Daniel Barnes Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 (edited) Johnny:>The statement is "in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth" Just answer the question, is that a true statement or not?There is plenty of evidence to suggest this statement is true. There is extremely sound logic to show that it's true. Hence I believe it is true.However, just because there is good evidence and sound logic for this statement - not to mention my strong belief in it - does not guarantee that it is true. It may turn out to be false. Thus I cannot, and do not, claim it is irrefutably true. This is a perfectly logically consistent position, and is not a "fallacy" at all. This naiive Objectivist argument against skepticism is itself a fallacy, and an old one at that. As the wikipedia puts it:"A philosophical skeptic does not claim that truth is impossible (which would be a truth claim)."So now you know. In terms of getting to grips with essays like Popper's which may challenge your particular beliefs, I strongly recommend you 1) at least finish reading them before attempting to critique them, so you have at least some idea of the overall argument, and 2) do at least 5 minutes research outside of the writings of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff before declaring that such-and-such are "logical fallacies." Edited May 6, 2007 by Daniel Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now