5 ms·

Yep. It's like the God problem. If God created the universe, then who created God? If another God created God, then who created that God. Ad infinitum. Or you c

Yep. It's like the God problem. If God created the universe, then who created God? If another God created God, then who created that God. Ad infinitum. Or you can just ignore the exhausting issue altogether by claiming it is axiomatic. It's the same with any logical statement. You could go all the way up to the premises and question that and when given a proof of the premises, then you can question the premises of the "proof of the premises". Ad infinitum. Or you just take the axiomatic approach. I think most of life is lived axiomatically.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
This is correct, but a lot of people derive and indefensible conclusion from it. The real insight is that any belief in an axiom is an exercise in faith. A scientist who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs commits the same error as a religious person who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  This is a common argument, and it is a form of argument by dictionary definition, which are seldom informative, and most often used to avoid the issues. While individual scientists may hold beliefs that go beyond scientific premises, the significant difference between scientific and religious belief is that in the former case, all axioms are considered to be defeasible - and they quite often are overthrown.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The foundational axioms of scientific practice are generally not considered to be defeasible at all. The axioms of any particular theory or field may also be considered entirely beyond reproach. This is also not a semantic argument at all. It is strictly a logical one.
- specialist 7y ago
  Please humor me. Trying to articulate a half-baked notion. A close relative went from marine biologist to creationist (et al), and I've been struggling to accept the change. My Calvinist self still doesn't understand Evangelic system of faith. -- Given Structure + Process => Outcomes: Scientist: Faith in processes, eg scientific method. Belief is based on reproducibility. Evangelical: Faith in outcomes. The book (authority) is used to rationalize (justify) proclamations of belief. To your point: Yes, both have "faith", but with different starting points and emphasis.
guerrilla 7y ago
Coherentism ans reliabakism address this. You're alao confounding infinite regression in metaphysics (causality and/or composition) with imfinite regression in epistemic justification.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  If you're going to accuse someone of confounding infinite regression with infinite regression, you really need to give some explanation of the difference between infinite regression and infinite regression.
  - psychoslave 7y ago
    Well, obviously they don't occur at the same position! ;)
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    The difference is the difference between metaphysics and epistemology. One can consistently accept that there is no first cause (everything has a cauase), smallest thing (everything has a part) as examples while rejecting infinitely chained justificationa or vice versa. They don't necessarily or usuallydepend on eachother.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

This is correct, but a lot of people derive and indefensible conclusion from it. The real insight is that any belief in an axiom is an exercise in faith. A scientist who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs commits the same error as a religious person who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs.

mannykannot 7y ago
This is a common argument, and it is a form of argument by dictionary definition, which are seldom informative, and most often used to avoid the issues. While individual scientists may hold beliefs that go beyond scientific premises, the significant difference between scientific and religious belief is that in the former case, all axioms are considered to be defeasible - and they quite often are overthrown.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The foundational axioms of scientific practice are generally not considered to be defeasible at all. The axioms of any particular theory or field may also be considered entirely beyond reproach. This is also not a semantic argument at all. It is strictly a logical one.
specialist 7y ago
Please humor me. Trying to articulate a half-baked notion. A close relative went from marine biologist to creationist (et al), and I've been struggling to accept the change. My Calvinist self still doesn't understand Evangelic system of faith. -- Given Structure + Process => Outcomes: Scientist: Faith in processes, eg scientific method. Belief is based on reproducibility. Evangelical: Faith in outcomes. The book (authority) is used to rationalize (justify) proclamations of belief. To your point: Yes, both have "faith", but with different starting points and emphasis.

guerrilla 7y ago

Coherentism ans reliabakism address this. You're alao confounding infinite regression in metaphysics (causality and/or composition) with imfinite regression in epistemic justification.

Dylan16807 7y ago
If you're going to accuse someone of confounding infinite regression with infinite regression, you really need to give some explanation of the difference between infinite regression and infinite regression.
- psychoslave 7y ago
  Well, obviously they don't occur at the same position! ;)
- guerrilla 7y ago
  The difference is the difference between metaphysics and epistemology. One can consistently accept that there is no first cause (everything has a cauase), smallest thing (everything has a part) as examples while rejecting infinitely chained justificationa or vice versa. They don't necessarily or usuallydepend on eachother.