evan

@beingandslime.bsky.social

721 Followers 84 Following

the bluey sky above me, the blual law within me

Underdetermination: If p and q are incompatible and S lacks a rational basis for preferring p over q, then S does not know that p.
I do not know even this one thing, namely that I know nothing. I infer, however, that this is [true] both of myself and of others. Let this proposition be my battle colour—it commands my allegiance—‘Nothing is known’ If I come to know how to establish this, I shall be justified in drawing the conclusion that nothing is known; whereas if I do not know how to establish it, then all the more so—for that was what I claimed. But you will say, ‘If you know how to establish it, the opposite follows [contrariū sequetur], for you already know something.’ I, however, had already drawn the contrary conclusion before you objected [At ego cōtra prius conclusi, quam tu argueres]. Now I begin to upset the argument: it already follows from this that nothing is known [Ex hoc ipso iam sequitur, nil sciri]. Perhaps you have failed to grasp my meaning and are calling me ignorant, or a quibbler. You have told the truth; but I have a better right to say this of you, since you have failed to understand. So we are both ignorant. This being so, you have unwittingly arrived at the conclusion I was looking for. If you have understood the ambiguity of the inference [ambiguitatem consequentiae], you have clearly perceived that nothing is known; if not, then ponder, make a distinction, and untie this knot for me. Sharpen your wits; I am following you closely. (Sanches 1988, trans. Thomson. 1 with modifications)