RE: Is evidentialism justified?
January 4, 2011 at 2:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(January 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm)Stempy Wrote: I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.
And why isn't your observation an assumption?
Quote:Take this business of "justification leading to a fallacy". In order to get to the conclusion that justification leads to an infinite regress, you have to ask "Why do you believe that?" at every stage of the argument. But that assumes that "Why do you believe that?" is a relevant question to ask.
It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.
Quote:the iterative skepticism you employ can just as easily be applied to the assumption itself.
I can't justify my skepticism because to do that would contradict the skepticism itself. It's absurd to require justification for skepticism. I don't require justification for skepticism just as I don't need to know why I'm self-aware, I just know THAT I'm self-aware
Quote:I'm afraid that is hopeless gibberish. Tautologies are logical formulae that are true independent of the meaning of the symbols contained therein, so unless all things are logical formulae(!) that makes no sense whatsoever.
A tautology means something is what it is. Everything is what it is therefore everything is tautological. It's the only thing that isn't gibberish, actually. Anything that is not tautological is something that is not itself and is therefore impossible gibberish. Nothing is not itself. Everything is itself. "Everything is tautological" makes perfect sense.
