Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7747177" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean they're not using it. To take a simple example, Kant's argument is, roughly, a proof by contradiction: if he can show that &quot;It is not the case that P is the right thing to do&quot; is self-contradictory for some P, then it follows that &quot;P is the right thing to do&quot; is true. This is logical evidence. Proof by contradiction has been used to establish many, many facts in philosophy, mathematics, and the theoretical sciences, going back to Pythagoras. The question is whether Kant's particular proof by contradiction is sound. His opponents argue that there are various problems in the logic which make it break down. They may be right. You obviously believe they are. And that's fine. But it's still a debate. Kant offered evidence, the other guys rebutted it.If you don't like evidence of such an abstract nature as a proof by contradiction, well, first of all, I'd like to know what your opinion is of mathematical truth, but secondly, more sciencey-looking, empirical evidence is a part of the debate too, going all the way back to Aristotle. In fact, it's seen a resurgence in recent decades: check out Joshua Greene, Steven Pinker, or Daniel Dennett (and to a lesser extent the rest of the &quot;Four Horsemen&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7747177, member: 6683613"] Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean they're not using it. To take a simple example, Kant's argument is, roughly, a proof by contradiction: if he can show that "It is not the case that P is the right thing to do" is self-contradictory for some P, then it follows that "P is the right thing to do" is true. This is logical evidence. Proof by contradiction has been used to establish many, many facts in philosophy, mathematics, and the theoretical sciences, going back to Pythagoras. The question is whether Kant's particular proof by contradiction is sound. His opponents argue that there are various problems in the logic which make it break down. They may be right. You obviously believe they are. And that's fine. [I]But it's still a debate.[/I] Kant offered evidence, the other guys rebutted it. If you don't like evidence of such an abstract nature as a proof by contradiction, well, first of all, I'd like to know what your opinion is of mathematical truth, but secondly, more sciencey-looking, empirical evidence is a part of the debate too, going all the way back to Aristotle. In fact, it's seen a resurgence in recent decades: check out Joshua Greene, Steven Pinker, or Daniel Dennett (and to a lesser extent the rest of the "Four Horsemen"). [/QUOTE]

Verification