My point is that it's not an infinite regress, it's simply circular questioning on your part. There is no regression; you're just asking the same two questions repeatedly.
He's referring to my discussion with the Jolly Nihilist. But maybe he wasn't paying attention.
Let's go over this again.
The statement is: Evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth.
I want to determine whether that statement is true.
I therefore subject it to its own test.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
Etc.
If you have any doubts, just keep going. And going. And going... Let me know when you reach the bottom.
At any rate, we know that the Jolly Nihilist knows something that Paul C does not.
Coherentism provides a route out of your confusion, as does skepticism. Clearly JN favours the first explanation.
ReplyDeletep.s. Neither you or Pike have demonstrated that an infinite regress is irrational.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think it's irrational, just answer my string of questions.
ReplyDeleteYou've got a ways to go yet.
Your string of questions purports to show that it is an infinite regress. It does not demonstrate that an infinite regress is irrational.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you need to address my point that both coherentism and skepticism provide routes out of the regress.
p.s. New readers should also note that Rhology raised this objection after he accepted that the laws of logic may simply be a brute fact. He believes that this infinite regress is an argument against that brute fact, but it is not. If his argument is sound (which it is not - it does not account for a priori knowledge, coherentism or skepticism), it only argues against our ability to fully know the laws of logic - not that those laws exist as a brute fact.
ReplyDelete