Re: Solidity is degree of justification (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)

On 31 Dec 2012, at 20:56, Anonymous Person <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch-LR/[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 28/12/2012, at 5:38, "Elliot Temple" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:04 AM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch-LR/[email protected]> 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
>>> 
>>> For epistemology.
>> 
>> So "Justificationism is the concept that ideas have [weights] by which we should judge them for epistemology".
>> 
>> Could you give a reference that defines the term 'justificationism' in this way? At the moment I can't imagine what "judging something for epistemology" might mean.
> 
> Here is a reference from The Fabric of Reality:
> 
>> Furthermore, even mere predictions can never be justified by observational evidence, as Bertrand Russell, illustrated in his story of the chicken. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me stress that this was a metaphorical, anthropomorphic chicken, representing a human being trying to understand the regularities of the universe.) The chicken noticed that the farmer came every day to feed it. It predicted that the farmer would continue to bring food every day. Inductivists think that the chicken had ‘extrapolated’ its observations into a theory, and that each feeding time added justification to that theory.
> 
> This passage is talking about degrees of justification increasing. It
> states that inductivists in general think this way.

Inductivism is a form of justificationism, yes. Justificationism, however, is not defined as inductivism.

-- David Deutsch



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/