Truth and Unsound Arguments

In this video, I discuss the relationship between true conclusions and the soundness of an argument.

The video is directed toward presuppositionalsim which presupposes the absolute truth of scripture.

For a related video, please check out "The bible is not an axiom."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQy8USLmuEY

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• Christianity
• critical
• thinking
• presuppositionalism
• Calvinism
• Gordon
• Clark
• philosophy
• arguments
• validity
• soundness
• truth

[koldkase77]

LOL! I sit through this entire video and all I learned was that Vinnie is your dog and he doesn't have fleas. Way to go, dude, you really know how to convince someone into believing not all dogs have fleas. Next time, have a point, express that point early, and stop using an extensive vocabulary to sound like you know what the crap you are talking about, because obviously you dont. So I ask that you take my advice and make ANOTHER video with some common sense.

[crazypills2]

Well koldkase77, at least you now know that Vinny doesn't have fleas. It looks like your knowledge has doubled as a result of this video...mission accomplished :-)

[trifelgeputinage]

For presuppositionalism - read - ignoramism, arrogantism, closedmindedism, bullshitism.

[MegaAstrodude]

They're closet pragmatists.

[BovrilKetchup]

From one of Dawkin's book if i'm not mistaken, he said that actually aside from mathematical statement, (also based on chain of assumptions (ex: normal triangle have 3 side, =180 deg.)), nothing can be proven at all!! even my cat might be a sophisticated survilliance robot send by aliens, or an illusion/simulation like in the matrix.

[insidetrip101]

because I didn't realize you were working under that type of metaphysical reality. I'm guessing you have trouble trying to cross the gap between the subject and object, while I have trouble separating the two.

My apologizes for misunderstanding.

[insidetrip101]

Yes, this would certainly be our disconnect. I was under the assumption you were working under epistemology which would say justification requires proof.

However, I think what you seem to be describing is more Lockean now that I think about it; atleast concerning the comment you made about the white wall.

Thing is, if you do that you fall into a sort of subjectivisim. If that is really what your view is, I'm going to retract the statement of what I said about the Truth earlier...

[crazypills2]

Maybe our disconnect is simply our belief as to what qualifies as justification. You appear to believe that justification requires proof. However, what can I really prove? Even if I knew how light worked, can I prove it? And, if I regress to axioms, can I prove them?

Therefore, justification must be less than proof? Are senses adequate? What about the testimony? All can be a part of justification, but it must be beyond reasonable doubt. Only then can it become knowledge instead of faith.

[insidetrip101]

I still don't see how...

1. this addresses the importance of validity beyond that which can be determined to be sound/unsound.

2. that is not justification at all as to how you know the wall is white. You then fall into a regress until you hit an axiom. (if you even do)

3. it even seems to me that you are accepting the claim that there is knowledge which does NOT require justification.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here...

[crazypills2]

insidetrip101,

You are correct in my use of "know-that" and "know-how." "Know-that" is propositional knowledge.

What do you think would be adequate justification for your proposition that the "wall is white?" Is understanding "how light works" required? Would you be justified because you have seen this wall and the color of it matches other things that you "know" are white.

Now, the amount of justification required is proportional to the claim. Small claims don't require as much justification