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.
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @ptcarlo and
working from first principles which you don't necessarily accept as true.. is still working from first principles.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ptcarlo and
if you want it to be so, fine. But this is semantics; in this sense "working from first principles" doesn't require faith, after all
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @ptcarlo and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheIllegit @ptcarlo and
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
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @ptcarlo and
seems implicit he meant insofar as reason is used to make any truth claims.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
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
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.