[QUOTE]Find a person with a consistent belief system and you've found someone who doesn't believe anything.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;316056]There is no evidence that (all thinking) people hold inconsistent beliefs?

Find me a single person who doesn't. ;-)[/QUOTE]

So there are no unbelievers?

Fortunately, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion"]the principle of explosion[/URL] does not apply to everyday life.

Honestly, ask yourself, have you ever met someone who has a consistent belief system? It is not an easy task. It requires one to be so agnostic about life, the universe, and everything, no progress is made.

Part of life is working from the inconsistencies to more enlightenment. Finding those places in our belief structure which don't mesh and puzzling them out. Without that process, we are lumps content to non-believe almost everything.

[QUOTE=davar55;316050]Identify them by examining reality, then demostrate their fundamentalness, universality, and truth.

It's not easy, but it can be done.[/QUOTE]I disagree. I also disagree that "fundamentalness", universality, and truth are definable outside an already accepted axiomatic system.

[QUOTE=davar55;316050]Identify them by examining reality, then demostrate their
fundamentalness, universality, and truth.

It's not easy, but it can be done.[/QUOTE]

What about experimental error?

If we can't even know with absolute precision [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]both the position and the velocity vector of a single electron at the same time[/URL], how can we ever hope to resolve "reality" with absolutely certainty?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;316056]There is no evidence that (all thinking) people hold inconsistent beliefs?
Find me a single person who doesn't. ;-)[/QUOTE]

I know several at least.

Inconsistent beliefs are a result of any religious philosophy contaminating
one's logical, scientific thinking processes. If one accepts that the
principle of explosion does in fact apply to all thinking and to everyday
life as well, then making that an axiom almost assures consistency.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;316060]Fortunately, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion"]the principle of explosion[/URL] does not apply to everyday life.

Honestly, ask yourself, have you ever met someone who has a consistent belief system? It is not an easy task. It requires one to be so agnostic about life, the universe, and everything, no progress is made.
[/QUOTE]

Met? yes. Of course being consistent is not an easy task. It requires
effort to not make any fundamental errors, like religion and the BBT.
And it requires the rejection of fundamental agnosticism too.
Agnostic on ideas means IDK or I can't know and impedes progress.
But starting with consistency in philosophy, the basis of knowledge,
all science can be grounded consistently.

[quote]Part of life is working from the inconsistencies to more enlightenment. Finding those places in our belief structure which don't mesh and puzzling them out. Without that process, we are lumps content to non-believe almost everything.[/quote]This I basically agree with.
But they CAN be puzzled out, by reason, and then the old inconsistencies
fade away.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;316062]I disagree. I also disagree that "fundamentalness", universality, and truth are definable outside an already accepted axiomatic system.[/QUOTE]

The words fundamentalness, universality, and truth can be defined
in an axiomatic system I call a good dictionary.
The full philosophical definitions and their means of being used even
at the basic metaphysical axiomatic level are demonstrable.

[QUOTE=chalsall;316072]What about experimental error?

If we can't even know with absolute precision [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]both the position and the velocity vector of a single electron at the same time[/URL], how can we ever hope to resolve "reality" with absolutely certainty?[/QUOTE]

The axioms of existence are philosophically discovered, and if one makes
an "experimental error" trying to discover them, when one corrects that
error the wrong turn can be dismissed.

Resolving reality with absolute certainty is not obtaining omniscience.
If I know something about reality with certainty, that's progress.
If I resolve a question about something's non-existence, that's also
a part of "resolving reality".

[QUOTE=davar55;316084]The axioms of existence are philosophically discovered, and if one makes
an "experimental error" trying to discover them, when one corrects that
error the wrong turn can be dismissed.

Resolving reality with absolute certainty is not obtaining omniscience.
If I know something about reality with certainty, that's progress.
If I resolve a question about something's non-existence, that's also
a part of "resolving reality".[/QUOTE]

Sorry Dar. You're taking a shortcut. And as we say here in Bim, talking bovine excrement.

Just to be clear, are you saying you, [B][I][U]personally[/U][/I][/B], [B][I][U]are[/U][/I][/B] able to give the precise location and momentum vector of any electron in front of you?

[QUOTE=chalsall;316087]Sorry Dar. You're taking a shortcut. And as we say here in Bim, talking bovine excrement.

Just to be clear, are you saying you, [B][I][U]personally[/U][/I][/B], [B][I][U]are[/U][/I][/B] able to give the precise location and momentum vector of any electron in front of you?[/QUOTE]

No thanks for personalizing. And what shortcut? And where did you
get that implication from when I said the opposite?

Perhaps there's just a failure to understand.

[QUOTE=davar55;316089]Perhaps there's just a failure to understand.[/QUOTE]

And perhaps not...

Do you agree with Heisenberg?

The uncertainty principle is intriguing, and far be it for me to
simply dismiss it. But while any being's omniscience would be
contradictory and impossible, i.e. no one can know everything,
I think the U.P. is ultimately a measurement and technology issue,
not science or epistemology, i.e. in principle, we could get closer
to measuring both values than we now think we can.