Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kyocus t1_itxl3qb wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to link it. We had a discussion about the fallacy fallacy, which I will adamantly contend is stupid till my deathbed.
I agree with you that it's obviously terrible for someone to claim something is false based on faulty argument. I'm also saying that's a red herring, because if the only thing substantiating said claim was the fallacious argument, then there is no longer support to believe such a thing. It's not that I am saying "That's a fallacy, therefore your conclusion is false" I am saying your premise is wrong so I'm agnostic to the claim till it's substantiated, important difference.

4

iiioiia t1_itxo8oa wrote

> We had a discussion about the fallacy fallacy, which I will adamantly contend is stupid till my deathbed.

Depending on which side of it you fall on, I will totally agree, or argue to the death!! 😂🙏

> I agree with you that it's obviously terrible for someone to claim something is false based on faulty argument. I'm also saying that's a red herring, because if the only thing substantiating said claim was the fallacious argument, then there is no longer support to believe such a thing. It's not that I am saying "That's a fallacy, therefore your conclusion is false" I am saying your premise is wrong so I'm agnostic to the claim till it's substantiated, important difference.

I think you may have missed my point: there is a level of "reality" where "absolute truth" (at least on some matters) exists, but since we do not have access to this level, we seem to have decided to ~pretend that it doesn't exist, or have decided on educational curriculum that does not cover it (causing it to appear to not exist, unless one learns about it elsewhere).

This is the distinction I tried to get at with"This of course overlooks the "justified" part..." - you were talking about Knowledge (JTB), but the "T" is typically/often completely independent from humans - our ability to measure it (empirically or otherwise) has no bearing on the actual underlying truth. But the way we describe reality is often other than this, and thus many people seem to believe it is this way.

0

Kyocus t1_itxs1oa wrote

We're mixing two distinct subjects.

  1. The Fallacy Fallacy, which I contend is like a distracted dog chasing a squirrel of irrelevance.
  2. Truthiness? Even Science approximates accuracy with reference to the most accurate of knowledge we have, rather than revealing absolute boolean truths about the Universe. I doubt we can reliably achieve such lofty goals with regularity.
1

iiioiia t1_itxwex8 wrote

> 1. The Fallacy Fallacy, which I contend is like a distracted dog chasing a squirrel of irrelevance.

To me, the fallacy fallacy is a lot like "good/bad faith" - excellent rhetorical tools, and those who use them typically have little to negative interest in whether they are using them correctly. Occam's Razor would be another good candidate, as would "no evidence" and several other popular internet memes/heuristics.

> 2. Truthiness? Even Science approximates accuracy with reference to the most accurate of knowledge we have, rather than revealing absolute boolean truths about the Universe.

I agree, although that would get you in hot water with most Redditors, in my experience anyways. Peeople love love love their science!

> I doubt we can reliably achieve such lofty goals with regularity.

Mountains don't climb themselves, that's for sure!

2