Introduction to Critical Rationalism

[LMD]

@actually_thinking

@LMD

I don’t understand what you mean here. I may not really know what context dropping is. Would you help me understand how what I’ve said is context dropping?

To simplify it maximally, the context is that I exist. If you say that I don’t then are dropping the context.

So, am I right that you think I said or implied that you don’t exist, and that that was what dropped the context?

@actually_thinking

Saying that it is a rock is synonymous with saying it is true it is a rock and also that it is certain that it is a rock.

@actually_thinking

Does CR say that these statements are different? 1. It is a rock. 2. It has the identity of a rock. 3. It is certain that it is a rock. 4. It is true that it is a rock. To me, all four sentences say the same thing.

I think 1, 2, and 4 mean the same thing. Or at least I think in most contexts 4 is implied when you state 1.

But, for my concept of certainty, 3 doesn’t mean the same thing as the others at all, and it is never implied by them.

You seem to be saying that your concept of truth and certainty are same concept? That they are synonymous. That makes some things make more sense. I think I sensed this earlier:

@LMD

I think maybe what you mean is that we need to hold some things as true when we are reasoning? Like, that we need to make assumptions in order to reason? But our assumptions don’t need to be certain; they can just be guesses. You can just guess that e.g you and the physical world exists. Your reasoning will work out just fine if that’s true. Truth and certainty aren’t the same thing, do you agree?

So what if translate what you said here:

@actually_thinking

I can’t see the reason to not acknowledge some things as being certain.

to this:

• I can’t see the reason to not acknowledge some things as being true.

Do those two sentences mean the same thing to you?