Posted by isaac on January 24, 2002 at 11:47:27:
In Reply to: And the actual argument... posted by Bartholomew on January 18, 2002 at 20:06:52:
: : your error checking is done when you've checked everything. examine every premise for truth-value, and every argumetn for validity.
: This is not possible. Every time one finds a part of the original argument valid, one is making the argument that that part is valid. As you say, all arguments must be checked for validity. This means that the argument that that part is valid must also be checked for validity.
: This process generates another argument, the argument that the argument that the original part is valid is valid. And so on. Every error check is itself an argument that must be checked.
eventually it resolves to the law of identity. A is A. or, it resolves to sensory acceptance. if you don't believe that reality exists, then stop trying to argue about anything, cause there's no point. if you dispute the law of identity, then don't pretend to be using logic, as you have thrown out the fundamental axiom of the logical process. eventually, the error checking will come to either accepting that reality exists, or A is A. that does not need to be checked. this is the refutation you're looking for, which i have been trying to give you from the start.
there is no infinite chain of uncertainty. it ends at objective reality and the law of identity.
isaac