Logic vs. Absurdity: Consequences for Absolute Certainty

Logic vs. Absurdity: Consequences for Absolute Certainty 15/12/09

What consequences might Agrippa's Trilemma have for certainty? Vagon from WeAreSMRT.com presents a brief overview.

Authored by: .


One cannot logically rule out the absurd and one cannot logically support logic with absolute certainty. This leads to the fundamental possibility that absurdity rules our existence.

Logic is not logical by any certain measure. The skeptic Agrippa is credited with outlining this problem and due to its three tier approach it is known as Agrippa’s Trilemma. The Trilemma takes the form that truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained without committing one of three fallacies:

(1)  Infinite regress (or non-solution).

(2) An uncertain, non-absolute assumption, foundation or axiom.

(3) Circular reasoning.

(1) is the overly Socratic child continually asking “why?” or classically Zeno’s “Achilles and the Tortoise” paradox. One can only get close to the answer without ever solving it: there is always another “why?” or that little bit more distance to run.

(2) is the basis that the majority of philosophies employ to justify their beliefs, retorsion/reliabilism/ a god and any other number of foundations. The problem each of these foundations has is they often appeal to popularity and belief or simply lacking proof altogether.

(3) is simply stating that it is logical to use logic, to not do so is to encourage absurdity.

The Trilemma is a simple thought exercise that leads to the profound conclusion that we cannot prove logic itself, yet the problem is not insurmountable provided you are willing to compromise. On one side we have logic, the system of processes by which we obtain reasoning in any particular situation. The key word is system. Within the system of logic a great many things can be proven certain or true yet to try and qualify the system itself is folly. On the other side we have absurdity, the notion that everything is without meaning or purpose including trying to qualify absurdity itself.

This leads us to two possibilities:

1. Either everything (including this statement) cannot be grasped, judged and subsequently utilised

or

2. Logical thought is correct and we should adhere to the principles contained within its system.

There can be no compelling reason to live a life by absurd consequences, nor try to understand anything more than their potential existence whereas the logical system binds us to reasonable thought and has agreed consequences. In other words while there is no absolutely truthful reason we can ever prove to use logic, neither is there a way to prove we should not use logic.

Therefore, while we can never be absolutely certain, we see that the system of logic is the only acceptable method for addressing our reasoning and that seeking absolute certainty at any foundational level is illogical.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    You use "truth" and "absolute certainty" synonymously when you write, "The Trilemma takes the form that truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained…" and hence the statement itself and consequently your entire argument is self-refuting as it is false if it is true.

    I am also still skeptical about your claim that Objectivists reject a claim to absolute certainty in lieu of a claim to contextual certainty, especially given (and particularly relevant in this context) the acceptance of logic as axiomatic. Are you really saying that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A"?

    • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

      Replace "in lieu of" with "and replace it with". No edit feature on comments.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    You use "truth" and "absolute certainty" synonymously when you write, "The Trilemma takes the form that truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained…" and hence the statement itself and consequently your entire argument is self-refuting as it is false if it is true.

    I am also still skeptical about your claim that Objectivists reject a claim to absolute certainty in lieu of a claim to contextual certainty, especially given (and particularly relevant in this context) the acceptance of logic as axiomatic. Are you really saying that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A"?

    • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

      Replace "in lieu of" with "and replace it with". No edit feature on comments.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    The point is my argument is systemically correct, i.e. logical. Simply because it is *possible* that logic is incorrect does not prove that it is *actually* incorrect. That is to say my argument could be self-refuting, but that would then require reality to be absurd, in which case why does it matter?

    Re Objectivist certainty. You have placed your own standard of certainty onto objectivism. The certain knowledge you ask for is not my problem, it is yours. Seeing as human knowledge is the only knowledge that exists it makes no sense to hold it up to some omniscient standard.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    The point is my argument is systemically correct, i.e. logical. Simply because it is *possible* that logic is incorrect does not prove that it is *actually* incorrect. That is to say my argument could be self-refuting, but that would then require reality to be absurd, in which case why does it matter?

    Re Objectivist certainty. You have placed your own standard of certainty onto objectivism. The certain knowledge you ask for is not my problem, it is yours. Seeing as human knowledge is the only knowledge that exists it makes no sense to hold it up to some omniscient standard.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    I am sorry Vagon, but you are making a claim about what is *actual* and not just *possible* when you write, "The Trilemma takes the form that truth, or absolute certainty, *can never be obtained*…" This is a self-refuting statement and your entire argument is based upon it.

    You write, "You have placed your own standard of certainty onto objectivism. The certain knowledge you ask for is not my problem, it is yours. Seeing as human knowledge is the only knowledge that exists it makes no sense to hold it up to some omniscient standard".

    I never wrote anything like this. I did not place my standard of certainty onto objectivism, I did not ask you for certain knowledge or even intimate anything concerning mine, and I did not attempt to hold existing knowledge up to an omniscient standard. Instead, I asked you a straightforward 'yes or no' question: Are you really saying that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A"?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    I am sorry Vagon, but you are making a claim about what is *actual* and not just *possible* when you write, "The Trilemma takes the form that truth, or absolute certainty, *can never be obtained*…" This is a self-refuting statement and your entire argument is based upon it.

    You write, "You have placed your own standard of certainty onto objectivism. The certain knowledge you ask for is not my problem, it is yours. Seeing as human knowledge is the only knowledge that exists it makes no sense to hold it up to some omniscient standard".

    I never wrote anything like this. I did not place my standard of certainty onto objectivism, I did not ask you for certain knowledge or even intimate anything concerning mine, and I did not attempt to hold existing knowledge up to an omniscient standard. Instead, I asked you a straightforward 'yes or no' question: Are you really saying that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A"?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    No need to be sorry. You’re putting forward a retorsion argument “You cant refutre logic without using it”.
    See point 2. On what basis do you justify retorsion?

    RE yes no question: Fair enough. If you’re talking some sort of mystical all-knowing absolute certainty then it doesn’t matter what you propose at a foundational level, the answer is always yes.

    I apologise if I misrepresented your position, it seemed implied to me from your comments. Let me establish that now, are you absolutely certain of anything at a foundational level? How?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    No need to be sorry. You’re putting forward a retorsion argument “You cant refutre logic without using it”.
    See point 2. On what basis do you justify retorsion?

    RE yes no question: Fair enough. If you’re talking some sort of mystical all-knowing absolute certainty then it doesn’t matter what you propose at a foundational level, the answer is always yes.

    I apologise if I misrepresented your position, it seemed implied to me from your comments. Let me establish that now, are you absolutely certain of anything at a foundational level? How?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    No you still do not get it. I am not using a retorsion argument. I do not understand why you keep seeing these assertions and arguments in the things I am writing when they are not there. I understand that Objectivism has a tendency to discourage critical thinking, so I will try to be clear.

    To state that truth can never be obtained is to make a self-refuting statement. Your argument is based upon this self-refuting statement.

    I do not know what you mean when you mention "some sort of mystical all-knowing absolute certainty". The statement appears to be mere rhetoric set forth to poison the well (an oft used trick in Objectivism). I just wanted to establish that you do not claim to have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A". I appreciate you clarifying for me that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the two Objectivist axioms I mentioned.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    No you still do not get it. I am not using a retorsion argument. I do not understand why you keep seeing these assertions and arguments in the things I am writing when they are not there. I understand that Objectivism has a tendency to discourage critical thinking, so I will try to be clear.

    To state that truth can never be obtained is to make a self-refuting statement. Your argument is based upon this self-refuting statement.

    I do not know what you mean when you mention "some sort of mystical all-knowing absolute certainty". The statement appears to be mere rhetoric set forth to poison the well (an oft used trick in Objectivism). I just wanted to establish that you do not claim to have absolute certainty concerning the Objectivist axioms such as "Existence exists" and "A=A". I appreciate you clarifying for me that you do not have absolute certainty concerning the two Objectivist axioms I mentioned.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Your understanding of Objectivism seems confused, I don’t wear Randian symbolics round my neck, nor do I kneel before a Peikoff shrine on Sundays, rest assured my critical thinking is well intact.

    The “mystical, all knowing absolute certainty” was put in not to poison the well, but to clarify that I will not pander to an unproven concept of certainty.

    This core point seems lost on you, because you keep demanding something of logic it cannot provide. I don’t think you’ll be able to understand it unless I demonstrate for you. As requested can you show how your own foundation is justified?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Your understanding of Objectivism seems confused, I don’t wear Randian symbolics round my neck, nor do I kneel before a Peikoff shrine on Sundays, rest assured my critical thinking is well intact.

    The “mystical, all knowing absolute certainty” was put in not to poison the well, but to clarify that I will not pander to an unproven concept of certainty.

    This core point seems lost on you, because you keep demanding something of logic it cannot provide. I don’t think you’ll be able to understand it unless I demonstrate for you. As requested can you show how your own foundation is justified?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    What have I written that makes you think I am confused about Objectivism? Do you think that Anthem encourages critical thinking? If your critical thinking is well intact, do you see now that your argument fails for the reason I have repeatedly pointed out? Where did I ask you to "pander to an unproven concept of certainty"? Am I correct in my assessment of your responses that you do not have absolute certainty that "Existence exists" and "A=A"? Similarly, is it correct to say that you are uncertain that you have contextual certainty? What have I written that would lead you to think that "this key point" regarding your rejection of absolute certainty is "lost on" me? Do you not understand that I am merely asking you for clarification concerning your view of certainty with respect to Objectivist axioms? What have I demanded of logic that it cannot provide? What does my "foundation" have to do with anything; why should I not just dismiss this question as a Red Herring to take attention off of the self-refuting nature of your argument?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    What have I written that makes you think I am confused about Objectivism? Do you think that Anthem encourages critical thinking? If your critical thinking is well intact, do you see now that your argument fails for the reason I have repeatedly pointed out? Where did I ask you to "pander to an unproven concept of certainty"? Am I correct in my assessment of your responses that you do not have absolute certainty that "Existence exists" and "A=A"? Similarly, is it correct to say that you are uncertain that you have contextual certainty? What have I written that would lead you to think that "this key point" regarding your rejection of absolute certainty is "lost on" me? Do you not understand that I am merely asking you for clarification concerning your view of certainty with respect to Objectivist axioms? What have I demanded of logic that it cannot provide? What does my "foundation" have to do with anything; why should I not just dismiss this question as a Red Herring to take attention off of the self-refuting nature of your argument?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Your Gish gallop is not unnoticed, nor is your continual attempt to avoid the question of your foundation.
    Re objectivism: Your “understanding” that it somehow impedes critical thinking is clearly confused.
    Re: Anthem: The core concept is that Equality 7-2521 is critically thinking!
    Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct. Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you’re trying to use on me. The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually.
    No one has absolute certainty, read the post again, if you disagree show me how you have somehow managed to obtain it.
    Contextual uncertain or absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty? If you comprehended the post you can reason my answer.
    Re red herring/foundation: you demand absolute certainty, justify that demand.

    The rest of your tirade requires me to ask you some of your one word answer questions, I’ll keep it to 3:

    Do you think repeated questioning demonstrates that you grasp the point?
    Do you understand the difference between absolute and contextual certainty?
    Can you show me how your own absolute certainty is exempt from the trilemma?

    • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

      "Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct."

      My repetition of what assertion? I don't even know what you are talking about at this point. I have shown why your argument fails and asked you to clarify how your argument is consistent with your overall position.

      "Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you're trying to use on me."

      What fallacy would that be and how have I tried to use it on you?

      "The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually."

      What does this have to do with anything? I never even used the term "fallacy", though you just did.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Your Gish gallop is not unnoticed, nor is your continual attempt to avoid the question of your foundation.
    Re objectivism: Your “understanding” that it somehow impedes critical thinking is clearly confused.
    Re: Anthem: The core concept is that Equality 7-2521 is critically thinking!
    Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct. Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you’re trying to use on me. The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually.
    No one has absolute certainty, read the post again, if you disagree show me how you have somehow managed to obtain it.
    Contextual uncertain or absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty? If you comprehended the post you can reason my answer.
    Re red herring/foundation: you demand absolute certainty, justify that demand.

    The rest of your tirade requires me to ask you some of your one word answer questions, I’ll keep it to 3:

    Do you think repeated questioning demonstrates that you grasp the point?
    Do you understand the difference between absolute and contextual certainty?
    Can you show me how your own absolute certainty is exempt from the trilemma?

    • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

      "Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct."

      My repetition of what assertion? I don't even know what you are talking about at this point. I have shown why your argument fails and asked you to clarify how your argument is consistent with your overall position.

      "Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you're trying to use on me."

      What fallacy would that be and how have I tried to use it on you?

      "The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually."

      What does this have to do with anything? I never even used the term "fallacy", though you just did.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    Asking a series of questions to clarify what your position is cannot be properly labelled as Gish gallop. My "foundation" has nothing to do with the problem inherent in your post. I don't know why this is difficult for you. I am asking you questions about *your* post and *your* position that do not involve my position on certainty, whatever it may be. Unless you can specifically show me how I am wrong about this then your alleged concern can be dismissed as nothing but a red herring. My understanding that Objectivism impedes critical thinking is not "clearly confused", as Objectivism is full of vicious circularity and nonsensical theological claims like those in Anthem.

    • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

      "Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct."

      My repetition of what assertion? I don't even know what you are talking about at this point. I have shown why your argument fails and asked you to clarify how your argument is consistent with your overall position.

      "Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you're trying to use on me."

      What fallacy would that be and how have I tried to use it on you?

      "The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually."

      What does this have to do with anything? I never even used the term "fallacy", though you just did.

      • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

        "No one has absolute certainty,"

        Where have you shown this to be the case? Are you certain of this? Since Plantinga would for the most part agree, why have you assumed that it refutes one of his arguments? I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

        "read the post again,"

        Yeah I did. It does not show anything near what you claim that it does even if it is not self-refuting (which it is).

        "if you disagree show me how you have somehow managed to obtain it."

        The burden of proof is on you to show that absolute certainty is not possible since you are the one making that claim.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    Asking a series of questions to clarify what your position is cannot be properly labelled as Gish gallop. My "foundation" has nothing to do with the problem inherent in your post. I don't know why this is difficult for you. I am asking you questions about *your* post and *your* position that do not involve my position on certainty, whatever it may be. Unless you can specifically show me how I am wrong about this then your alleged concern can be dismissed as nothing but a red herring. My understanding that Objectivism impedes critical thinking is not "clearly confused", as Objectivism is full of vicious circularity and nonsensical theological claims like those in Anthem.

    • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

      "Your repetition does nothing to make your assertion any more correct."

      My repetition of what assertion? I don't even know what you are talking about at this point. I have shown why your argument fails and asked you to clarify how your argument is consistent with your overall position.

      "Ayn Rand actually pointed out the very fallacy you're trying to use on me."

      What fallacy would that be and how have I tried to use it on you?

      "The problem is the term fallacy itself is a logical concept and only makes sense contextually."

      What does this have to do with anything? I never even used the term "fallacy", though you just did.

      • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

        "No one has absolute certainty,"

        Where have you shown this to be the case? Are you certain of this? Since Plantinga would for the most part agree, why have you assumed that it refutes one of his arguments? I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

        "read the post again,"

        Yeah I did. It does not show anything near what you claim that it does even if it is not self-refuting (which it is).

        "if you disagree show me how you have somehow managed to obtain it."

        The burden of proof is on you to show that absolute certainty is not possible since you are the one making that claim.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    "Contextual uncertain or absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty? If you comprehended the post you can reason my answer."

    If you are absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty that is fine, I just wanted to know while avoiding ascribing a position to you that you do not actually hold.

    "Re red herring/foundation: you demand absolute certainty, justify that demand."

    Please quote where I "demand absolute certainty". Those reading may review what I have written and see that at this point you are just making things up.

    "Do you think repeated questioning demonstrates that you grasp the point?"

    In this context it has demonstrated that this is the case. I am trying to get you to clarify what you are writing and trying to bring you back to what my point is so that you will quit claiming victory concerning a self-refuting argument.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    "Contextual uncertain or absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty? If you comprehended the post you can reason my answer."

    If you are absolutely uncertain of contextual certainty that is fine, I just wanted to know while avoiding ascribing a position to you that you do not actually hold.

    "Re red herring/foundation: you demand absolute certainty, justify that demand."

    Please quote where I "demand absolute certainty". Those reading may review what I have written and see that at this point you are just making things up.

    "Do you think repeated questioning demonstrates that you grasp the point?"

    In this context it has demonstrated that this is the case. I am trying to get you to clarify what you are writing and trying to bring you back to what my point is so that you will quit claiming victory concerning a self-refuting argument.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    "Do you understand the difference between absolute and contextual certainty?"

    Yes, and I asked you questions with respect to these.

    "Can you show me how your own absolute certainty"

    Where did I claim to have absolute certainty in what I have written? Again the readers may review and see that you are just making things up that I never wrote.

    "is exempt from the trilemma?"

    As already explained, the trilemma is self-refuting. This is not retorsion. This is not a claim to absolute certainty. It is a simple observation. Your argument defeats itself. I have explained why. Maybe you need to read it again.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    "Do you understand the difference between absolute and contextual certainty?"

    Yes, and I asked you questions with respect to these.

    "Can you show me how your own absolute certainty"

    Where did I claim to have absolute certainty in what I have written? Again the readers may review and see that you are just making things up that I never wrote.

    "is exempt from the trilemma?"

    As already explained, the trilemma is self-refuting. This is not retorsion. This is not a claim to absolute certainty. It is a simple observation. Your argument defeats itself. I have explained why. Maybe you need to read it again.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Okay perhaps I should have telegraphed my meaning just a little bit more for you.

    No one has absolute certainty, yes I can say this with contextual certainty. You’d understand this if you read the post in the manner in which it was intended, or if you actually comprehended the many posts after it.

    In asking if I am certain of uncertainty you are deliberately leaving out the intended meaning. It does nothing to support your critique.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Okay perhaps I should have telegraphed my meaning just a little bit more for you.

    No one has absolute certainty, yes I can say this with contextual certainty. You’d understand this if you read the post in the manner in which it was intended, or if you actually comprehended the many posts after it.

    In asking if I am certain of uncertainty you are deliberately leaving out the intended meaning. It does nothing to support your critique.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Yes it is a Gish gallop, calm down. Argument is a good thing but your endless tirade of questions and posts is not – and its deliberately time consuming.
    Does your claim my post is self-refuting have a basis other than that I cant be absolutely certain of absolute uncertainty? Do you understand that I haven’t ever claimed that I do?
    I strongly suggest you make a point that doesn’t rely on absolute certainty or you justify it in light of the trilemma. If instead you continue to waffle on I will assume you wish to remain ignorant.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Yes it is a Gish gallop, calm down. Argument is a good thing but your endless tirade of questions and posts is not – and its deliberately time consuming.
    Does your claim my post is self-refuting have a basis other than that I cant be absolutely certain of absolute uncertainty? Do you understand that I haven’t ever claimed that I do?
    I strongly suggest you make a point that doesn’t rely on absolute certainty or you justify it in light of the trilemma. If instead you continue to waffle on I will assume you wish to remain ignorant.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    "Does your claim my post is self-refuting have a basis other than that I cant be absolutely certain of absolute uncertainty?"

    Yes, if you would stop trying to refute arguments that I never made you might see this. Go back and read. Everything was in my first response which was only two short paragraphs. Remember, you started arguing for a distinction between possibility and actuality that had nothing to do with what I had written. Ever since then you have continued to miss my point.

    "Do you understand that I haven't ever claimed that I do?"

    Yes, though you repeatedly refused to answer my questions that were intended to clarify the issue.

    "I strongly suggest you make a point that doesn't rely on absolute certainty or you justify it in light of the trilemma."

    Like I have stated several times now, this "absolute certainty" thing with respect to me is irrelevant.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    "If instead you continue to waffle on I will assume you wish to remain ignorant."

    This is just more empty rhetoric offered in lieu of a defense. I am not "waffling" on anything, nor am I ignorant. Since this is devolving to such a poor level of argumentation I am going to just withdraw. I do not know how else I might explain your error to you. You present truth as synonymous with absolute certainty, say that we cannot obtain it, then offer an alleged argument to this end that can never be true.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    First of all, I am perfectly calm. It is bad enough that you keep attributing things to me that anyone can see I never wrote, you do not need to hurt your case more by attributing emotional states to me that I am not in. Quoting Wikipedia, "the Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised".
    What half-truths have I presented? Where have I lied? Where have I argued against a straw man? Don't complain that I am asking you more questions; I would answer them myself were it not for my desire to see you quote where exactly I am writing all of these things you continually accuse me of!

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    First of all, I am perfectly calm. It is bad enough that you keep attributing things to me that anyone can see I never wrote, you do not need to hurt your case more by attributing emotional states to me that I am not in. Quoting Wikipedia, "the Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised".
    What half-truths have I presented? Where have I lied? Where have I argued against a straw man? Don't complain that I am asking you more questions; I would answer them myself were it not for my desire to see you quote where exactly I am writing all of these things you continually accuse me of!

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    "Does your claim my post is self-refuting have a basis other than that I cant be absolutely certain of absolute uncertainty?"

    Yes, if you would stop trying to refute arguments that I never made you might see this. Go back and read. Everything was in my first response which was only two short paragraphs. Remember, you started arguing for a distinction between possibility and actuality that had nothing to do with what I had written. Ever since then you have continued to miss my point.

    "Do you understand that I haven't ever claimed that I do?"

    Yes, though you repeatedly refused to answer my questions that were intended to clarify the issue.

    "I strongly suggest you make a point that doesn't rely on absolute certainty or you justify it in light of the trilemma."

    Like I have stated several times now, this "absolute certainty" thing with respect to me is irrelevant.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    "If instead you continue to waffle on I will assume you wish to remain ignorant."

    This is just more empty rhetoric offered in lieu of a defense. I am not "waffling" on anything, nor am I ignorant. Since this is devolving to such a poor level of argumentation I am going to just withdraw. I do not know how else I might explain your error to you. You present truth as synonymous with absolute certainty, say that we cannot obtain it, then offer an alleged argument to this end that can never be true.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Are you really claiming that my entire argument is refuted because I used truth synonymously with absolute certainty?

    I’m happy to concede that truth could have been rephrased as “perfect truth” or some such thing, but if this has all been because of semantics I”m very surprised.

    There were nine questions in a single post. Followed by five new posts. I’ll let anyone left reading this decide if that was a drowning. I’ll also let them decide if they were rhetorical “half-truths, strawmen and bullshit”. I’ll let you reflect on if you think that constitutes a high standard of argumentation.

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Are you really claiming that my entire argument is refuted because I used truth synonymously with absolute certainty?

    I’m happy to concede that truth could have been rephrased as “perfect truth” or some such thing, but if this has all been because of semantics I”m very surprised.

    There were nine questions in a single post. Followed by five new posts. I’ll let anyone left reading this decide if that was a drowning. I’ll also let them decide if they were rhetorical “half-truths, strawmen and bullshit”. I’ll let you reflect on if you think that constitutes a high standard of argumentation.

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    They were questions which pertained to the discussion and whose subjects had already been raised during the course of the discussion. Questions generally cannot be (and those I posted certainly could not be) "half-truths, strawmen and bullshit" by their very nature. I cannot help that the comment field does not allow more text. I sometimes like to go through what someone writes, line by line. This does constitute a "high standard of argumentation". Once again the claims you make are unsupported by the quotations I have requested.

    Yes, I really am claiming that your entire argument is refuted because you used truth synonymously with absolute certainty. I have no idea what you mean by "perfect truth" unless you are now arguing with fuzzy logic as your program as well. Do you have a better defense of your argument than incredulity that I take words to have actual meaning?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    They were questions which pertained to the discussion and whose subjects had already been raised during the course of the discussion. Questions generally cannot be (and those I posted certainly could not be) "half-truths, strawmen and bullshit" by their very nature. I cannot help that the comment field does not allow more text. I sometimes like to go through what someone writes, line by line. This does constitute a "high standard of argumentation". Once again the claims you make are unsupported by the quotations I have requested.

    Yes, I really am claiming that your entire argument is refuted because you used truth synonymously with absolute certainty. I have no idea what you mean by "perfect truth" unless you are now arguing with fuzzy logic as your program as well. Do you have a better defense of your argument than incredulity that I take words to have actual meaning?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    I hope the confusion lies in my failure to beyond all doubt clarify each of my terms. I’m persisting with this because I’d honestly like to see if you can find an issue with the trilemma and the uncertainty that follows without succumbing to it.
    For future reference I’ll simply use absolute and contextual and clarify any particular sentences you have trouble with, starting with:

    “The Trilemma takes the form that (absolute) truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained without committing one of three (contextual) fallacies:”

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    I hope the confusion lies in my failure to beyond all doubt clarify each of my terms. I’m persisting with this because I’d honestly like to see if you can find an issue with the trilemma and the uncertainty that follows without succumbing to it.
    For future reference I’ll simply use absolute and contextual and clarify any particular sentences you have trouble with, starting with:

    “The Trilemma takes the form that (absolute) truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained without committing one of three (contextual) fallacies:”

  • http://www.choosinghats.com/ C.L. Bolt

    I have no trouble granting that certainty is not possible through deductive logic and believe I would be joined by Plantinga in this as well. It does not strike me as being a new or overly profound observation.

    You changed your statement to read, "The Trilemma takes the form that (absolute) truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained without committing one of three (contextual) fallacies:" which I take to be set forth as being a true proposition. In what sense is the proposition supposed to be true, since it is apparently the case that the proposition is not an absolute truth? Is the proposition relatively true?

  • http://www.choosinghats.com C.L. Bolt

    I have no trouble granting that certainty is not possible through deductive logic and believe I would be joined by Plantinga in this as well. It does not strike me as being a new or overly profound observation.

    You changed your statement to read, "The Trilemma takes the form that (absolute) truth, or absolute certainty, can never be obtained without committing one of three (contextual) fallacies:" which I take to be set forth as being a true proposition. In what sense is the proposition supposed to be true, since it is apparently the case that the proposition is not an absolute truth? Is the proposition relatively true?

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Yes I would say it is relatively true and thats the dilemma relativity offers potential falsity. In the event of being false, however, logic (in the form of the fallcies) has failed and the term “false” has no meaning.

    • Bryan

      I believe he originally was looking for a Yes/No answer and instead you answered with a question.

      • http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com rhiggs

        Erm, Vagon did not answer with a question Bryan

  • http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb Vagon

    Yes I would say it is relatively true and thats the dilemma relativity offers potential falsity. In the event of being false, however, logic (in the form of the fallcies) has failed and the term “false” has no meaning.

    • Bryan

      I believe he originally was looking for a Yes/No answer and instead you answered with a question.

  • Dizzie Dee_usc05

    If something is illogical, one can rule it out. Is it logical to say a square half the size of a circle will fit? Why not rule that illogical possibility out?

Free WordPress Theme