4 ms·

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

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 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)