Hello from Canada! I study computer science and philosophy at the University of Waterloo. Above anything, I love mathematics. The certainty that comes from a mathematical proof is amazing, and it fuels my current position about epistemology (see below). My favourite courses for mathematics so far have been the introductory course about proofs, and a course about formal logic (the axioms of first order logic, deduction rules, etc). Philosophy has always been very interesting to me: I've taken courses about epistemology, ethics, the philosophy language; I am also currently taking a course about political philosophy, and am reading Nietzsche on the side. I also love to debate. Although I don't practice Christianity anymore, I loved debating about religion with my friends.
I have come to Less Wrong to talk about my epistemological views. It is a form of skepticism. I view (i.e. define) truth exclusively as the outcome of some rational system. I reject all claims unless they are given in terms of a rational system by which it can be deduced. Even when such a system is given, I would call the claim true only given the context of the rational system at hand and not (necessarily) under any other systems.
For example, "2 + 2 = 4" is true when we are using the conventional meanings for 2, 4, +, and =, along with a deductive system that takes expressions such as "2 + 2 = 4" and spits out true or false. On the contrary, "2 + 2 = 4" is false when we use the usual definitions of 2 and 4 and = but + being defined for x and y and the (regular) sum of x and y minus one. This is an illustration of the truth of a claim only making sense once it has precise meaning, axioms that are assumed to be true, and some system of deduction.
When a toddler sees the blue sky and asks his mother why the sky is blue and she responds with something about the scattering of light, he has a choice: either he accepts the system of scattering implies blueness, or he can ask again: "Why?" She might reply with something about molecules, etc... Eventually, the toddler seems to have two choices: either he must accept that the axioms of the scientific method are true just because or reject the whole thing for not being justified all the way through.
My view on epistemology is distinct from the above options. It wouldn't reject the whole system (useless; no knowledge) or truly believe in the axioms of the scientific method (naive; they could be wrong). It would appreciate the intrinsic nature of the ideas; that the scattering of light can imply that the sky is blue. It would view rational systems as tools that can be used and then put away, rather than thing that have to be carried around your whole life.
What do you think about this? Can you suggest any related readings?
Hello from Canada! I study computer science and philosophy at the University of Waterloo. Above anything, I love mathematics. The certainty that comes from a mathematical proof is amazing, and it fuels my current position about epistemology (see below). My favourite courses for mathematics so far have been the introductory course about proofs, and a course about formal logic (the axioms of first order logic, deduction rules, etc). Philosophy has always been very interesting to me: I've taken courses about epistemology, ethics, the philosophy language; I am also currently taking a course about political philosophy, and am reading Nietzsche on the side. I also love to debate. Although I don't practice Christianity anymore, I loved debating about religion with my friends.
I have come to Less Wrong to talk about my epistemological views. It is a form of skepticism. I view (i.e. define) truth exclusively as the outcome of some rational system. I reject all claims unless they are given in terms of a rational system by which it can be deduced. Even when such a system is given, I would call the claim true only given the context of the rational system at hand and not (necessarily) under any other systems.
For example, "2 + 2 = 4" is true when we are using the conventional meanings for 2, 4, +, and =, along with a deductive system that takes expressions such as "2 + 2 = 4" and spits out true or false. On the contrary, "2 + 2 = 4" is false when we use the usual definitions of 2 and 4 and = but + being defined for x and y and the (regular) sum of x and y minus one. This is an illustration of the truth of a claim only making sense once it has precise meaning, axioms that are assumed to be true, and some system of deduction.
When a toddler sees the blue sky and asks his mother why the sky is blue and she responds with something about the scattering of light, he has a choice: either he accepts the system of scattering implies blueness, or he can ask again: "Why?" She might reply with something about molecules, etc... Eventually, the toddler seems to have two choices: either he must accept that the axioms of the scientific method are true just because or reject the whole thing for not being justified all the way through.
My view on epistemology is distinct from the above options. It wouldn't reject the whole system (useless; no knowledge) or truly believe in the axioms of the scientific method (naive; they could be wrong). It would appreciate the intrinsic nature of the ideas; that the scattering of light can imply that the sky is blue. It would view rational systems as tools that can be used and then put away, rather than thing that have to be carried around your whole life.
What do you think about this? Can you suggest any related readings?