But what does “disproof” mean here. How does the evidence evaluation process work? Is that itself evidence? There’s some embodied process of generating disproof that must itself be assumed to be right. If it was itself disproved, how could such a skeptic be sure the disproof was correct since they’re depending on the process by which they disprove thing to disprove disproof?
My answer is that they end up right back stuck in the problem of the criterion, or they end up as approximately a Platonic idealist.
Contentiousness is irrelevant to the line of argumentation I’m making (based on Chisholm). No matter how obvious something is, it’s still an assumption if not justified.
But what does “disproof” mean here. How does the evidence evaluation process work? Is that itself evidence? There’s some embodied process of generating disproof that must itself be assumed to be right. If it was itself disproved, how could such a skeptic be sure the disproof was correct since they’re depending on the process by which they disprove thing to disprove disproof?
My answer is that they end up right back stuck in the problem of the criterion, or they end up as approximately a Platonic idealist.
You still need some assumptions, like contradictions indicating falsehood, but that’s not very contentious.
Contentiousness is irrelevant to the line of argumentation I’m making (based on Chisholm). No matter how obvious something is, it’s still an assumption if not justified.