Keep The Reason wrote:I didn't ignore them, I have just not gotten to them yet. Let's deal with it now, though it really won't change anything:.
I really meant the stuff in the last post on the previous page which you may have missed.
I consider "the Laws of Logic" (plural) to be one set of rules we need to accept as in place to establish reality is real.
By the laws of logic do you mean the three principles that go back to Aristotle or do you also include things like the laws of inference. For example would you hold it to be valid a priori that if A then B and B not then A (this would be so much clearer if I could write it in propositional calculus) it is an expression of the error of affirming the consequent.
You have also conceded that incorrigible self evident beliefs like I remember eating a sandwich last week are non-demonstrable and valid. So that's 3 kinds of claims you personally accept as self evident and non-demonstrable.
It is not a knowledge claim as far as I can tell. I can take your word for it, and I can assume it's of such a mundane nature as there'd be little reason for you to lie, but do I know -- for a fact -- that you ate a sandwich last week?
Now-- YOU know it-- because it was demonstrated to your in a real physical way, and the same could be said for anyone else who happened to witness you eating it -- but for anyone who did NOT actually witness you eating it, we simply take it on faith that it's true. But it is NOT a knowledge claim to anyone who did not see you eat it.
No, I agree but my claim that I know that I ate a sandwich last week if I remember doing so is valid. It's a valid calim in the sense that I am saying I know and I have valid grounds for saying I know even though you can't know and don't have valid grounds just because I said so. This to me makes it clear that a claim to know can be justified without being objectively demonstrable. I cannot see why you find this distinction so difficult.
Incorrigible self evident beliefs such as I am seeing green now
Colors have temperature and light wavelenghts; they are demonstrable. If you and I are looking at a rainbow and we point to the lowest color band and say, "That's violet", then we are dmeonstrating that the color exists and we both see it.
Yes but I am talking phenomenelogically. If you do these tests and show the wavelength for green is not present and I say but I still see green, perhaps because of some defect of my eye or brain, then it remains the case that I still see green.
I have a headache
There are tests to indicate that your head might be hurting. Otherwise, I would have to take it on faith that you are actually feeling any pain. It's not a known truth that you are from my perspective. From your own, the physical sensation of the "ache" stands as demonstration that you have a headache.
There are such tests. Pain can also exist in the absence of causes that can be tested for. It is evident to me not to you. As Mitch likes to say there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to knowing.
I have a memory of what happened a week ago
Memory has often been tested and been shown to be reliable, faulty, and utterly imagined. If you and I watch a film of two cars crashing and after it's done I say to you, "How many cars have crashed" and you say "Two" then you've demonstrated that your memory has coincided with what the film has shared. If a memory is not demonstrably corroborated, then it's very possible that it is not valid knowledge.
Again I am talking phenomenologically. My memory may not be realiable; the event may never have happened but it remains the case that I experience the memory and normally this is taken as valid grounds for knowing. Imagine you were on trial for murder and your lawyer asks you if you did it. You reply, 'I don't know.' Your lawyer is puzzled and asks if you are suffering from some kind of blackout or memory loss. You reply no you remeber aiming the gun, pulling the trigger and watching the victim bleed to death but you were alone when this happened so you do not regard this as a valid basis for knowledge. However if a witness comes forward and confirms that this happened you will know if you did it. Will the lawyer say that you had better explain this in court; I doubt it unless he is appealing on the grounds of insanity. Now it is absolutely true that in a trial of the facts we want more than simply testimony and testimonies may disagree but the assumption is that normally memory of an event is valid ground for knowing it to have happened even though you could be mistaken.