3 ms·

The point I was trying to make was just that we often need to reevaluate the tools (methods) we use, and that we need axioms in order to "proof" anything. What

The point I was trying to make was just that we often need to reevaluate the tools (methods) we use, and that we need axioms in order to "proof" anything. What proof do you seek? You mentioned before "proof of god's existance". I doubt that is even possible. If it were, religion would be a science and faith would not be needed. The better aim would probably be to seek for proof that the existence of god is possible. And then, if there is any possibility that any claims made by religions could be true. And then go from there. > Discussing these foundations of reasoning is interesting. But your conclusion sounds to me much like "we can't know anything and thinking is futile". Yes, for the first part, but your extrapolation in the second part is not what I concluded at all. It's just that we need to know the tools we use and their limitations. You agreed that we need axioms. Next step would be to define what kind of axioms would find acceptable. You said it needs to be "self-evident" and gave an example of "if P is true, P is not false". The law of non-contradiction. But is that enough? Do you reject the concept of superpositions in quantum mechanics as not possible? Defining what we can accept without a "proof" could be the key. You listed many good and interesting points. I agree with many of them. But sometimes I would say you jump to conclusions too fast with too many assumptions. Eg: > it just seems to me like a classic logical fallacy that would "prove" anything and basically makes any rational argument futile. I was just trying to make an argument about the need for axioms. We need things that are considered to be universally true without proof to proof anything. and: > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". We need to be aware at all times that logical systems, scientific method, etc. are human made tools that are fantastic, but still have limitations. We need to know when they are applicable and when they are not. So that we can notice, if we are abusing them in any way in order to reach our conclusions. (And to set realistic goals/expectations of what, how and with what confidence we can conclude something.)

moritzwarhier 3y ago
I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just one thing, I want to elaborate on what I meant here: > > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. > That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". I don't see why you say that "Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago." relating to "100% proofs" would be considered a logical fallacy? What I was aiming at is the fundamental principle of "evidence" in the context of sciences, and the philosophical underpinnings of "empiricism". Claimed "evidence" for the metaphysical idea of God, particularly the Christian God, if I understand correctly, was the origin of this discussion. And unless someone can up with a falsifiable definition of God, it just is muddying the waters and derailing discussion IMO to use scientific terms in relation to non-falsifiable ideas. It is an entirely different matter to me to honestly ponder the human condition, ethics, the foundations of civilisation, and the values of religious belief. It is also interesting to consider "what can I know" and to realise that a "closed" scientific world view is in fact not in accordance with scientific principles. Still, I don't see how it would make sense to equate religious beliefs with mathematical axioms.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but we have branched into many tangled arguments and discussing multiple things at once gets hard. If you allow me to take a step back to your OP I was first responding to, in order to try to clarify the basis of my arguments. There you spoke of theological "proofs" and made sweeping statement how "all turned out to be logical fallacies" / "debunked". I asked questions about general foundations of reasoning. The aim was to discuss what is a "proof" in philosophy? To make it easier to see how hard this fundamental question really is, I first moved to a more well defined domain like mathematics. Our discussion then moved into a different direction, but the original point I was trying to get to was how shaky are foundations of definitions of things like "proof" and "logical fallacy" in philosophy. With enough freedom in interpretation, any philosophical proof could probably be interpreted in a way that it could be treated as a logical fallacy. But yeah, while it's fun, this kind of discussions can get really long. And HN is not really an appropriate place for this. There are some things that I think are simple misunderstandings, but I'm not sure how I can clarify/communicate them succinctly enough to fit them here without turning this into a way too long post. Anyway, it's been a pleasure chatting with you.
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    I too have enjoyed the chat with you, that's why I am following up still that long after the original comment we both responded to was posted :) What I meant was - the commonly accepted scienfic method regarding the physical world says that we technically always work with hypothesises, that must allow themselves to be proved wrong. We can never be "100% sure" from a strict philosphical standpoint. This is the basis of modern science, we instead discuss theories that allow for themselves to be proven wrong, which conversely means that they allow to predict physical measurements. - Then there's maths, which indeed is closely tied to the basic logic also underpinning the scientific method. Maths has axioms. These need no proof. Axioms are classified by their simplicity, usefulness and shall not contradict each other. A particular religious faith is not usually considered similar to the usually used mathematical axioms, at least that's my perception. (edit: and there is of course the whole fun world of incompleteness and decidability, but I consider this a sub-topic of maths, philosophy and CS)

moritzwarhier 3y ago

I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just one thing, I want to elaborate on what I meant here: > > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. > That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". I don't see why you say that "Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago." relating to "100% proofs" would be considered a logical fallacy? What I was aiming at is the fundamental principle of "evidence" in the context of sciences, and the philosophical underpinnings of "empiricism". Claimed "evidence" for the metaphysical idea of God, particularly the Christian God, if I understand correctly, was the origin of this discussion. And unless someone can up with a falsifiable definition of God, it just is muddying the waters and derailing discussion IMO to use scientific terms in relation to non-falsifiable ideas. It is an entirely different matter to me to honestly ponder the human condition, ethics, the foundations of civilisation, and the values of religious belief. It is also interesting to consider "what can I know" and to realise that a "closed" scientific world view is in fact not in accordance with scientific principles. Still, I don't see how it would make sense to equate religious beliefs with mathematical axioms.

zigzag312 3y ago
Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but we have branched into many tangled arguments and discussing multiple things at once gets hard. If you allow me to take a step back to your OP I was first responding to, in order to try to clarify the basis of my arguments. There you spoke of theological "proofs" and made sweeping statement how "all turned out to be logical fallacies" / "debunked". I asked questions about general foundations of reasoning. The aim was to discuss what is a "proof" in philosophy? To make it easier to see how hard this fundamental question really is, I first moved to a more well defined domain like mathematics. Our discussion then moved into a different direction, but the original point I was trying to get to was how shaky are foundations of definitions of things like "proof" and "logical fallacy" in philosophy. With enough freedom in interpretation, any philosophical proof could probably be interpreted in a way that it could be treated as a logical fallacy. But yeah, while it's fun, this kind of discussions can get really long. And HN is not really an appropriate place for this. There are some things that I think are simple misunderstandings, but I'm not sure how I can clarify/communicate them succinctly enough to fit them here without turning this into a way too long post. Anyway, it's been a pleasure chatting with you.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  I too have enjoyed the chat with you, that's why I am following up still that long after the original comment we both responded to was posted :) What I meant was - the commonly accepted scienfic method regarding the physical world says that we technically always work with hypothesises, that must allow themselves to be proved wrong. We can never be "100% sure" from a strict philosphical standpoint. This is the basis of modern science, we instead discuss theories that allow for themselves to be proven wrong, which conversely means that they allow to predict physical measurements. - Then there's maths, which indeed is closely tied to the basic logic also underpinning the scientific method. Maths has axioms. These need no proof. Axioms are classified by their simplicity, usefulness and shall not contradict each other. A particular religious faith is not usually considered similar to the usually used mathematical axioms, at least that's my perception. (edit: and there is of course the whole fun world of incompleteness and decidability, but I consider this a sub-topic of maths, philosophy and CS)