On Nov 21, 12:37 am, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 20, 10:02 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 7:30 am, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 19, 10:20 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why is it important to differentiate evidentialism & reliabilism? > > > > i don't know. > > > Oh. In that case I would assume that the question is meaningless. It's > > an argument between aether and phlogiston. They're both wrong. > > huh? > > someone not knowing about something does render that something > meaningless, but only to her, she surely can't claim that something as > a mumble jumble full of hard-to-accept untestable axioms, where > argumentative leaps are the kings
I meant in a case like this, where the concepts are philosophical constructs that seem to be based on a narrow, isolated set of assumptions, that I personally give them zero consideration by default. They are just different prejudices about the concept of beliefs to me. > > what can one say about the importance of a distinction, when he > doesn't even understand the meanings of the things being > distinguished? Is it really that complicated though? Evidentialism is really the assumption that propositions can be reliably related to external indexes and reliabilism is the assumption that propositions can be internally indexed by the reliability of their formation process. It think that both views are critically flawed, as they frame the construct of belief as an objective mechanism of logic rather than a subjective perceptual experience. > suppose you don't understand the meanings of democracy & aristoracy, > what can you say about the importance of their diffs? you can say it's > meaningless to you, but ones who know what they mean don't have to, or > even can't, agree with you You are assuming that because I don't care about the distinction means that I don't understand what they are about. I understand enough to know that I probably don't care about them is all. I have a completely different way of looking at the underlying nature of the thing. If I have a theory about political development which is rooted in evolutionary biology, that might cause me to see the difference between democracy and aristocracy as superficial and linguistic- conceptual, which is more or less the case I find myself in here. I think that the whole premise of either evidentialism or reliabilism is obsolete. > > don't get the entailments reversed > > i'll gladly tell you the importance, when i finally hopefully learn > the meanings of them, promise > > gee, i believed the topic that i brought here was basic in > epistemology because it's discussed in overview of the subject, but > the belief isn't justified evidently > spend some time to read the stuffs will you, it'll take only a few > minutes, especially for you Yes, please don't take my feedback on this with any kind of consensus around here. I just happened to see your questions and they got me thinking about belief. I've only started following this group a couple weeks ago. I'm sure that others who are more familiar with the academic perspective would have more valuable feedback for you - I'm only here to test my own ideas about consciousness. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
