Re: Solidity is degree of justification (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)
Elliot Temple <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMhxbvqZ2f5kmfc1QXKu9W+Sx7t-Vp3LPPXyD+JeREcpjdyKtQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM, You Know Me <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:04 AM, David Deutsch wrote: >> On 25 Dec 2012, at 23:58, Elliot Temple <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM, David Deutsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> currently called 'justificationism', namely that knowledge is that which can be justified as true, or likely to be true, etc. >> > >> > That is not what justificationism means. Justificationism is the >> > concept that ideas have an amount/degree/weight of justification >> > (epistemic status, aka confirmation, support, authority, probability, >> > etc), by which we should judge them. >> >> for truth >> >> > Ideas with more >> > justification/weight/evidence/etc are deemed better than ideas with less. >> >> Deemed to be truer, more likely to be true, more likely to contain more truth, etc. That is the mistake. >> >> But that does not mean that ideas cannot have any non-binary attributes. For example they can be longer or shorter to express, depend more or less on mathematics, be more or less relevant to a given problem, be more or less original, more or less useful -- and (as I have said) easier or harder to vary as explanations (relative to a given state of background knowledge). > > Now That's "True". Now that's unproductive. -- Elliot Temple http://curi.us/