Does Agnosticism Make Sense?

First of all, theories of truth fall under logic, not metaphysics. Second, it doesn't matter.

That's just the difference between intensionality and extensionality. It's not a problem. True propositions have truth-makers, which are other propositions, not "existents." Tarski's semantic theory of truth can deal with them. The T-sentence for "Bob believes that the world is square," is "'Bob believes that the world is square' is true if and only if Bob believe sthat the world is square." There's no problem here.

First, I don't see how. Second, if I am, so what?

If all of the premises are true, and you've given no reason to doubt them, then um, yes.

 

can anyone who is rigoursly honest with themselves actualy claim to 'know' ANYthing?

one can observe perhapse a greater preponderance of evidence in one place then annother, but in the end, isn't that all that there is?

no such thing as proof, only greater or lesser probability based on appearent evidence from that perspective in that point in time.

if you have a tangable object that sits still long enough you can take a measuring tape and say it is x many units this way and y many units that and that you've taken these measurments at what you've choosen to call point t in time.

bet even that isn't proof it's a rock or a tree.
and if it doesn't bite you it is perhapse reasonable to immagine it might not be a living organisim. but then again you may have been perceived by it as having given good scritcies by all your measuring and mumbling.

focault og and dusty scroggins are way beyond me here

personaly i have nothing against there being a few mystries here and there
or choosing to believe there exists something, if not many such somethings, if not uncountable such somethings, about which no one knows anything.

i do see it as being at least facitious to expect the unknown to begin and end with what people of only a particular perspective, or even any awairness of any perspective, other then, or maybe including itself, is that possible, thinks they know about it.

i have to aggree wholeheartedly that i understand no need for infallability to exist
(or even linear determinism for that matter)

 

Not really. Logic's end product is validity. To see if a valid argument's terms are true, then one must use some branch of metaphysics to investigate the terms assuming the terms have some referent that exists.

We're talking (actually typing) by each other here. I'm talking about the act of believing itself. It simply happens. If I create a statement, then it can be judged as true or false.

Sidenote: if I make an existential claim like, "there is a pint glass on my computer desk", then the only thing that can make that statement true is the existence of my computer table, the existence of the pint glass, and the relationship between the two. I assume the existence of myself and a listner to be axiomatic. So the pint glass and desk must exist--be existents. That's where I see the correspondence theory of truth helpful--existential claims. It falls short on almost everything else. I see the semantic theory as true but not particularly insightful—X is true iff X is true.

Your example is flawed. Your person could eat the berry, not get sick, and still believe that the berry will make them sick. Belief is sometimes logical, sometimes not. Also, if they hold the belief that it will not make them sick, then it's doubtful, but not impossible, that they hold the opposite believe to be true, as well (never doubt the power of self-deception). Reality and belief do not need to coincide. If they do not coincide often enough about pertinent things, then the believer probably won't live very long. Anyway, I think we were talking past each other again.

 

Yes. If they claim they do not 'know' anything, than they are not honest with themselves.

 

That's not true at all. A perfect counter-example is Kant, who thought that analytic a priori truths have no referent. Besides, your characterization of metaphysics is only accurate if we accept the correspondence theory of truth. And since truth is the matter at hand, your answer is clearly not acceptable, as it is circular. You're going to have a very hard time showing that logic is reducible to metaphysics, since no philosopher has ever argued that, many philosophers have argued that the inverse is the case, and the fact that it's quite obviously wrong.

Okay, what's your point?

Just a correction, the semantic theory of truth formally is "X" is true iff X. The quotes are very important, and to make it appear as nothing more than a tautology misses the point entirely.

Granted, but what's your point? Belief is still the vehicle by which we make inferences. If we make a bad one, then belief isn't to blame. The example mimmicks the behaviour of a reasonable human being. Even if there is a human being stupid enough to eat poisonous berries over and over again, that's his own fault and is not terribly detrimental to the argument.

I think so too.

 

i would like to see an irrefutable conformation of that. or for that matter of anything. all you have done here is to make a statement that makes a claim. similarly to as have i.

 

I know I exist. Within reasonable doubt, I know you exist. I know I believe that I have eaten beef stew before. I know lots of things.

I know how to build a deck, I know how to add 2+2. I know some calculus and how to make a kick ass roasted chicken. I know how to use a television remote. I know how to drive a car.

I suggest you read the definition of the word 'know' so that you know it before claiming that you do not know anything.

Know:
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : [size=-1]DISCERN[/size] b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive senses
1 : to have knowledge
2 : to be or become cognizant -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

 

The concept "a priori" is nonsense and should have died its due death in the 19th century.

An existential statement's truth value can only be accurately judged with the correspondence theory of truth. If I say that there is a glass on my desk, then the only thing that can make the sentence true is there being a glass on my desk--the statement must correspond with reality.

It's not circular.

I never said logic was reducable to metaphysics. Metaphysicis can't be reducable to logic since metaphysics predates any formal logical system.

The physical act of believing--the firing of neural pathways--is neither true nor false. To go in the way back machine in this thread, The physical act of "believing" and the physical act of "knowing" are the same thing. The only difference is semantic labeling.

That theory of truth is always correct due to its triviality.

Why wouldn't it?