Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Field II 373ff
Epistemic Puzzles/Pollock/Putnam/Lewis/Field:
Part 1:
E.g. supposing we realize that our empirical methods in the past were not very reliable. - Then we also assume this for the future. - So we should change.
Problem: the method due to which we may have found out this cannot be more reliable than our present basic method. - It uses itself for its investigation.
Wrong solution: meta method.
>Levels/order, >Description Levels.
Part 2:
Part 2 says, that part 1 is contradictory: how can our method say, we you should not follow it? Conclusion:
1. We cannot accept our methods as refutable
2. We even have to do it - FieldVs: new discoveries must not be an argument against the old rule.
The old rule is not the most basic, but an induction.
>Rules, >Induction, cf. >Measurements.
Furthermore it would be double-counted when the new observation would both change the initial adoption and at the same time would also count as evidence along with a new assumption. - The most basic rule must be empirically irrefutable.
>Observation, >Initial assumptions, >Hypotheses, cf. >Certainty, cf. >Axioms, cf. >Initial conditions, >Reference systems.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.