Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’.
Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality).
If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it.
There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’.
Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal).
Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories.
I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments.
So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.