A speculative premise only gives you a speculative conclusion. That’s called induction. Does that mean our Major Premise is a speculation?
A speculative premise only gives you a speculative conclusion. That’s called induction. Does that mean our Major Premise is a speculation?
What do you mean:
‘A speculative premise ONLY gives you’
Within this context and/or definition of the word ‘premise’,
What other kind of premise could there be?
Everything! Is a speculation.
Close your eyes. Now walk into a room. What room are you in?
Oh. logic tells you by where you walked, how long, etc. that you’re in the kitchen. Prove it.
Speculation!
Open your eyes. Fact be holds you.
You’re dreaming.
Speculation?
****************
Seriously Joe,
Speculative premise, an induction!
Brilliant!
As far as the Major Premise:
It’s a speculation therefore it requires a small leap of faith,
As all inductions require, that empirically can’t be disproven until they are. Then it’s a fact until speculation suggests otherwise.
Does speculation (induction), acting as a check and balances of the period levels that can follow an apriori, with The Deduction (if utilized, eg. 32Ps), increase the validity or Truth of the initial speculation (eg. Organization bears intelligence)?
In other words, is the veracity of the deduction kind of an empirical tool to turning the ONLY, into an Absolutely?
I am aware that the major premise, apriori, can be inductively arrived at (speculation), or thru faith alone, and/or the various teleological, cosmological, anthropological, etc. variations of argument. (See, I have been reading (homework) Claude. 🙂
David, while the “various… argument(s)” are part of the inductive argument, they are supported by empiricism/empirical demonstrations.
Joe,
So does that mean The Major Premise IS at Best an ‘ONLY gives you a speculative conclusion’, along with every other observed piece of information?
Being that the major premise, a metaphysical entity, is not an induction that can be supported by as you say empirical demonstrations nor perhaps should it be or can it be.
Since deductions always begin apriori, maybe this post should not read
Speculation vs deduction, but read Speculation And Deduction?
David. the M.P is an induction. It comes about by looking at the parts, (all the parts from the atom to the galaxies) and drawing a conclusion about the whole, (all matter). An induction depends upon empirical evidence that does not contradict it. The only way the M.P can be a deduction is if you begin with an a priori (theological-faith premise)
And doesn’t your conclusion, “The only way the M.P can be a deduction is if you begin with an a priori (theological-faith premise)” then precludes an atheist from honoring the 33Ps as anything more than ONLY speculation?
Claude will probably say, that’s why it’s all about the WHO.
Probably. But then isn’t everything only speculation to an atheist?
Certainly speculation has allowed man the precision to split the atom , create and control structures in this world that defy the spoken word.
~99.9999999999999999…% accuracy allows awesome control and artistry.
If Logic is 100% truth, That small percentage difference might account for the difference between truth and fact (speculation).
Faith might be the starting point for all viewpoints even those viewpoints that have no awareness! that are ignorant of their origination.
This has been discussed.
Educated intelligence caries a heavy and unavoidable burden.
It’s good to build, to be industrious, to be contemplative, to be human and yet humble. Walking the tightrope where conflict clarifies and clarification creates conflict is mans existential plight.
Perhaps faith is uniquely human and more of an intuition than a belief.
Joe,
So therefore the answer to your question IS
The major premise IS a Speculative Premise.
You clarified an obvious but important point that being
’empirical evidence that does not contradict it’, that being the induction.
As we have determined, whether empiricism can be applied to supply evidence of truth to the MP is debatable.
More importantly I think you reveal a very relevant fact. You, personally, from what I gather, have a very strong faith-based viewpoint. That’s perhaps why you’re so grounded in the MP’d chiro philosophy.
Reggie seemed to be grounded in an environmentalist, ecological based viewpoint. That grounded him in the philosophy.
Those that have little faith or are not congruent in faith, but lean to
The authority of science, etc. for good or bad, might struggle with metaphysical premises as far as being grounded perceptually in them.
It takes lots of unlearning and reexamination, self awareness, etc. to get to the sleep breath eat mode of living the chiro philosophy we call ADIO.
Just food for thought and perhaps discussion.
🙂
Chiropractic is simple, everything else is complex. Nature always expresses better with less interference..