Consider the proposition:

"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."

If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?

If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?

If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.

If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)

What do we think?

(May 20, 2016 at 5:02 am)Ignorant Wrote:

---

Consider the proposition:

"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."

If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?

If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?

If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.

If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)

---

What do we think?

I think 'Oh no, not this again!'.

It's very simple: we compare 'truths' that are empirically validated with one that are not then hold the results up against reality to see which remain true. Tadaaa! Empirical validation of the proposition.



Sometimes I think theists think that no-one's thought of this stuff already...

Such a statement could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."

Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.

And indeed, putting it into practice quickly shows its wisdom. When people claim to know things but have no evidence, they come a cropper. Or rather, it's not useful to anyone else if it can't be demonstrated.

I'm not entirely sure how "empirically" is being used here, but in abstract systems propositions can be true without needing any reference to reality. They need only conform to the rules of the system.

Wow, I've never seen that argument before.

/s

"because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some"

But not all propositions are true or count as knowledge. Name a proposition that is known to be true that is not verifiable? Then tell me how we know it's true?

(May 20, 2016 at 5:43 am)Ben Davis Wrote: It's very simple: we compare 'truths' that are empirically validated with one that are not then hold the results up against reality to see which remain true. Tadaaa! Empirical validation of the proposition.

Sometimes I think theists think that no-one's thought of this stuff already...

Are original questions the only sort of questions welcome on this site? If so, let me know and I won't return (I am quite sure any question I [edit: would] have has been asked before).

As to your response: What you describe does not seem like empirical validation of the original proposition. Rather, it seems like empirical validation of particular truths.

I haven't interacted with you yet on these forums. I just want to know what you think about these things. I am not presenting an argument.

I think we have to accept certain premises as axiomatic in order to function.

(May 20, 2016 at 11:52 am)robvalue Wrote: Such a statement could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."

Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.

And indeed, putting it into practice quickly shows its wisdom. When people claim to know things but have no evidence, they come a cropper. Or rather, it's not useful to anyone else if it can't be demonstrated.

I'm not entirely sure how "empirically" is being used here, but in abstract systems propositions can be true without needing any reference to reality. They need only conform to the rules of the system.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. It seems like you don't agree with the original proposition, as stated. My question is directed more at the epistemology of the original proposition than it is as the teleology or aim of science. Is the epistemology represented in the original proposition (even if we add your suggested clause) merely supposed (assumed)? Or does it derive from some empirical investigation itself?

(May 20, 2016 at 1:28 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: "because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some"

But not all propositions are true or count as knowledge. Name a proposition that is known to be true that is not verifiable? Then tell me how we know it's true?

That is simply what I'd like to hear someone explain. Consider the bold proposition in the original post. Tell me how we know it's true.

(May 20, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think we have to accept certain premises as axiomatic in order to function.

So the bold proposition in the OP is axiomatic rather than empirically verifiable?