RE: Formulating a rational defense of skepticism (a work in progress)
August 31, 2012 at 1:49 am
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2012 at 1:50 am by Jackalope.)
I'm following you, yes. I've given much thought to the subject in an attempt to be as consistent and rational in my views as possible.
The axioms that I consciously use are these:
A1) Reality exists. (tautological as per the definition of reality)
A2) Reality is observable. (the converse, while not self-refuting, puts one in a rather untenable position)
A3) I exist. (I believe the converse is sufficiently self-refuting to make this a useful and defensible axiom)
A2 does not imply that a particular observer may observe all of reality, of course. The observer must be properly located (spatially, temporally, etc) and be equipped with necessary sensory organs or technology to make an observation.
It's my opinion that pure reason is limited, and that empiricism and reason must be used together to maximize the value of observation. I'll add that individual observation is not necessarily trustworthy and should not be treated as such unless independently and vigorously confirmed, and that it is reasonable to conclude the the probability that an observation reflects reality correlates to the quality of confirmation.
Logic falls under the umbrella of reason, which the OP addressed.
The axioms that I consciously use are these:
A1) Reality exists. (tautological as per the definition of reality)
A2) Reality is observable. (the converse, while not self-refuting, puts one in a rather untenable position)
A3) I exist. (I believe the converse is sufficiently self-refuting to make this a useful and defensible axiom)
A2 does not imply that a particular observer may observe all of reality, of course. The observer must be properly located (spatially, temporally, etc) and be equipped with necessary sensory organs or technology to make an observation.
It's my opinion that pure reason is limited, and that empiricism and reason must be used together to maximize the value of observation. I'll add that individual observation is not necessarily trustworthy and should not be treated as such unless independently and vigorously confirmed, and that it is reasonable to conclude the the probability that an observation reflects reality correlates to the quality of confirmation.
(August 31, 2012 at 1:49 am)idunno Wrote: wouldn't logic also be necessary for a coherent worldview?
Logic falls under the umbrella of reason, which the OP addressed.
