> [Arlo previously] > The statement "every form of knowledge rests on assumptions" must > itself rest on certain assumptions. To be precise, you should say, > "according to my assumptions, every form of knowledge rests on assumptions". > > That would be correct. > > [Platt] > Is that your answer to my question? When is a form of knowledge based > on an assumption not always true? > > [Arlo] > I don't know what you are talking about, or trying to sidestep here. > Are you saying that the statement "every form of knowledge rests on > assumptions" is itself NOT based on certain assumptions? That makes > it self-contradictory!
> If it IS based on certain assumptions, than you have a paradox, like > I said, you can say "according to my assumptions, every form of > knowledge rests on assumptions" and you'd be correct. But then this > statement of absolute-ness is based on certain assumptions. So its > not really absolute, is it? > > Do _I_ know of any forms of knowledge that are not based on > assumptions? What you are asking is really "according to your > assumptions, are every forms of knowledge based on assumptions?" My > answer is yes. All this is an analogy... including this sentence. Well, at last an answer to my question. Thanks. But why do you say all this is an analogy? Analogous to what? > Every form of knowledge rests on assumptions, including this statement. > > When is a form of knowledge based on an assumption not always true? > As our assumptions change, evolve or become refined. Or are wrong to begin with. Which raises the question: What assumptions do we have about truth? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
