I don’t particularly care to get entangled into this debate but I do want to clarify one thing about argumentation ethics. Someone said it has nothing to do with HumN Action. That may be the case for them, but for the people who created and who believe in argumentation ethics it is known to be a direct direvative of HA. It would be wise to remember that moving forward.
argumentation ethics has to do with praxology according to it’s inventor’s. Idk if it was being disputed or if it was just being discredited outright. I just wanted to clarify. Most of the people I know who attempt to denounce argumentation ethics aren’t actually doing so at all, but instead are attacking straw men. Not intetionally though, simply out of lack of understanding.
Do you believe that it is possible for you to tell me a true statement that is inconsistent with a particular action of mine?
I believe it is possible for you to take actions based on beliefs about means, and that these beliefs will be in some extent mistaken. But, of course, all knowledge is mistaken or incomplete to some degree or another, there is no ‘perfect efficiency’. Furthermore, since action is dependent on the actual values and actual beliefs you have, such a theoretical construction can have no relevence for action.
Read my post here, especially the quote at the bottom by Richard Joyce from his book The Myth of Morality.
So if my criteria for buying a car was I wanted a blue car, and I bought a car that everyone on earth would agree is blue, are you saying I am incorrect in some way?
So if my criteria for buying a car was I wanted a blue car, and I bought a car that everyone on earth would agree is blue, are you saying I am incorrect in some way?
Remember when you said “Furthermore, since action is dependent on the actual values and actual beliefs you have, such a theoretical construction can have no relevence for action.” one post ago? Well not all knowledge is incomplete, my example shows that my reasons for action can be complete and valid. My knowledge for blueness is right on.
Well not all knowledge is incomplete, my example shows that my reasons for action can be complete and valid. My knowledge for blueness is right on.
Um, no. Read Kant, maybe? Or Occam?
Knowledge is never ‘complete’, except in the sense of definitional things. What ‘everyone in the world agrees on’ does not prove anything in an absolute sense. And, in terms of probability, (and to quote a play by Henrik Ibsen) the majority is always wrong. Error and systemic ignorance are ineradicable features of human nature. If people were not systemically ignorant they would not act.
Everyone agreeing does actually prove something in the absolute sense, the class of “blue” is a human conception so as absolute as you can get is the set of all humans that can conceive of blue (sorry blind people). Further the fact that we can distinguish it means that it is an objective classification.
Economic science, the harmony of interests, and the fact that I see no reason why, contrary to Mises’ minarchism, Mises’s analysis regarding the provision of every other good wouldn’t extend to the provision of defense.
What would be the deontologists method to determining if nature proliferates a being that perserves life or not? There are gaps in the tree of knowledge given the axioms you know so far. Apriori truths are across such a gap.
Everyone agreeing does actually prove something in the absolute sense, the class of “blue” is a human conception so as absolute as you can get is the set of all humans that can conceive of blue (sorry blind people). Further the fact that we can distinguish it means that it is an objective classification.
No, it does not. While I am not trying to deny knowledge as such, there is still uncertainty in any reference to the real world. There is no ‘objective classification’ of blue, there is a thing you perceive and title as blue; whether this in fact corresponds to what others perceive may be beyond reasonable doubt (or at least beyond reasonable quarreling) but it is not something one can remove uncertainty from.
Convention is not an epistemelogical argument. It is a practical one. The two domains are not identical.
The objective classification of blue does exist because it can be taken to aribrary error, you name the error you want I’ll tell you how many experiments to run. That is the nature of knowing an objective fact or thing. The fact that I can remove as much uncertainty as you specify means that it doesn’t exist. Its the reverse statement of the objective existence of blue. Uncertainty does exist for some things, such as does a certain computer program halt.
