it's so foggy I literally can't see more than five feet.  Do I go uphill or downhill to get off the mountain?  Well, I might be in a small basin that I'd have to climb out of, but the best guess is downhill unless/until I hit the bottom of the basin.  Or, suppose I'm literally "so dizzy I can't tell which way is up".  Well, if I'll never stop being dizzy, I just have to pick the direction I THINK is up and see how it works out. 

As for Occam's razor, I agree that it isn't necessarily right, but your objection is just wrong if I understand it right, since the principle is that it's the simplest explanation that also explains things as well as the others.

1. So, you're saying, for example, if I had proved "If A and B, then C", but then thought to myself that I had proven "D" and moved onto "If D and E, then F", correct?  Then that still wouldn't matter because in the second argument it's still an "if" (because whatever premesis I thought I had used to reach that were "if"s as well).

2.  Since it's the latter of the situations, yeah, you'd have to pick a direction (well, not really), but whatever way you picked you would have absolutely no reason to have picked it.  Same thing in this situation.  If you want to make a statement about reality, you're going to have pick a method of truth with no indication (we're dizzy and it's foggy).

It's the principle in Occam's razor I find to be wrong.  It's not necessarily true that the simplest explanation that works as well as the others is most likely because it's unknown how complex the explanation really is.

I know, I know, I said I was going... :)

Just wanted to briefly jump in about Occam's Razor, because I think there might be some confusion about it.

Occam's Razor pertains to epistemology, not metaphysics.  What I mean is, Occam's Razor does not insist that the "simplest solution" is the correct solution--it insists that we have no call to believe anything beyond the simplest solution that accounts for the evidence.

Meaning, there may well be a Matrix (metaphysics), but unless we have evidence of it, there is no reason to posit it (epistemology).

ETA: What I always take as a necessary corollary of Occam's Razor is that a proper theory must account for all of the evidence; there are theories that are "too simple," just as the Razor would cut away any needless complications.

 Didn't get enough, eh?  :P

But it does insist the most simply is the most likely, yes?  My objection is we don't know how complex the solution is, so there's no reason just to go with the simplist.