epistomology 3
bob - I don't have a clear what you are talking about either honestly. Give me a universal truth that cannot be, as you put it "buttresed by sense experience" or that is not a logical consequence of known facts. Just one example. I'll point out that your example represents faith and not knowledge, but that is getting ahead of ourselves.
fred smith - Reread the statement in the original link and then tell me if you can use sense experience to PROVE a universal truth based on the inductive reasoning that perceives causation as a means of providing true knowledge. I am all for getting an answer.
bob - I think you want me to give you an example of a universal truth that is provable with sense experience or inductive reasoning. OK. The universe is an infinitely complex web of cause and effect relationships. This is true down to the smallest detail. For example say.... the paper in my printer. How did it get there in exactly that form? To answer that "completely" would invlove an infinite series of formulations regarding economics, biology, physics etc. leading you all the way back to the big bang and beyond I suppose. Everything is like that. From the paper in my printer to the fact that I choose to respond to you instead of taking a nap. This is what we "know" about the universe. In fact it is all we know. Call it a universal truth if you like. Indeed, lets take it one step further and call it a universal truth based on observation and reasoning. As I recall, all the way from the beginning of this paragraph, that is what you asked for.
fred smith - Sorry that won?t work. Anyway, do read up a bit more on philosophy some time. You may find it interesting.
bob - I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.
ggarret1 - bob wrote: I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.
Your example of the angles of a triangle is such a truth. Historically, the laws of geometry came from measurements taken from physical reality. However, it has been shown that these same laws, Pythagoreans theorem and such, can also be proven from set theory or ?topology? without making reference to physical reality what so ever. The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.
bob - ggarret1 wrote: The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.
If "a law of mathematics" fails the physcical test it isn't a law, it's a mistake. There must have been a few of those along the way. And it doesn't matter whether the laws concerning triangles "could have been arrived at" without actual triangles. The fact is that those laws are confirmed in the real world. There is nothing in this aside from observation and logic. Again, if there is some law which was not derived from one or both of these processes we have yet to hear about it here.
ggarret1 - In fact according to Einstein Pythagoreans Theorem is such a ?mistake?. According to general relativity, the universe is non-Euclidean having shape in the fourth dimension and Pythagorean?s theorem is only a good approximation ? not actually ?true? when applied to physical reality. It can be asserted that Pythagorean?s Theorem ?would? be true on a perfectly flat surface if there were such a thing which, according to Einstein, there isn?t. Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.
bob - ggarret1 wrote: Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.
Or a mistake based on Einsteins theory of relativity which in turn "is" based on logic. It all depends on whether or not there is actually such a thing as a flat surface I suppose. Einstain says there isn't but then again he has never seen my wife's head has he?
ggarret1 - Yes, Einstein used Pythagorean?s Theorem in his derivation, assuming it to be ?true?, then, paradoxically, asserts that it is not a physical reality. My point is, even if the theorem is not a physical reality it is still ?true? based on metaphysical reasoning. It?s applications to physical reality validate the theorem and, therefore, validity of the metaphysical method of achieving knowledge.
fred smith - Reread the statement in the original link and then tell me if you can use sense experience to PROVE a universal truth based on the inductive reasoning that perceives causation as a means of providing true knowledge. I am all for getting an answer.
bob - I think you want me to give you an example of a universal truth that is provable with sense experience or inductive reasoning. OK. The universe is an infinitely complex web of cause and effect relationships. This is true down to the smallest detail. For example say.... the paper in my printer. How did it get there in exactly that form? To answer that "completely" would invlove an infinite series of formulations regarding economics, biology, physics etc. leading you all the way back to the big bang and beyond I suppose. Everything is like that. From the paper in my printer to the fact that I choose to respond to you instead of taking a nap. This is what we "know" about the universe. In fact it is all we know. Call it a universal truth if you like. Indeed, lets take it one step further and call it a universal truth based on observation and reasoning. As I recall, all the way from the beginning of this paragraph, that is what you asked for.
fred smith - Sorry that won?t work. Anyway, do read up a bit more on philosophy some time. You may find it interesting.
bob - I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.
ggarret1 - bob wrote: I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.
Your example of the angles of a triangle is such a truth. Historically, the laws of geometry came from measurements taken from physical reality. However, it has been shown that these same laws, Pythagoreans theorem and such, can also be proven from set theory or ?topology? without making reference to physical reality what so ever. The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.
bob - ggarret1 wrote: The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.
If "a law of mathematics" fails the physcical test it isn't a law, it's a mistake. There must have been a few of those along the way. And it doesn't matter whether the laws concerning triangles "could have been arrived at" without actual triangles. The fact is that those laws are confirmed in the real world. There is nothing in this aside from observation and logic. Again, if there is some law which was not derived from one or both of these processes we have yet to hear about it here.
ggarret1 - In fact according to Einstein Pythagoreans Theorem is such a ?mistake?. According to general relativity, the universe is non-Euclidean having shape in the fourth dimension and Pythagorean?s theorem is only a good approximation ? not actually ?true? when applied to physical reality. It can be asserted that Pythagorean?s Theorem ?would? be true on a perfectly flat surface if there were such a thing which, according to Einstein, there isn?t. Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.
bob - ggarret1 wrote: Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.
Or a mistake based on Einsteins theory of relativity which in turn "is" based on logic. It all depends on whether or not there is actually such a thing as a flat surface I suppose. Einstain says there isn't but then again he has never seen my wife's head has he?
ggarret1 - Yes, Einstein used Pythagorean?s Theorem in his derivation, assuming it to be ?true?, then, paradoxically, asserts that it is not a physical reality. My point is, even if the theorem is not a physical reality it is still ?true? based on metaphysical reasoning. It?s applications to physical reality validate the theorem and, therefore, validity of the metaphysical method of achieving knowledge.
posted by david at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home