[mikema63]

A priori reasoning isn't based on experience. It's explicitly defined as reasoning from things that are believed to be true independent of experience.

[ness31]

Yes, but the very word priori or prior, from before is indicative of a past experience, a precedent. It is self evident. How can something that is self evident not be based in experience?

*chases tail, stops and wags*

[mikema63]

It means before experience.

Something a priori true would be something you could know to be true without having to actually experience anything.

Tautalogies are an easy example, all bachelor's are unmarried is true because bachelor's are defined as unmarried. You don't have to make any observations to know that kind of thing. Things like 1=1 would be the same. You don't need to actually test that to know it's true.

[ness31]

Mike, please don't lose patience with me..

So it's a distinction being 'personal' in character? Regarding the individual?

Because at some point in history, someone did test, through experience, that one and one was two. Someone did actually test through experience, that the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening.

So a priori reasoning relates to the individual? Is that it?

[mikema63]

No not really. 1=1 is true not because it's tested but because outside time and space and a human mind a thing has to be what it is, even if we can't convince or know about it. 1 can't not be 1.

I should add that there can also be things we assume to be true outside of experience. I assume that my perceptions map onto some kind of shared reality for instance, even though I can't definitively prove that.

[ness31]

So what's next on the agenda?

[mikema63]

Anaswad is reading the piece, and then if no one else jumps in we can try and decide collectively. Or if no on wants to bother I can just throw something out there again.

[Vlerchan]

No not really. 1=1 is true not because it's tested but because outside time and space and a human mind a thing has to be what it is, even if we can't convince or know about it.

I don't see a reason for the Law of Identity to hold outside of time and space. Nevertheless,

The understanding I have of a priori is that it is specifies knowledge or truth deducted through formal reasoning. For example, if (1) x < 3 then (2) -INF < x <= 2, where the second claim can be deduced from the former. I had figured identities such as 1 = 1 were excluded, but I might be wrong.

[mikema63]

*shrug* I study biology, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Just a guess but since the concept of 1 isn't really subject to time or space I don't see why it couldn't be true outside it.

[B0ycey]

Right @mikema63, every attempt to read this and after a minute I'm bored to tears. Peirces writing style is not for me. So rather then do readings, take a topic (This week's being...) 'The fixation of Belief', give a premise to the topic (this weeks being...), 'Does everyone concieve themselves proficient in the art of reasoning?' and ask members what their opinions are on the weeks notion. I'll go first...

People won't ever admit it, but their opinions tend to be influenced by foreign sources rather than personal experiences. And once they have established an opinion, it is very hard to alter it, even if you supply facts and information that makes their opinions very unjust indeed. Even intelligent and highly educated people with extreme ideology seem oblivious, obtuse and ignorant to facts when they contradict their ideology. Also, people very rarely admit they are wrong, even when shown evidence that pretty much proves they are wrong. They will try and change the topic to something else or manipulate the subject to enhance their false claims. This being the case, it is clear that most (if not all) people do consider themselves proficient in the art of reasoning. They consider their opinions to be reasoning and paramount to logic. However, what I have learnt about opinion is that it can never be right or wrong. An opinion is just that. An opinion. So in reality, nobody is actually proficient in the art of reasoning, because what is reasoning for one person is bias propaganda to someone else.

[Vlerchan]

I think B0ycey has it right, that just choosing topics to discuss, with not commitment towards reading bad prose attached, might better facilitate discussion.

I am in more-or-less agreement with his commentaries, too. I think part of it is ego, and part of it is plain confirmation bias. But, to add to it, I think that some amount - and perhaps a significant amount - is probably quite rational. Given that the quality of any information source is uncertain to a degree, individuals must make decisions about weighting information on a basis qualities or characteristics that are distinct from its truth-value. If we believe that our prior opinions are correct - and we mostly do I presume - then the most efficient rule would be to simply weight the salience of information inputs on the basis of its relationship with your priors.

Though, I do disagree with this point.

owever, what I have learnt about opinion is that it can never be right or wrong. An opinion is just that. An opinion. So in reality, nobody is actually proficient in the art of reasoning, because what is reasoning for one person is bias propaganda to someone else.

Even if the method through which one comes to an opinion is faulty, that does not lead to the opinion itself being incapable of holding some truth-value. So long as we are willing to accept that there is a 'correct' and 'incorrect' we must, necessarily, accept that some opinions are 'correct' and some opinions are 'incorrect'.

*shrug* I study biology, take what I say with a grain of salt.

I study economics so I'm far from an authority either.

Just a guess but since the concept of 1 isn't really subject to time or space I don't see why it couldn't be true outside it.

I'm less inclined to disagree with the idea that 1 exists outside of time and space (hereafter: the universe)*, than that it is necessarily the case that 1 = 1. I see no reason to presume that the Law of Identity - i.e. that A is A or 1 = 1 - binds as it does in our universe. In fact, I don't think we can reasonably ascribe any laws or constraints otherwise to that outside this universe, which is one of the main reasons I see reasoning about the creation of the universe - which implies a time before - as entirely futile - we can't reason about it, literally.

---

* In fact, the Principal of Explosion, if you accept it, would necessitate it does.

[One Degree]

Personally, I prefer the short readings.

[ness31]

Y'all stop being lazy and do the reading It's good to force yourself to read stuff you neither want or need to. It sharpens your analytical skills.

Unless you're in college or whatever and you have enough reading to do...then you're excused..

[mikema63]

I like that the readings ground the discussion. None of us are professional philosophers so something needs to be the source for understanding.

I'm not opposed to doing audio discussion or lectures.

[ness31]

Ooh, love when important stuff is on audio. First thing I do is listen to it so as to know what to focus on when reading it.
Having said that, I listened to Nietzsches Thus Spoke Zarathustra and as enjoyable as it was I had no inclination to then read it