Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6849855" data-attributes="member: 42582">You realise that the reason Wikipedia uses "probably" or "presumptively" correct is because it is contrasting with demonstrably correct, in the sense of demonstrated by deductively valid inference?No non-deductive argument can ever establish more than a probability or a defeasible case for its conclusion. [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION] makes just this point not far upthread by pointing out, for instance, that there is no demonstrative proof that all my experience is not hallucination.I take it that you now accept, at least, that there is no general invalidity or unsoundedness in appealing to authority, familiarity or experience to establish a point?I also note that you now use  the word absolute. What does that mean? It's not a standard term for describing the relationship between premises and conclusion in describing and contrasting various forms of demonstrative and non-demonstrative argument.The basic point remains, as I stated upthread and as Wikipeida itself also indicates (and how could it indicate anything else, given the obviousness of the point?): testimony is a reliable source of knowledge, provided that the person whose testimony one is relying on knows what s/he is talking about.I really don't get it.I wrote a post describing a certain sort of conduct - namely, acting in a way so as to thwart the actor's own goals/interests - as irrational. You disputed my usage of irrational, asserting that it is confined in such circumstances to describing akratic behaviour.I pointed out that dictionary.com itself lists usages of the sort I used - namely, behaviour which is not in accord with reason or is lacking in sound judgment. I also pointed out that my usage is one that I, and other academic lawyers and philosophers, use in going about our professional discussions.I've just now noticed the following instances of contemporary usage on <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irrational?s=t" target="_blank">dictionary.com</a>, which is very similar to my usage:It was not irrational for Gingrich to believe the press had it in for him.In this case, irrational clearly does not mean "at odds with the person's own beliefs or judgment": if it did, then the statement would be trivially true (because if Gingrich believes X, then it is trivial to assert that it is not inconsistent with his belief to believe X). It means contrary to reason or unsupported by reasons.Yet you continue to insist that my usage was in error, and now have made up or conjectured a controversy among academics that means I am not a reliable source as to what permissible usage of the word might be!Do you have any evidence for the existence of this controversy?Furthermore, even suppose such a controversy existed: it would still follow that there is a body of English speakers who use "irrational" as I did! Which would, in itself, be enough to establish the permissibility of my usage!</blockquote>

Verification