In which logic eats itself

[nornagon]

A proposition (the Münchhausen Trilemma) that proves that nothing can be proven

Comments

[certifiedwaif]

I remember being rather disappointed by that when I studied epistemology last year, but it's the best we can do. We have to rely on induction if we want to generalise any of our observations about the world.
I remember being pretty taken aback when my philosophy lecturer said that we had no reason to believe in Ockham's Razor except a "strong epistemological hunch".

[bdonlan]

Of course, Gödel goes even further to prove that, could one prove the consistency and correctness of a system of logic in itself, this very fact would demonstrate the system of logic to be inconsistent (of course, the system of logic he used could be inconsistent, in which case this proof would also be false...)

[squire_lachlan]

That assumes that the aim is perfect knowledge. Every good fallibilist will tell you that hard reason is a tool, not an all-singing, all-dancing, all-proving formula. Doesn't mean it's useless.

Anyone who searches for absolutes will only find progressively better generalisations. Fortunately, better generalisations are exceedingly useful.

[nornagon]

In fact it doesn't assume anything about the aim, it only tells you that to pursue absolute logical truth is useless.