primemover

Something Michael said that's worth repeating.... "In the classic example: "I have observed several white swans, therefore all swans are white," is a misuse of induction. The correct use is: "I have observed several white swans, therefore white swans exist as a category of reality."

I like Francois Tremblay's example..something like... Nutrition IS necessary for survival. If man chooses to survive, he OUGHT to obtain nutrition. A moral ought from a fact. next?

Do you understand what Bob said about background radiation? I don't understand what you are replying to. So the universe had a start. The only thing I know of that probably didn't have a start is existence itself, because non-existence only exists as a concept juxtaposed to the concept of existence. Reality has substance. Non-existence has zip. Something existed before the Big Bang or it was something out of nothing, a contradiction. So, where in all this is math leading the reality horse? And how much more top-down can you get than with reality exists, A is A? Everything, knowledge-wise, starts with observation. After induction, deduction, but I see the temptation to let the latter run off on its own resulting in all kinds of nonsense. --Brant This is my position as well. Causality assumes existence and is only possible within existence. To discuss the how is to enter into science and out of philosophy.

I don't see a problem with multiple universes or string theory in regard to Objectivism. The totality of existence is the totality of existence, period. If this universe we live in is a cause from something yet to be discovered then so be it. One things is for sure, it wasn't a conscious cause.

Yes, Hume and Descartes mainly. What draws people to it? Perhaps because it is emotionally satisfying in a way that a theist is emotional satisfied by thinking a magic man in the sky is watching them.

Worthy of quotation from Victor.

no..go take a reading comprehension class then go read Hume and see what he says about it. Hume does not say that you can't derive ethical premises from facts.

The scientific method works fine. And why do you think that is? Why isn't it that majority consensus or authority validates truths? The very foundation for the scientific methods rest on the very idea that A is A and that existence has primacy over consciousness.

No that is not what Peikoff says. He says that if you form your concepts properly, new information adds to the previous information. No, a new variable for time ( how fast your are moving through time) is what was discovered. Newtons work was very important for expanding on this knowledge. I could have swore he was asking you for your definition of "knowledge".

Rather the Objectivist explanation is correct or not is another topic. The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

Not whatever one thinks. Some propositions will have more evidence for them or be more likely than other ones and it is a good idea to realize the difference. Ok so you agree that there is a method for determining what constitutes knowledge and what doesn't?

When I am not certain about something I am careful not to say I know such is the case and then I may state what I think a good probability of what the case might be . But I never claim that I know something and simultaneously not sure about it. Again with this wishy washy definition of knowledge to be whatever one thinks. No , in that if I find out I was wrong about X, then I am honest and say "well damn I guess I didn't know about how X functions after all." I wouldn't still claim to know how X functions. Bu then again, I would have said that I was under the impression that X functioned that way.

You seem to see a bit too often all kinds of emotions in other people, do you think it would invalidate their arguments, while you have no emotional commitments at all? In this case my statement is just the advice to use a sensible definition of "knowledge". You shouldn't take words like "certain" out of their context, which is the common error in this kind of (hardly original) questions. Your definition of knowledge seems to be whatever one thinks, period.

Again with your strawmen. Has any Objectivist claimed to know the future? Again with your future business! are you sure? Yea a great indicator of the truth of something is how old it is or by how many people think it is true.:thumbsup: