If I put two apples into a bag that previously had two apples, I can take four apples out of the bag. Thus, I believe that axioms on which basic arithmetic is based are “justified”. By the same token I believe axioms of probability and I’m pretty sure you see a close approximation of a “fair coin” on a daily basis, not to mention more complex behaviors which probability theory predicts very well. If after that you’re still skeptic of the correlation, I expect you to have strong evidence against the correlation. I predict you’d say that this reasoning is circular because the whole notion of “evidence” is sort of dependent on the axioms (Bayes etc.), in which case I can’t help you any more than say that the given axioms are what they are precisely because of empirical observations.
In a huge oversimplification that’s how math theories are constructed—you add or remove axioms until the stuff it predicts corresponds to stuff we observe. The correlation is the goal.
No sceptic familiar with the Evil Demon Argument would agree that 2+2=4, as this assumes the mind remains undistorted which is part of what is under discussion.
My belief is belief on probabilities on faith in the religious sense, rather than on evidence, as I do not believe such evidence exists.
What you have is a giant circular argument, and therefore useless. A skeptic doubts the senses give actual evidence, they doubt math, and they doubt your axioms of probability. It is downright retarded to use one of those to prove the others.
A skeptic doubts the senses give actual evidence, they doubt math …
How many skeptics walk off the cliff expecting to continue walking? If you’re skepticism is of the purely theoretical kind “sure, I doubt everything, but God (heh) forbid me act on these doubts” then I cannot help you either.
Besides, that’s cherry-picking circularities. Let’s go meta: don’t you doubt your doubts? If you claim you can’t calculate or measure the level of anything real because “that’s axioms”, what makes doubt in math/physics weaker than doubt in doubt in math/physics? And if none is weaker then the other, why don’t walk off the cliff?
This is how I’d answer a sceptic:
If I put two apples into a bag that previously had two apples, I can take four apples out of the bag. Thus, I believe that axioms on which basic arithmetic is based are “justified”. By the same token I believe axioms of probability and I’m pretty sure you see a close approximation of a “fair coin” on a daily basis, not to mention more complex behaviors which probability theory predicts very well. If after that you’re still skeptic of the correlation, I expect you to have strong evidence against the correlation. I predict you’d say that this reasoning is circular because the whole notion of “evidence” is sort of dependent on the axioms (Bayes etc.), in which case I can’t help you any more than say that the given axioms are what they are precisely because of empirical observations.
In a huge oversimplification that’s how math theories are constructed—you add or remove axioms until the stuff it predicts corresponds to stuff we observe. The correlation is the goal.
No sceptic familiar with the Evil Demon Argument would agree that 2+2=4, as this assumes the mind remains undistorted which is part of what is under discussion.
My belief is belief on probabilities on faith in the religious sense, rather than on evidence, as I do not believe such evidence exists.
What you have is a giant circular argument, and therefore useless. A skeptic doubts the senses give actual evidence, they doubt math, and they doubt your axioms of probability. It is downright retarded to use one of those to prove the others.
How many skeptics walk off the cliff expecting to continue walking? If you’re skepticism is of the purely theoretical kind “sure, I doubt everything, but God (heh) forbid me act on these doubts” then I cannot help you either.
Besides, that’s cherry-picking circularities. Let’s go meta: don’t you doubt your doubts? If you claim you can’t calculate or measure the level of anything real because “that’s axioms”, what makes doubt in math/physics weaker than doubt in doubt in math/physics? And if none is weaker then the other, why don’t walk off the cliff?
Part one is ad hominem, and has no relation to the validity of the argument.
As for part 2, the point is not that the world is certainly an illusion but that we don’t know either way. Given that, meta-doubts are implied.
For me personally, my posistion is that rationally there is no way out of skepticism but that I believe it false on religious style faith.