Is it possible for anything to be definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt 100% true, or is all knowledge based on assumption and post hoc rationalizations?
I AM
Even the laws of physics are models that fit our observations; they could be overturned by new evidence.
>>18020598If you're talking correspondence theory of truth (that there are propositions in our heads that may or may not match facts out there in the objective world) then no. It apriori makes knowing something with complete certainty a complete impossibility, because we would have to have at least one "confirmed" case of correspondence to build upon. And we don't have those.But if you opt for a more ancient theory of truth, where something being true means it participates fully and properly... then still no. But not because it's impossible, rather only because it's difficult to tell 99.99% participation from 100% participation.
>>18020598it’s axioms all the way down in every direction
>>18020598no. even things we derive from pure reason are built on a fundamental leap of faith, the leap in question being that reason is real. we don't know why reason is true or where it came from, any attempt either involves just accepting that its true as an axiom or trying to circularly argue that reason is true because its reasonable
>>18020601fpbpCOGITO ERGO SUM
>>18021923op isn't arguing for radical skepticism though. he's saying that even though we accept things as true, can we move from "this is almost certainly true" to "this is true, no qualifications"
Yeah, fire is dangerous and will kill you. 100% true, always will, even cool fires will kill you. Just way longer.Does that work?
>>18021447>he proclaims through reasonEvery attempt the skeptic makes to place doubt on the power of reason he can only do so through reason. Their is no stepping outside the bounds of reason if one wants to make any claim to truth.
>>18022923I'm not saying reason isn't true. I'm saying you can't prove it to be truewe know lots of things, but we can't 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt prove any of it because it all relies on the assumption that reason is true. what this really tells us is that something be 100% proven isn't all that important, but this tends to rile up the rationalists
