What’s that got to do with anything?
Then try think it through for yourself?
And therefore it follows one can know nothing about the future? Sounds like a non sequitur…
Like the fact that the sun will rise, based on the fact that it’s done so so far for millions of years. If that isn’t sufficient justification for the belief that it will in the future, what is?
Through a court trial one would think.
Which is fine for science, since it has the privilege of abstracting anything it cannot deal with out until it can, if it can.
I’ll assure you I’m able to have conversations, however, when it came to the “big man” everyone was trying to get a few words in and it was awkward.
If there is an example where justified true belief isn’t knowledge, then justified true belief isn’t knowledge.
But that isn’t sufficient justification. We have no more evidence the sun will rise than we have that a gigantic pink elephant.
But that implies you have already taken an act which was made moral or immoral by the unknown act of another. That you would be prosecuted for the immoral act does not condone your taking it (surely?) Also, court trials make only subjective judgements.
Ugh, non sequitur? Elaborate on the argument though because even if it did involve such a conclusion it does not entail that the justificatory component is irrelevant to knowledge, merely that something else is needed (none of the so-called “Gettier problems” prove justification is irrelevant, they merely - try - to point out there’s an additional component unaccounted for in the JTB definition.)
Why isn’t it sufficient? Would you rather a mathematical proof of it?
Why? You are confronted with a threat that’s highly likely to end your life, why should you not take action and be willing to live with the possibility that you’re wrong and therefore acted immoraly afterwards?
When push comes to shove, I’ll most likely be unable to prove the correctness of materialism or nihilism to you. On the other hand, you’ll be in the same situation with any other ethical or political system.
No they are not. And I doubt that popper, goedel or probabilities are relevant here, or that naming them proves anything at all.
Of course they are. Especially probabilities can be a great help to determine the quality of a proposal.
It’s certainly difficult to assess the exact quality of an idea, but as a debate progresses, you’ll get an impression of the pros and cons. Since value is subjective, so is the value of these pros and cons, but in the end I believe (as you do, I think) that ideas (or probabilities) of higher quality (better accuracy) will prevail.
Anyway, how do you attempt to prove your point? Axioms?
And Austrian economics is no science? [:)]
Well, what exactly were to trying to do?
It is.