(November 27, 2017 at 3:29 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(November 27, 2017 at 3:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that given the same facts and reasons, that a similar claim, should yield similar results. I believe that logic should be consistent and coherent.
You are the one asserting that we should move the goal for some claims. How do you justify that? How do you determine when to start and when to stop moving the goal (or do you not stop moving it)?
The subject of the OP is epistemology or the study of how we know. And as I have said before, if the reasons are the same, I think it is reasonable to come to the same conclusion. Further, I think that for various reasons, we can grant a measure of faith in which we believe in addition.
Do you think that you have given me enough reason to believe that you have a cat?
Do you accept that I have a cat?
Do you accept that I have an invisible garage dragon?
Why or why not?
No; I accept neither on epistemological grounds. You haven't provided sufficient evidence.
Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion? If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther