This person argues that mathematics and science are meaningles -from THERE epistemological criteria?

Question

The philosophy books on this site claim that all science all mathematics all philosophy in fact all products of human thinking and thought collapes into meaninglesness. Logic itself collapses itself into meaninglessness. Logic is not an epistemic condition for the discovery of truth as it reduces everythhing including itelf to self-contradiction or meaninglessness. Nihlism is infact meaningless even meaninglessness ends in meannglessness We are left with nothing but chaos and uncertainty . By the very tools we use to discover truth ie logic these tool lead to their own collapse into meaningles and every other prodiuct of human thinking All categotries all ethics all clasificationary systems in fact every thing collapse into meaninglessness. in terms of the very tools ie logic we hope to give meaning with . How maths and sxcience work becomes a mystery
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/gamahucher_press_catalogue.htm

Answer 1

"Blind Faith," unfortunately, tends to make all logic and reality "meaningless."

Answer 2

Wow. Thanks so much for the site. These books seem super-interesting and I'm going to take a look at them.

It seems your problem is best represented by the epistemological debate between a concept called "foundationalism" ("the view that knowledge is possible only if some items serve as a certain foundation for the rest," according to http://www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm ) versus one called "anti-foundationalism." You - like many others, including myself - wonder how humans can know anything at all when anti-foundationalist beliefs (those expressed in the books you describe) cause all knowledge to crumble back into "meaninglessness" or total subjectivity. Anti-foundationalism claims that all knowledge we have is based on shaky ground - it is circular and can always be questioned, and is therefore only provisionally "true," or "true" in only a particular context and only to a certain point, and that knowledge only exists in the human mind anyway and so cannot exist outside of it.

According to Wikipedia:

"Foundationalists generally tend to argue that there must be some set of epistemologically basic propositions or else (in the case of anti-foundationalism) the process of justification will always lead to Agrippa's Trilemma, which ends in either an infinite regress, a dogmatic stopping point, or a circular argument, none of which are logically valid."

It's hard to say which is closer to right. While I realize that the world would be a total mess and disaster if we had no foundational "rules" to follow or reliable knowledge to go by, and I realize that foundationalism is a more useful view for research in general, I still have anti-foundationalist tendencies. In the long run, none of us knows what's going on anyway. Perhaps we will never know - not even after death.

More reading:
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Foundationalism

Answer 3

Well, just because the writer doubts everything, including logic, does not mean he's a good philosoph. Actually, it rather means he has not read good philosophs or ignores their achievements.
Cognito ergo sum. If I think, I exist and that is true.
Logic is a set of simple rules how to make conclusions in my mind. Basic rules are simple and deal not how to get to the truth, but how to deal with "facts". Science works because it predicts. As long as the prediction gives results, the science is true.

When I drop a stone it will fall. Logic says that if it has fallen before and no new forces are introduced, it will fall again. Science explains gravity. Maybe the gravity law is quite wrong (likely), maybe the stone will not fall at some point (very unlikely), but even the writer will watch not to be on the stone's path.

Answer 4

i might make point out that that is "good judgment" which you're using in coming to the tip you have. the tip effect of what you have reported is actual. no remember what mankind does throughout this existence, it shall finally be destroyed. that is subsequently that mankind seeks the writer of what we are area of. without writer giving us which means, there is none. fairly, i might propose analyzing the e book of St. John interior the recent testomony of the Bible. it promises you an answer for what you seek for.

Answer 5

And yet these people, who say that truth and falsehood have no objective meaning will tell you that these are their TRUE belief. Go figure.