(May 20, 2016 at 8:40 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Apologies for my peevishness. The question you asked and the manner in which you asked it seemed consistent with theistic troll posts. I jumped to a conclusion.
Apology accepted! It is not fun taking heat for the conduct of internet trolls, but I completely understand the conclusion to which you jumped. It doesn't seem like there are many people on the internet who honestly just want to know what other people think. I'm not perfect with it, but I try to understand. Thanks again for the kind apology.
Quote:No, I'm talking about broad sets and meta-analysis. We have 2 sets: claimed-truths that have been empirically validated and claimed-truths that have not. If we examine the veracity of each set, we see that the preponderance of claimed-truths in the first set compare well to reality but the opposite is true of claimed-truths in the second. Consequently we can reasonably conclude that empirically validated truths are most likely to be true. Thus the proposition 'The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge' is empirically validated and may be considered a worthwhile axiom.
Consider what I bolded/underlined. What sort of process and comparison does this entail? Empirical? Observational? Rational?
Quote:Pleased to meet you.
Likewise!
