PLEASE ANSWER THIS!!! do you agree with this???

Question

do you think that if an idea is foundationless it is wrong?

for example lets say theres an idea in which it is necesserily incoherent and it is foundationless in order for it to be logicaly consistent to itself. does this mean that the thoery is flawed??

and since the thoery is logicaly consistent to itself it cannot be 100% refuted. however if you dissect the idea and what is based on then it is proven wrong.

solipsism is the perfect example. tons of refutations but not proven wrong. even though it has no real foundation. it is a self contradicting theory. it is an idea with no base.

Answer 1

No; it is just irrelevant. Without a foundation, an idea is idle speculation; it could be correct, or not. It is not correct to say that a theory becomes irrefutable if it is self-consistent; that does not impose consistency between it and the world at large.

Answer 2

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason. However, logic has its limitation:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.

The solipsists use emotional mind - it does not have
this limitation.

Answer 3

I'm not really smart enough to know the answer to this question, but I'll give you what's in my mind about it, just for the heck of it! ;-)

An idea can be right, and yet for whatever reason, be unprovable. So I think an idea without any visible foundation might possibly be right. The only thing is, you can not KNOW that it's right, if there is no evidence or foundation for the idea. And you would have the problem of explaining why you chose to believe in an idea if it cannot possibly be known to be correct.

Answer 4

How can a theory that is foundationless , has no base, be inconsistent ? or consistent ? Proving that a theory is consistent / inconsistent implies that it has some base. A theory without foundation is meaningless, its like saying that A is B without specifying what B or A is. It is a theory of words without any meaning.

Don H
This is exactly what I mean.
You dont define solid. You assume its something we all understand. Next you 'prove' that matter isnt really solid., no matter is like a ghost image

tsk tsk tsk... we dont get anywhere with vague definitions.

Answer 5

It can't be refuted because it is the truth. Much babbling and nonsense have been expended trying to disprove it over the years and all attempts to disprove the truth ultimately fail. The truth stands nicely on its own and needs no support. The only way to deny truth is to ignore the obvious and pretend that it isn't true.

It works like this.

This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual scale of the components of an atom. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons, protons and electrons of an atom actually have huge spaces between them it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space.

This alone does not seem too important till you add the idea that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.

At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that are 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that they can in no way be the seemingly solid objects they appear to be.

We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.

These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.

From this we must conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turn them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.

I hope that helps to answered your question.

Read what Heron wrote, She understands.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 6

You're giving me a headache! Tee hee

It's too early in the morning for me to think!

My gut reaction is that yes of course an idea without foundation must be wrong. Without a foundation you have nothing to build on. No structure. It would be a weak idea with no basis.

Answer 7

If it is logically consistent, it is relevant.... therefore, a foundation can then be created and not be refuted

Answer 8

no and yes

Answer 9

*Zzzzzzzzzzzzz*

Answer 10

whatever