Post Edited (Corey) : 2/23/2009 9:30:23 PM (GMT-6)

You know, one thing that I found remarkable about the account was the author's own relation to it all. He insists on anonymity and pleads for those who might know him to not divulge his big secret: he's sympathetic to Plantinga's position. Why, that could ruin his career at this point!

I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all [...]

Post Edited (Corey) : 2/24/2009 6:59:23 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/24/2009 11:02:44 AM (GMT-6)

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/allsaints/nature_history_destiny_matthew_2531-46

Tom:

Truth = reality, when speaking of propositions, the truth value of a proposition is grounded in it's correspondence to reality. We are talking about two different issues here. To speak of knowledge and truth; if anyone is to make any knowledge claims, they must retreat to a commonsense view and be willing to accept certain presuppositions if they are to ground their knowledge in a manner that does not beg the question.

The Correspondence theory of truth (which is what most of us subscribe to) does indeed beg the question; yet most of us are willing to overlook the circularity. For example. The proposition "the bench in front of me is red" is true because of its correspondence to the reality that there is indeed a red bench in front of me. But if you were to ask me to prove that there is a red bench in front of me, I couldn't do it without appealing to my vision. And if you were then to ask me to prove that my vision was a reliable source of knowledge; I couldn't do so without appealing to my vision. Additionally one could also challenge the "so called reality of the red bench" by appealing to color skepticism, or the problem of the criterion. One could also ask me to prove that I am not dreaming that there is a red bench in front of me... So the problem with the correspondence theory of truth is that we cannot prove what reality is without committing a fallacy or getting cought on an infinite regress.

So I am a commonsense realist - I believe that generally what we perceive is what is reality. I do acknowledge that if I am to make any knowledge claims, I have to dogmatically ground them in basic beliefs or I have to dogmatically declare my senses to be reliable sources of knowledge, or do the same with a coherent web of beliefs. But to my knowledge there is not any theory of knowledge that can escape the fallacies of circularity etal.

Epistemology and logic are all grounded in our presuppositions that are influenced by our conceptual framework and environment and therefore boils down to my assumptions versus someone else’s.

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 2/28/2009 1:30:08 PM (GMT-6)

Good, now try to bumble through this and prove to me that you can know anything objectively apart from your human reasoning or senses? Regarding logic being grounded in ones presuppositions, did you not read the entire post? What do you think it is that grounds the truth value of a proposition in logic? How can you prove that this correspondence is adaquate? How can you prove the reality that grounds the propositon without begging the question? Answer: develop some pressupositions about reality and the nature of correspondence.

I think you need to read the entire post before you go off half cocked.

Many bumbling philosophers don't accept the presuppositions of simplification or disjunctive syllogism as valid rules of inference. Logic my friend is not as cut and dry and many novices believe, nor is it the answer to all the mysteries of the universe. Logic is often grounded in axioms which are nothing more than the presuppositions which some by agreement consider to be basic or self-evident truths. Logic is grounded in your presuppositions that there is an extended universe, that there is an existence and you are not dreaming nor a brain in a bell jar in some mad scientists laboratory. Logic assumes that a propositon can be grounded in reality via correspondence, yet you cannot prove any of these without your presuppositions and if you have no truth, you have no logic, you will be on an inifinte regress for a very long time or chasing your tail.

In the begining was logic, so are you saying that the concepts such as disjunctive syllogism or modus ponens were floating around in abstract space long before any sentient being came on the scene? If your concepts are eternal in nature, then your propositions are of necessity eternal; which would have to include necessary and contingent propositions as well; and if these are all eternal than we can assume that God knows the truth value of all propositions which goes against the empiricist grain of the Open View.

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 2/28/2009 1:37:16 PM (GMT-6)