Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Münchhausen trilemma

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 80 posts

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#11

Post by arf »

Let the set M = {circular, regressive, axiomatic} to be the set of "unsatisfying" arguments that may be used to prove any truth.

Let the mapping J: powerset(M) -> to map some subset of M to a theory of justification such that the believers in said theory only find usage of some combination of the said subset to be "acceptable".

Then:

J({}) is in {Skepticism}

J({circular}) is in {Coherentism}

J({axiomatic}) is in {Foundationalism}

J({regressive}) is in {Infinitism}

J({axiomatic, circular}) is in {Foundherentism}

J(M) is in {Quietism}

Is there an x where x is in the powerset of M, such that J(x) is {}? Or literally every possible position can be the foundation of a philosophical paper?

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#12

Post by blackbrokkoli »

JepZ wrote: post #4

I wonder why they argue that way, when it seems obvious that you need some common ground to start reasoning at all. As we all start living in this world without any knowledge, all knowledge has been formed by the things we experience. And therefore, many of us agree to argue based on our (measurable) experiences (e.g. scientists). Others prefer to add beliefs which are wildly subjective (hard to reproduce) and theref…

It's not as easy as that.

First we don't start from zero. If you would build a robot with all human senses but erased hard drive it wouldn't do anything, ever.

Second, while applied in RL, science might be labeled as "objective" and therefore be superior for, let's say, building a bridge. But on a very basal level, we're subjectively agreeing on what "scientific" is, or rather based on non-proofable paradigms, which is what the article is about

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#13

Post by blackbrokkoli »

cousin_it wrote: post #9

The question "why should claim X be trusted?" indeed runs into infinite regress and has no well-founded answer. But the modified question "why should claim X be trusted by creature Y?" can have a well-founded answer, based on facts about creature Y.

Why is that? You would rely on the third option, basing on axioms, no?

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#14

Post by cousin_it »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #13
cousin_it wrote: post #9

The question "why should claim X be trusted?" indeed runs into infinite regress and has no well-founded answer. But the modified question "why should claim X be trusted by creature Y?" can have a well-founded answer, based on facts about creature Y.

Why is that? You would rely on the third option, basing on axioms, no?

Axioms accepted by creature Y.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#15

Post by gerbilly »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #12
JepZ wrote: post #4

I wonder why they argue that way, when it seems obvious that you need some common ground to start reasoning at all. As we all start living in this world without any knowledge, all knowledge has been formed by the things we experience. And therefore, many of us agree to argue based on our (measurable) experiences (e.g. scientists). Others prefer to add beliefs which are wildly subjective (hard to reproduce) and theref…

It's not as easy as that. First we don't start from zero. If you would build a robot with all human senses but erased hard drive it wouldn't do anything, ever. Second, while applied in RL, science might be labeled as "objective" and therefore be superior for, let's say, building a bridge. But on a very basal level, we're subjectively agreeing on what "scientific" is, or rather based on non-proofable paradigms, which…

> First we don't start from zero.

There is strong evidence that humans, and most animals are born with built in knowledge and expectations about the world.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#17

Post by DanielBMarkham »

humanrebar wrote: post #2

In the situations where Münchhausen trilemma is applicable, people tend to use a version of abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning It's important to keep the Münchhausen trilemma and abductive reasoning in mind when discussion controversial issues where one side feels they have proof and the other side is…

We should teach abduction and Bayesian reasoning as part of a normal education. Epistemology overall is more of a collegiate/post-grad subject, but we have to provide some kind of foundation in epistemology. Otherwise we end up with a lot of kids who have tied their self-worth to knowing "science", but it's more of a slogan and catch-all phrase than something they can continue to build on. (Aside from the actual practice of whatever scientific field they end up in. Even then, we see in several fields epistemological problems rearing their heads -- and the leading practitioners clueless about what to do about it. Usually re-inventing the wheel in some ad-hoc fashion.)

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#18

Post by boxy310 »

gerbilly wrote: post #15
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as easy as that. First we don't start from zero. If you would build a robot with all human senses but erased hard drive it wouldn't do anything, ever. Second, while applied in RL, science might be labeled as "objective" and therefore be superior for, let's say, building a bridge. But on a very basal level, we're subjectively agreeing on what "scientific" is, or rather based on non-proofable paradigms, which…

> First we don't start from zero. There is strong evidence that humans, and most animals are born with built in knowledge and expectations about the world.

I found it simply fascinating when I learned that Blue Wildebeests are born knowing how to stand within minutes of their birth, and within a day can outrun adult hyenas:

"Extremely precocial species are called "superprecocial". Examples are the Megapode birds, which have full flight feathers and which, in some species, can fly on the same day they hatch from their eggs. Another example is the Blue Wildebeest, whose calves can stand within an average of six minutes from birth and walk within thirty minutes; they can outrun a hyena within a day."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocial

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#19

Post by catach »

JepZ wrote: post #4

I wonder why they argue that way, when it seems obvious that you need some common ground to start reasoning at all. As we all start living in this world without any knowledge, all knowledge has been formed by the things we experience. And therefore, many of us agree to argue based on our (measurable) experiences (e.g. scientists). Others prefer to add beliefs which are wildly subjective (hard to reproduce) and theref…

> I wonder why they argue that way, when it seems obvious that you need some common ground to start reasoning at all.

The compulsion to defend the castle arises despite the foundation of the castle being built on sand.

Or:

It sure would be nice if Truth was also convenient.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#20

Post by adrianmonk »

subroutine wrote: post #16

I feel like a better, formal proof of this concept is Gödel Incompleteness, given this lemma, if true, would in turn invalidate itself.

Seems like a wash to me. It wouldn't invalidate itself any more than it would invalidate other alternatives to it.
Post reply on HN