Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:17:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
542 times
|
| |
|
|
> But I'm not sure that I agree that this particular yardstick has to be • able
> to measure itself. That, I think, may be a more fruitful area for
> investigation. Axioms, after all, don't have to prove themselves. But are
> these axioms, meta information about the system of critical thinking and
> thus "exempt", or merely observations that are themselves part of the • system
> and thus subject?
>
> Saying that something is a claim, meaningful or otherwise, didn't get us
> anywhere in analysing. What if we go back to the nature of what is being
> claimed?
Even "meta-information" must be logically consistent. The trick is that
most axioms probably do not refer to themselves, but if they do (as the
statement in question appears to fall within its own scope), they must pass
the tests of logic. As far as I can tell, the "falsification test" does
not.
Interestingly, a question that might arise here is what qualifies something
as being an axiom vs. an "ordinary" claim. Some proponents of theism (e.g.,
Alvin Plantinga) have written on the idea that belief in God is a "properly
basic belief", which could be conceived of as axiomatic. In that case,
various beliefs about God might also be understood as "exempt" from
falsification.
Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) I might well be. In fact he well may be right that if this is a claim, that it's subject to its own test, and may well fail it. But I'm not sure that I agree that this particular yardstick has to be able to measure itself. That, I think, may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
