The only way to disprove this argument is to do what P3 is saying which is to use different premises to determine the truth value of this argument's premises. — khaled
You renamed "different premises" to "different logics". — khaled
The context example is great. I now don't know whether or not I should do what's morally right or what's contextually right. And I can't know by referring to either — khaled
That's what the argument intends to show — khaled
Nihilistic relativism IS the conclusion here unless you're willing to accept arbitrary premises in which case you're still a nihilisitic relativist because you are practising P3. — khaled
I just don't agree with P4 either due to there being things such as synthetic a priori judgments or brute facts to borrow from the Principle of Sufficient Reason — Posty McPostface
My gripe with nihilism is that it is self-defeating. — Posty McPostface
Maybe this is what you mean by nihilism being self-defeating? — khaled
Defending a pivot is futile and so I'm trying to find a premise from which we can begin to reason that is not a pivot (that is completely undoubtable and must be accepted by everyone) — khaled
it seems to me that nihilism is self-defeating because it presupposes no real alternative to its own logic — Posty McPostface
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true — khaled
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise (ex: in order to refute the premise "all humans are green" one must accept the premise "visual perception is more reliable than this idiot" and the premise "I don't see green humans") — khaled
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value (I expect people to disagree and I'm waiting to see how) — khaled
P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument — khaled
P6: Consequently there is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value — khaled
At some point it becomes ridiculous to keep questioning — VagabondSpectre
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
C: Every conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value — khaled
P6 does not follow from P5. — tim wood
These are too vaguely stated to know what they mean.C1: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
C2: Every conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value — khaled
It's best to avoid saying things like this. Unless the argument is presented in formal logic, with the rule of inference used to justify each step clearly stated (eg 'Modus Tollens on lines 4 and 5'), it is easily invalidated, simply by pointing out that no formal justification has been provided for one or more of the steps. Breaking up a verbal attempt at persuasion into numbered lines does not constitute a formal proof.The only way to disprove this argument is to do what P3 is.... — khaled
If there is an infinity of possible premises, and any premise can be used to validate another premise, then there is an infinity if possible premises by which to validate premises — khaled
I'm guessing that by C1 you mean 'For any proposition P, we can find a set of premises from which that proposition follows'. That gets us nowhere however, because P is a premise from which P follows, and so is ((1=1) -> P). — andrewk
For example, would you be happy to apply it to the proposition P:'0<>0'? — andrewk
If we exclude self-contradictions, certainly for any eligible proposition, we can construct a logical theory in which it is true. But that doesn't mean that theory is useful, or has any relevance to our lives. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.