You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Critique of Critique
In any case, it is better to follow intuition before drawing extravagant logical conclusions.
How do you propose we resolve differences between conflicting intuitions?
In any case, it is better to follow intuition before drawing extravagant logical conclusions.
How do you propose we resolve differences between conflicting intuitions?
Logic and reason, but never separated from intuition.
Logic and reason,
But never separated
From intuition.
- vieira
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
How can you use logic to weigh conflicting AXIOMS?
Refuting the axioms, the truth is not conflictive.
How do you refute an AXIOM?
Everything that is not true is refutable leading to absurdity or contradiction. The way is to have a polemic methodology like Socrates, in which nothing is defended but seeks to lead to a contradiction in the results of the postulate.
What about unfalsifiable claims?
For example, I claim to be feeling generally well today.
Can you determine if this is not true?
It could indeed, if we analyze what it is to feel good, and what requirements are necessary, and then analyze if you meet those requirements and see if you really feel good today or just lie.
I'm pretty certain you're unable to determine if I "felt generally well" today (or three days ago).
And the main reason you can't determine this is because it's not QUANTIFIABLE.
It's a fundamentally private experience.