3 ms·
Did you verify that we can't verify?
by GoblinSlayer 16d ago
Did you verify that we can't verify?
- undershirt 16d agoI think so. Are you familiar with epistemology and how assumptions can be formally justified?
- GoblinSlayer 15d agoAre you familiar with fallibilism? Aristotle justified geocentrism too. Who's to say your justification is correct for real this time?
- undershirt 15d agoFallibilism seems to smuggle a claim of certainty about how we can't be certain about anything, which leads to a performative contradiction when brought up in an argument where people are trying to arrive at certainty.
- GoblinSlayer 15d agoIf you don't like such skepticism, then it should be okay to believe in fields. Where do you draw a line, how much skepticism is enough? Does radio exist? You can't see it, just like other fields.
- undershirt 14d agoI was only addressing your argument. If fallibilism leads to a contradiction then it doesn't work to undermine all agnostic arguments against the actual reality of fields. My warning is that science becomes something like a 'scientism' religion when "real" is used as shorthand for "effective abstraction". Science has philosophical boundaries that isn't part of the science curriculum.
- GoblinSlayer 12d agoIt was your argument that you verified that we can't verify. But if we can't verify, then how could you verify? Fallibilism doesn't lead to a contradiction, it only rejects infallibility. If you think agnosticism helps you prove your infallibility, prove it. Also radio demonstrates that your approach is unworkable.