Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.nic.surfnet.nl!sun4nl!cwi.nl!olaf
From: olaf@cwi.nl (Olaf Weber)
Subject: Re: The Search For Truth
Message-ID: <D8rJ72.LDA@cwi.nl>
Sender: news@cwi.nl (The Daily Dross)
Nntp-Posting-Host: havik.cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
References: <mike.799620809@mik.uky.edu> <D8B1q2.Cp5@cwi.nl>
	<3p1qsj$bj9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <D8MBM0.2pu@cwi.nl>
	<3pejaj$4i2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 07:23:31 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:28175 sci.philosophy.meta:18190 sci.philosophy.tech:18079

In article <3pejaj$4i2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) writes:
> In article <D8MBM0.2pu@cwi.nl>, Olaf Weber <olaf@cwi.nl> wrote:

>> Consider the following statement:

>> (1)	Napoleon ate an egg on the day before the battle of Waterloo.

>> [ ... ]

> you're talking epistemology, not metaphysics.

In fact, a bit of both.

The assumption that there is a fact of the matter, that the statement
is either true or false, is metaphysical.

The argument that this statement is `underdetermined' _in our context
of knowledge_, is epistemological.  It is a methodological assumption
on how a context of knowledge should be contructed.

>> [ ... ]

> you've dervied a falsehood from a falsehood.  so?

It is not good epistemology to do so.  The example was meant to
demonstrate that in epistemology, a single falsehood doesn't imply
that all knowledge is invalid, but rather that specific parts need to
be reconsidered.

>> [ ... ]

> i don't argue that such systems may have value in real-world
> epistemological discussions.  they have no meaning to the
> theoretical world mathematics, however, which is _my_ area of
> primary interest.

Well, that is not completely true.  The metaphysical assumption that
any statement in mathematics is either true or false gives only
limited help in determining the actual truth or falsehood.  (It
justifies the methodological assumption that if a statement is shown
to be false, its negation is true.)  But when you start talking about
what is known to be true or false, you land in the epistemology of
mathematics, with all its consequences.

-- Olaf Weber
