Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
> [...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other
known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to
be very relative [once you notice it]. :-)
But that's inevitable, or isn't it?
Can we have any certainty other than those logically
derived from assumed principles?
That's part of the problem, yes.
And in this case, isn't it desirable that at least the
assumed principles are self-evident?
Oh, lots of things appear desirable. That does not make them
true (unfortunately in many cases). And when desirableness
comes in as a cause (if not a reason) things turns even more
relative.
> Could we have something better?
That's another part of the problem.
Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me.
Yes, I think I agree with you, but that's the common usage.
Yes and no. I don't feel it is neutral, even if frequent.
A'self-evident' means evident without proof. But can
something be 'evident' only after proof? It seems to me
that an 'evident' proposition doesn't need proof either.
I meant: did anyone ever encounter such a thing as an evidence
that did not seem to be so ? How can one discriminate between an
evidence and something that would just seem to be an evidence ?
Georges.
