(October 4, 2013 at 3:28 am)Ryantology Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 3:17 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So we both agree that for the caveman to survive, he needs to be able to go "arghh.. scawey!" but such a reaction is independent of whether the caveman believes he's running from a lion, or a bunch of goblins hiding beneath the skin of what appears to be a lion. In essence, the caveman's survivability was independent of what he believes to be true.
That's true, but just because the caveman doesn't need to know that specific knowledge doesn't mean he doesn't need any knowledge at all, which is (I gathered) the premise behind "we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition".
Agreed, but if survivability isn't dependent on truth, then whatever the caveman happens to be knowledgeable about doesn't guarantee that it's a reflection of reality, hence my example of the caveman and the lion to begin with.
Quote:Which ignores the fact that knowing whether it's a lion or goblins masquerading as a lion (specifically, knowing how to tell the two apart) would likely enhance survivability.
How exactly? The end result is the same; no matter what he happens to believe about the lion - whether true or false - he's surviving by running away.
Quote:
After all, the goblins may pose an entirely different manner of threat, in this scenario, and if so, knowing how to tell real lions from goblins in a lion disguise would benefit the caveman's safety. Simply running away in this situation might amount to no better than a coin toss.
Errr... I thought goblins didn't exist..?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
