That's not true tho. Not even someone with a reductive, Humean account or reason would accept that. Reason can work out consequences of hypotheses without affirming them.
-
-
The other option is epistemic nihilism. You can work tentatively without holding any to be true, but if you ever lay claim to having definite knowledge you need to.
-
but the point is that you can do extensive logical analysis of the relationship between propositions before ever drawing conclusions. So reason neither requires nor is based on faith; so Carlo is wrong
-
seems implicit he meant insofar as reason is used to make any truth claims.
-
It would have to be some special kind of truth claim; again, the logical analysis of an argument does require you to assume the premises, and you can often refute a premise or a set of premises without ever assuming that a particular argument is sound
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Without
#semantics, we cannot even do philosophy. -
perhaps I should have been slightly more brusque: "but this is a fallacy of equivocation..."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.