1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Appeal to a lack of contrary evidence
« on: February 07, 2018, 07:47:08 PM »
Consider the following:
"We cannot know how much we do not know, therefore we cannot truly know anything."
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why/why not?
Another way to look at this is through the classic "brain-in-a-jar" existential Descartes du jour; "you can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed sensory information, therefore you can't prove that you know anything true and real."
How far do you stray from "I think, therefore I am?" Or, do you not even go that far?
I see the appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance, crop up a lot in the flat earth circles I dwell most often (not including this forum). I wanted to gauge where everyone stands on this philosophical question.
"We cannot know how much we do not know, therefore we cannot truly know anything."
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why/why not?
Another way to look at this is through the classic "brain-in-a-jar" existential Descartes du jour; "you can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed sensory information, therefore you can't prove that you know anything true and real."
How far do you stray from "I think, therefore I am?" Or, do you not even go that far?
I see the appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance, crop up a lot in the flat earth circles I dwell most often (not including this forum). I wanted to gauge where everyone stands on this philosophical question.