Irregardless, he is correct. If BAWAA actually believes that the act of arguing is proof of an objective reality (which, before you blow a gasket, I believe exists) then he needs to take an introductory philosophy course.
And just because faith is necessary in your beliefs as well as Christians and spiritualists doesn’t mean that the degree of faith, or number of assumptions, are equal.
No such word exists.
No, he isn’t. That you believe otherwise means you need to take Logic 101 and Philosophy 101. You fail to recognize the ground for the concept of arguing/discourse. You fail to grasp the prerequisites. You, like he, steal the concept.
Oh dear zefreak King of the Positivists!, how do you define ‘faith’ - how do you measure ‘degrees of faith’ ?
Anyway, you are a crass materialist, no different than marxists. Really, all your non-arguments reduce to the childish claim that X “can’t be observed” so it follows X doesn’t exist. Pathetic.
The more premises that are assumed to be true for a position to be valid determines the degree of faith that belief in that position requires.
Oh really ? Do you weigh the premises somehow ? Or do you just count them ?
Regardless [8-)]
This is all semantics. Do you ever dream? Have you ever argued with someone in that dream? Under your definition such a thing is impossible. If you stand by your concept of argument, Lam can simply state that he is not arguing (your usage) with you, but doing something else, like arguing in the colloquial usage, which doesn’t require multiple entities.
They are of course weighted, although this is hardly done by conscious effort. The more an unjustified premise is implied by evidence or other, justified premises, the lower the degree of faith required.
Sorry, you implied that the important thing was the number of premises. So, a system with only one premise, such as “whatever the bible says is true is true” is less faith-based that say, electrical engineering, with relies on a lot of ‘premises’.
Of course, now you added a qualifier - the issue is whether the premises are justified or not. So, how do you know if a premise is justified ? Is that a matter of faith, again ? Or ?
EE doesn’t require many premises for which there is not enormous evidence. EE is actually based on very few unjustified premises, and obviously has enormous practical and explanatory power.
A premise is justified if there is a valid argument based on sound premises that supports/concludes it. Of course, those premises must also be justified, hence the infinite regress and need for some set of axioms, or unjustified starting points, taken on faith (to me, faith is synonymous with unjustified). If one small set of axioms with ample evidence implying their truth value (first law of thermodynamics, gravitation are accepted “on faith” but with enormous evidence backing it) has a great amount of explanatory power, then it is more reasonable than a large set of axioms, or even a small set with minimal evidence or explanatory power.
Obligatory wikipedia “reference”: Irregardless
axiom : 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. (random house)
axiomatic : not needing to be proved; self evident (longman)
I don’t think that axioms and premises taken on faith are the same thing. At least, not according to ordinary language…and, I’d say, not according to common sense either.
No, it isn’t.
And dreaming has the prerequisite of sleep or at least unconsciousness. So we have the contradistinctory position to conscious, wakeful thought. IOW: you still haven’t dented what I’ve said.
In logic, an axiom is “a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.”
That’s a rather malformed definition of axiom.
Not really relevant, but dreaming is unbounded consciousness, or consciousness not bound by the inputs of our sensory organs.
Oh?
I am using axiom in the following context.
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
That is merriam-webster
It’s funny, the guys who believe in objective ethics are lecturing the moral subjectivist (sorry if I misrepresent you here zefreak) about how he’s not sceptical enough.
BAWAA is definately a “Hoppean” by the way. He doesn’t just believe in his argumentation ethics but his argumentation strategy. One confronted with somebody who disagrees with you, repeat but in CAPS.
It actually is. Now we get to the idea of what consciousness is. Consciousness is our awareness-ability. Thus, consciousness has to be tied to SOMETHING. That something must actually exist. And it must exist SOMEWHERE. Thus, we have ourselves and the external world. Solipsism/idealism is dead.
Yes. We’re talking about an axiom in logic. So we must use that definition.
I don’t think that’s completely correct. A thing like the principle of identity for instance is not just ‘assumed’ for argument’s sake or ‘taken on faith’ - rather it’s a perfect example of a self-evident premise - and without it logic can’t exist.
Besides we are dealing with philosophy, not only with logic. Of course, given that you are some sort of logical positivist…