Zelalem Mekonnen
Member since March 2025
Badges
Activity
#1646 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoCriticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
Fire purifies gold, but it isn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is."
#1649 · Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 days agoSo the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.
I thought ellipsis was including the []. But it isn't.
Ayn Rand claims that"The"[t]he virtue of *Rationality* means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
#1635 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 days agoThat quote is better but still not quite right. You’d want to end it not in a dangling comma, but in an ellipsis to indicate that you’re cutting the sentence short. Try changing it to:
"The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge […]." This is wrong etc.
Then, in the section “Do the comments still apply?”, be sure to deselect the criticisms that your edit addresses.
So the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.
Ayn Rand claims that "The virtue of *Rationality* means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source ofknowledge,"knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
#1634 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 days agoIn other situations, I would agree. For example, back when I was first learning how to code, I made it a point to type code from tutorials manually to retain it better.
But with quotes it’s different because retaining the literal letter matters. Typing it manually is too error prone and there’s no compiler (except Quote Checker) to catch errors.
Point taken. It is copy/pasted now.
The source of knowledge is myths. Reason criticizes them and we get myths that are testable (if knowledge about the physical world), hard to vary and make some assertion about reality. Popper highlighted the myth and testable nature of scientific knowledge, and Deutsch highlights hard to vary and explanation/assertion nature of knowledge.
#1619 · Dennis Hackethal, 5 days agoThat’s technically a misquote of Rand. https://www.quote-checker.com/diffs/checking-ayn-rand-quote-re-rationality
How did that happen? Did you not copy/paste?
I didn't copy/paste, no. I try not to whenever possible. It helps with paying attention to the detail.
Ayn Rand claims that"the"The virtue ofrationality*Rationality* means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source ofknowledge."knowledge," This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
Ayn Rand claims that "the virtue of rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
The above statement is correct. But instead of "conditional" I would rather use "contextual" or at the right level of abstraction. If we're talking about math, we don't need to bring in other subjects by fiat. Within math, 1+1 = 2 is 100% true. Of course that is in the context of the things being added are identical and the + sign is said to mean "collecting" or "adding." Now, this doesn't mean 1+1=2 is unquestionable, someone might say "what if we are adding an apple and an orange?" And this also doesn't mean that we get this empirically, it is still a guess. You can also know more about it. Like Brett talks about the Peano's axiom. At that point, you are going in more detail, which might be needed if it solves your problem.
My understanding so far is fallible means anyone can be wrong, which means that there is something to be right about, and as such one can be 100% right. y as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about. And at that point, you go with what solves your problem, unless your problem is finding ideas that are 100% true, in which case the best you can do is guess how that idea can be false.