But that doesn't mean you just get to decide that I'm saying the same things as those philosophers! Just because you have an internal map littered with the quotes of dead white guys, doesn't mean that I do.
These "dead white guys" have thought more about these problems, and answered them more satisfactorily, than either of us likely ever will. I'm doing you a favor by aligning your views with their strongest advocates.
I know! I don't know anything dead people who didn't know a fraction of the things that I know now said! What a travesty.
It's clear you don't know as much as a philosophy undergraduate, let alone Bacon and Descartes. Really now, tone down the pretensions before it becomes impossible to take you seriously.
Also, I'm not trying to advocate any preexisting philosophical position.
Oh dear, are you that naive? Reductionism is the defining philosophy of the modern Western world. You couldn't be any less original with your worldview!
Just to be completely clear:
[...]
Science: Asking the voices for what they can do to prove that they are real, and then testing it to see if they are (assuming the test is of sufficiently low cost)
So in reality, your definition of "real" wasn't "What doesn't change when my beliefs do," but rather "Whatever science can justify through experimentation." That didn't take long to uncover.
In what way is logic undermined? Does it become paraconsistent? Self contradictory? What conclusions does it stop?
That one. Using logic to undermine logic while positing a logical view of truth is self-defeating.
I thought I implicitly demonstrated that in the foolmo post: You can begin to make better probabilistic judgments.
How long are you going to continue this without answering my questions?
Probability claims are claims of efficacy. What equates efficacy with truth?
Because thus far you have not shown me *any* system which would have that standard be fulfilled.
What, do you mean the "standard" where scientific truth isn't *the* truth? I provided a number of them already, so here they are again: phenomenology, Buddhism, Christianity, Nietzscehan philosophy (or hypermodernism), and Marxism. We can throw in Hegelianism (speculative philosophy) as well, and this is really only scratching the surface.
Your job is now to ask a) what these things mean (because you've made your ignorance on basic philosophical questions rather clear to everyone reading this conversation), and b) once I clarify, try to defend science as somehow "better" than these epistemic accounts.
If they talk anything like you do then they're nondisprovable; most likely because they're incoherent or confused.
You realize that the epistemic doctrine of falsifiability (the one you're using) is very new, right? It's also highly contested within the philosophy of science, because science itself doesn't follow this doctrine at times!
In regards to philosophy as a whole, falsification runs into the same problems generally that science does: namely, that it puts human reason on a pedestal for seemingly no good reason. Though I've asked this question fruitlessly a dozen or so times now, I'll ask again: if you want to preclude the possibility of a transrational faculty or intelligibility, you'll have to justify why science is true.
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9