Not about potatoes

[wmontanez]

This forum has been interestingly transformed in a sort of back and forth arguments that some days I find amusing and entertaining so in that note I want to let you this post about something completely unrelated to potatoes but at the same time is related to this very topic of discussion.

The Münchhausen Trilemma
This comes from the tale of a person that pulled himself and his horse from a swamp he got into by pulling himself from his own hair.

Another good one is the so called Agrippa's Trilemma
This one states the impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

In that spirit let’s ask ourselves “ How do I know that something is true?” we can provide proof, yet the same question can be asked of the proof we provide and any subsequent proof of the proof or the original proof.

For the Münchhausen Trilemma one has 3 options when providing proof in this situation
1. Circular argument
->Here the theory and proof support each other (we repeat ourselves)

2. Regressive argument
->Here each proof requires further proof (infinitum redundancy where one keep providing proofs forever)

3. Axiomatic argument
->Here we part from accepted precepts (that something is wrong or true) and one reach a state of assumption or certainty (one convinces him or herself)

For the Agrippa's Trilemma
All justifications while one pursuit any knowledge have to justify the means how one reaches that justification and in doing so one has to justify any new means to justify the original justification. Therefore there cannot be an end.
Also one can decide to stop once one gets self-evidence and decide that common sense is proof and justification but on doing so the original intention to get justification is abandoned.
Then WE only have a mere choice but to have the impossibility to prove any certain truth that in itself is not a proof. One need to assume some basic rules of logical inference for getting to this conclusion and in doing that have to abandon the pursuit to reach certain justification. So that truth that one believes has to be taken as true as long as nobody else comes forward with another truth that is scrupulously justified as truth.

In conclusion using this reasoning one can saw “I am right and you are wrong” because I am right so in conclusion you are wrong. And the argument will be circular forever.

I have a fun way to illustrate this concept above. See: “The write off” from the comedy show Seinfield http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ and/or Sheldon’s example on the comedy show “The Big Bang Theory” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...DEOtiSLI#t=24s

I am now curious and will wait for a lot of comments and comebacks that would support or deny my original statement.

[RebelRidin]

Wendy-

Your trilemas present me with a dilema. I choose gray

__________________________________________________ ____

P.S. Do you know anything about strawberry sap beetles?

[wmontanez]

strawberry sap beetles?

no sorry nothing