4 ms·

> the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent No, you can also refute the premises/axioms

> the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent No, you can also refute the premises/axioms and there other ways to do that than needing to demonstrate inconsistency.

ouid 4y ago
Oh really? Would you like to provide an example of this?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ironmagma 4y ago
  A simple example is the axiom "private property exists and should be enforced with the law". There are societies without private property, and they are very different from the ones that do have it.
  - ouid 4y ago
    I tshould have been clearer about what I mean by the law. I'm treating the laws themselves as immutable, and referring to the process of their interpretation. Ie, the judgment that happens in a courtroom. Which laws should exist depends on moral arguments though. So the point does essentially stand. The fact that people act out of mostly inscrutable, heuristic biological interest as a form of moral empiricism, does in fact count as out of bounds. I'm allowed to have a moral system that compels me not to reproduce, for instance. It's just not terribly likely (although not impossible) to be an effective reproductive strategy. If you want to have a completely unrelated discussion about this, I'm more than willing, but I think you should probably refine the proposition "Private property exists".
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Sure, I refer you to the entire Western canon of ethics because that's 99% of what it consists of. If you want a simple math example, we replaced Euclid's axioms of geometry with Hilber's axioms of geometry and others. Look into why. Then there's the fact that axioms and premises that make empirical statements which can be falsified. Those get thrown out all the time.
  - ouid 4y ago
    We didn't replace Euclid's axioms. I'm sorry that you think so, because it is a common misconception that mathematics "believes in a set of axioms". The euclidean axioms are a foundation for the logical system of euclidean geometry. Eucliden geometry is not only unchanged, but is actually a system which has been proven to be consistent and decideable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms. This makes it rather uninteresting, which is why we now study a different system. Empiricism, likewise, is an axiom that goes. That which I observe exists, and then if you would like to keep that axiom, you're going to have to throw away anything else that is shown to be inconsistent as a result. Which is in bounds.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      I think you misunderstood what I said and may have demonstrated a little ignorance at the same time. Hilbert's axioms are axioms for Euclidean geometry, like Tarski's and Birkhoff's. > That which I observe exists This isn't even close to what empiricism is. You named a (very poor) ontological principle. Empiricism is a set of epistemological principles.
      - ouid 4y ago
        First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        > First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. The point was that the axioms we used changed. Read further back up the thread. You're off track. > Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you. No, please take an introduction to philosophy. Empericism is an epistemology, it has nothing to do with what exists which is an ontology. Ffs open Wikipedia or something. This is embarrassing Dunning-Kruger effect here.

ouid 4y ago

Oh really? Would you like to provide an example of this?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ironmagma 4y ago
A simple example is the axiom "private property exists and should be enforced with the law". There are societies without private property, and they are very different from the ones that do have it.
- ouid 4y ago
  I tshould have been clearer about what I mean by the law. I'm treating the laws themselves as immutable, and referring to the process of their interpretation. Ie, the judgment that happens in a courtroom. Which laws should exist depends on moral arguments though. So the point does essentially stand. The fact that people act out of mostly inscrutable, heuristic biological interest as a form of moral empiricism, does in fact count as out of bounds. I'm allowed to have a moral system that compels me not to reproduce, for instance. It's just not terribly likely (although not impossible) to be an effective reproductive strategy. If you want to have a completely unrelated discussion about this, I'm more than willing, but I think you should probably refine the proposition "Private property exists".
guerrilla 4y ago
Sure, I refer you to the entire Western canon of ethics because that's 99% of what it consists of. If you want a simple math example, we replaced Euclid's axioms of geometry with Hilber's axioms of geometry and others. Look into why. Then there's the fact that axioms and premises that make empirical statements which can be falsified. Those get thrown out all the time.
- ouid 4y ago
  We didn't replace Euclid's axioms. I'm sorry that you think so, because it is a common misconception that mathematics "believes in a set of axioms". The euclidean axioms are a foundation for the logical system of euclidean geometry. Eucliden geometry is not only unchanged, but is actually a system which has been proven to be consistent and decideable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms. This makes it rather uninteresting, which is why we now study a different system. Empiricism, likewise, is an axiom that goes. That which I observe exists, and then if you would like to keep that axiom, you're going to have to throw away anything else that is shown to be inconsistent as a result. Which is in bounds.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I said and may have demonstrated a little ignorance at the same time. Hilbert's axioms are axioms for Euclidean geometry, like Tarski's and Birkhoff's. > That which I observe exists This isn't even close to what empiricism is. You named a (very poor) ontological principle. Empiricism is a set of epistemological principles.
    - ouid 4y ago
      First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        > First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. The point was that the axioms we used changed. Read further back up the thread. You're off track. > Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you. No, please take an introduction to philosophy. Empericism is an epistemology, it has nothing to do with what exists which is an ontology. Ffs open Wikipedia or something. This is embarrassing Dunning-Kruger effect here.