@deanwithrs Gets DESTROYED In Heated Debate On God Then RUNS
Cooley Dean Withers Breej
0:00CooleyTurn on your camera, Sorry.
0:02Dean WithersI'm I'm I'm doing something with my hands while we're to bed, and I'm, cleaning up my office. But
0:08Dean Withersso I I disagree with all three prompts on the screen, but the one I take the most interest in would be the second. Knowledge is definitely possible without a god.
0:18CooleyOkay. How is knowledge possible without god?
0:22Dean WithersOh, yeah. For sure.
0:24Dean WithersBecause if you take knowledge to be a justified true belief with the defeasibility condition,
0:29Dean Withersand then you could fulfill all necessary criteria of what knowledge is without even positing the existence of a god.
0:37CooleyOkay.
0:37Dean WithersAnd Do you want to go through how you can fulfill the criteria?
0:41CooleySure. Go ahead.
0:42CooleyGive me a Okay. Well, give me your argument.
0:46Dean WithersWell, the argument is just that you could fulfill, like, all criteria of knowledge.
0:51Dean WithersSo maybe we should first,
0:53Dean Withersagree on what knowledge is. So so what is your theory
0:55Cooleyof knowledge? Get the get the likes up, Chad. Get the likes up.
0:59Dean WithersSo an example of a theory of knowledge would be JTB,
1:03Dean Witherswhich stands for Yeah. Justified free belief.
1:05CooleySo I would agree.
1:06Dean WithersSo what's your theory of knowledge?
1:08CooleyNo. It'd be JTB plus the Gettyer problem. So question for you. What are some of the preconditions of knowledge?
1:16Dean WithersWell, we actually just went through them all from my perspective. I went through
1:19Cooleyevery single one. Okay. So is are one of the preconditions of knowledge logic?
1:23Dean WithersIs
1:25Dean Witherslogic a precondition of knowledge? Logic would be a precondition for justification.
1:31CooleyOkay. So logic would be a precondition
1:34Cooleyfor
1:36Cooleya justification of knowledge. Right?
1:38Dean WithersYeah. It would be a precondition for one of the four tenets of knowledge.
1:42CooleyOkay. Now is,
1:44Cooleylet's say, that reason, induction, deduction, predication,
1:48Cooleyall of these things that work in uniformity,
1:50Cooleyis these,
1:52Cooleyright, preconditions to having knowledge?
1:55Dean WithersThose would just be examples of how to reason.
1:57Dean WithersYeah. So that's
1:58Cooleyhow you would real quick, would all of these be preconditions of knowledge?
2:03Dean WithersYour faculties of reason would concern justification
2:06Dean Withersas Got I already
2:07CooleyOkay. So they are all preconditions of knowledge?
2:10Dean WithersThey're preconditions of justification which could be fulfilled without a god.
2:13CooleyOkay. Got it. So real quick. Under your atheist worldview
2:17Cooleywith no god,
2:18Cooleyright, how
2:20Cooleydo you give an account for these transcendental
2:22Cooleycategories like logic, deduction, predication,
2:26Cooleyinduction, the self, all of these things that presuppose knowledge.
2:31CooleyWhat's your justification
2:33Cooleyfor these preconditions to knowledge for us to have it?
2:37Dean WithersYeah. Of course. So I think that you're really blundering right now.
2:40CooleyNo. No blundering. Don't obfuscate.
2:42CooleyGo ahead and give me answer the Don't
2:45Cooleydo anything else. Answer the question.
2:46Dean WithersThe question would presuppose that deduction has an ontological status. What's the argument that deduction has an ontological status?
2:52CooleyDoes does logic have an ontological status?
2:56Dean WithersLogic does. What's the argument?
2:57CooleySo in order to have induction and deduction, you need logic is what I'm saying. I never argue with
3:02Breejlaws of logic. Got
3:03Cooleyit. Great. So logic itself real quick. Logic itself is a no one's dodging. You're not answering my question. I asked you your question quick. Stop you.
3:12Dean WithersQuestion is that the presupposition be made. No. Dean Dean Dean Dean,
3:15Cooleyyou're offuskating, Dean. You're offuskating. You're You're offuskating.
3:19Dean WithersYou're offuskating.
3:19CooleyThe preconditions
3:20Cooleyto knowledge, you said that Dean, the precondition to knowledge, you said that is logic. Right? One of them.
3:26Dean WithersI said that the laws of logic were a precondition, then you asked
3:28Cooleyme what the actual is. Dean,
3:31Cooleythe laws
3:31Dean Withersof assumes that deduction has an ontological
3:33CooleyWhat's
3:34Cooleythe other The laws of logic, does it have an ontological status?
3:38Dean WithersYes. But that's not the question you
3:40Breejasked me.
3:40CooleyThe question Listen.
3:41Dean WithersDean. About the transcendental categories concerning deduction.
3:43CooleyDean. Which is an Any of the transcendental categories, Dean? Does any of the transcendental categories?
3:49Dean WithersSo what
3:49BreejDean Dean, listen.
3:50CooleyStop it. Answer one of just answer the question, Dane. Don't run.
3:55BreejI did. That is
3:55Cooleyan answer. Does any of the transcendental
3:57Cooleycategories have any ontological status?
4:00Dean WithersYes. Like the laws of logic, but not deduction.
4:03CooleyWhat's the argument? So the ontological
4:06Cooleystatus of logic, what is that?
4:09Dean WithersOkay. You're changing your question because you realized that you were wrong with your first question.
4:13CooleyNo one's wrong, Dean. They all infer one another, Dean. So real quick, does the law of what's the ontology of logic?
4:21Dean WithersOkay. Well, to be clear, you're running
4:23CooleyDean, what's the ontology of logic, Dean?
4:26Dean WithersAre you gonna continue to interrupt me while I explain to you how you were incorrect No.
4:29CooleyDean, you're Dean, just stop it, bro.
4:32CooleyWhat is the ontology of
4:34Dean Witherslogic? When you asked me about the ontology of so it's a it's a plainness object, but I'm not gonna I'm not gonna stop trying to explain to you Dean.
4:41BreejHow you were wrong when you made
4:42Dean Withersthe argument that deduction has an ontological status. Dean. The argument that deduction
4:47Cooleyall has an ontological
4:49Cooleyhave, again, I already told you
4:51Dean WithersYeah.
4:51CooleyWhat's argument? My worldview,
4:53Cooleythey all have
4:54Cooleyontological status.
4:56Dean WithersAnd the argument
4:56Cooleyis
4:57CooleyAnd argument is? What's the argument for that? I don't need an argument for that. The question's posed to you. An argument for that? What is the ontological
5:04Cooleystatus, Dean? Positive claim? Dean, what is the ontological status? Shit.
5:08Dean WithersYou just said that you don't need an argument for the positive claim. Really?
5:12CooleyDean, stop off you skating. I asked you the question.
5:15CooleyWhat's the ontological
5:17Cooleystatus of logic? Okay. Let's just I'll go ahead and fill the chat. That's what happened here, Chad. This is how low IQ Dean is. So here we go. Dean
5:25CooleyDean is trying to say that, well,
5:28Cooleyknowledge can is possible without God. So then I say, what's the preconditions of knowledge? He says that, well, the the the I I I don't know. So then I gotta give it to him. Well, you're talking about, well, logic, induction, deduction,
5:41Cooleypredication, all of these things.
5:43CooleyThey all have uniformity. They all have some sort of ontological status.
5:48CooleyI don't give a freak about any other ones besides logic because that's the one I'm talking to you about right now. So what is the ontological status of logic?
5:58CooleyWhat is that? Can you empirically prove logic?
6:01Dean WithersOkay. So a, I'm gonna need the argument for empiricism.
6:05Dean WithersB, I'm gonna need you to concede that you were wrong when you asked Dean.
6:08CooleyWhat is the ontological
6:10CooleyOkay. Dean, is logic immaterial?
6:13CooleyDean, is logic
6:14Dean Withersimmaterial? Why
6:15Dean Withersare you interrupting me again?
6:16CooleyIs logic immaterial? Answer the question.
6:18Dean WithersI told you that the laws of logic are immaterial.
6:20CooleyWhy are Okay. They are immaterial. So is logic universal?
6:24Dean WithersWhat do you mean by universal?
6:25CooleyUniversal. Do it applies everywhere.
6:27Dean WithersAre they universal? Yes. Can you stop Okay.
6:29CooleyGot it. So is logic invariant?
6:32Dean WithersWhat do mean by invariant?
6:33CooleyDoes it apply at all times? Yes.
6:35Dean WithersCan you
6:35Cooleystop it or something like Real
6:37Cooleyquick. Now is logic, is it a concept?
6:41Dean WithersNo. It's a it's a real thing.
6:43CooleyWait. So logic can be found in matter?
6:47Dean WithersBlunder. You think that real things, like, only exist within space and time? Then you wouldn't believe in God since God can't be found within space and time prior to
6:54Cooleythe creation of
6:55CooleyYou said that it's immaterial.
6:57CooleySo is logic you said it it's a real thing. What sort of real thing is it?
7:02Dean WithersIt's a platonic object that exists out of the causal chain. Can I address all your founders or
7:06Cooleyyou can't me? It's immaterial. Go.
7:07Dean WithersInterrupt me again.
7:08CooleyOkay. So got it. So if it's the case that logic is immaterial,
7:12Cooleyinvariant,
7:13Cooleyand universal,
7:15Cooleylogic itself,
7:17Dean Witherswe
7:17Cooleydidn't create this because human beings' minds are finite.
7:21Dean WithersMhmm.
7:21CooleyRight?
7:22Dean WithersYeah.
7:23CooleySo this means that we discovered logic. Right?
7:26BreejMhmm.
7:27CooleyOkay. And if we discovered logic,
7:30Cooleythen, well,
7:32Cooleylogic needs something
7:34Cooleyto be grounded because it needs to be grounded in minds. Concepts are held in minds. Right?
7:39Dean WithersI I said it wasn't a concept. What's the argument
7:41CooleyIt is a concept.
7:42Dean WithersIn heaven. I reject that.
7:44CooleyOkay. Well, you reject concepts now?
7:47Dean WithersNo. I reject that the laws of logic are are a concept because
7:51CooleyOkay.
7:52CooleyThink that Okay. If it's not a concept, then what is it again?
7:55Dean WithersYeah. It's an irreducible property that exists outside of the causal
7:58Cooleyproperty
7:59Cooleythat exists outside of the causal chain.
8:02Dean WithersYeah. Please stop it.
8:03CooleyReal quick. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. It.
8:04Dean WithersWell, let me speak.
8:05CooleyIf it's a irreducible
8:06Cooleystop it. Listen.
8:07Dean WithersYou won't let
8:07Cooleyme speak. It.
8:09CooleyYou just said
8:10BreejYou won't let
8:10Cooleyme just said, is that a concept?
8:12BreejNot me speak.
8:16CooleyDean, you're lying. You just explained the concept.
8:20CooleyYou just said Dean, it's a
8:22Cooleywhat you just explained, is that not a concept or is it a concept?
8:26Dean WithersIt's not a concept because
8:27CooleyIt is a concept. How is that not a concept?
8:31Dean WithersOkay. Yeah. You accept that it's not a concept. The reason being that you do the reason being that you don't think that concept is merely an irreducible thing that exists out of the side outside of the causal chain, or else you'd think that God is a concept due to the fact that God is an irreducible thing that exists outside of the causal chain.
8:45CooleyThat doesn't Dean
8:46Cooleyagain. Dean
8:48Cooleyagain.
8:49CooleyDean, that doesn't even follow at all. Again,
8:52CooleyDean. Watching. Dean, logic is conceptual.
8:56Dean WithersAll of his blenders. Oh, I I don't
8:58Cooleythink Dean, you're you're not even it. I don't think Can you okay. So
9:02CooleyOkay. You just said that
9:04Dean Withersinterrupting me.
9:04CooleyI'm gonna write it down. I'm gonna actually, I'm gonna write it down so for the chat can see that he actually
9:09Dean Withersnot stop interrupting me.
9:10CooleyExplain the concept. She wants to control the dialogue. Let's do it again. I'm gonna write it down. Control the dialogue. Dean, let's write it down.
9:17Dean WithersThe dialogue so I can't address his blenders.
9:19CooleyThere's no blenders then. Control the dialogue.
9:22CooleyGo ahead. To control the dialogue. He wants to
9:24Dean Witherscontrol the dialogue so I cannot speak and address his Logic
9:27Cooleyisn't a concept. So wait. Was it what is it again? I'm gonna write it down. Go ahead.
9:32Dean WithersOkay. It is an irreducible
9:34Dean Withersproperty that exists outside of the moral outside of the causal chain. Okay? It's called a platonic object. Now thank you for letting me speak. I'm gonna address all your blunders. Your first blunder that I described to you ten minutes ago, how it was a blunder that you have not addressed is that Okay.
9:48CooleyAgain, now stop it, Dean. Stop it. Stop it, Dean. Now, Dean. This is a real
9:52CooleyDean, stop it. Now, look. You said that logic because you're just obfuscating now. You said that logic is a irreducible property. Stop
10:01Cooleyit. You said that logic is a irreducible property
10:04Cooleythat exists outside of the causal chain.
10:08CooleyIs that in it of itself a concept?
10:13BreejNo. But the Wait.
10:14CooleyHow do you know that that's not a Dean, that's a concept.
10:18Dean WithersNo. It's
10:18Cooleynot. Dean, what is is racism a concept?
10:23Dean WithersIs racism a concept? Yes.
10:25CooleyOkay. So,
10:26Cooleylet's see. Is prior to,
10:29Cooleyis an engine a concept?
10:32CooleyNo. Okay. Prior to an engine being an engine, it had to be a concept because they created it. So you're wrong. An engine itself
10:40Cooleyis conceptual
10:41Cooleyprior to it being the physical material.
10:44CooleyOkay. Do you know that Dean? So real quick, Dean, the argument that I'm making is the transcendental argument and you're getting cooked right now. I just explained you just explained and you agreed that logic is conceptual.
10:55CooleyThe irreducible property that exists outside of a causal chain is a concept of itself. How do you know that it exists outside of a causal chain without this conceptual
11:05Cooleyidea coming into your mind? It's all concepts, you knucklehead.
11:09CooleySo, again, let's go ahead and cook you right now. If it's the case that logic is immaterial,
11:14Cooleyinvariant, and universal in a concept,
11:17Cooleyconcepts only exist in minds. This irreducible property that lives outside of the causal chain, this would exist in a mind also, you knucklehead.
11:26CooleyAnd guess what? Human beings are finite. Human
11:29Cooleybeings human beings are finite. We cannot ground logic
11:32Cooleyitself.
11:33CooleyLogic can only be grounded in an eternal omnipotent omnipresent mind, a universal mind and that's God's mind. That's a transcendental argument for God. Your worldview rejects
11:45Cooleythese things. My worldview gives an account for these things. So again, when we look at knowledge,
11:51Cooleythere's preconditions to knowledge.
11:53CooleyOne of the preconditions is logic.
11:55CooleyLogic cannot derive from a human's mind because human minds are finite. It's a universal concept. It needs to be grounded in a universal mind like God's mind. There you go. You just got cooked.
12:07Dean WithersOkay.
12:08Dean WithersSo I'm gonna tell you why you're wrong.
12:10CooleyYou just got
12:11Cooleydestroyed, Dean.
12:12Dean WithersThat is not true.
12:13CooleyOkay. Go ahead,
12:14CooleyFor sure. Go ahead. I'll let you speak. Go ahead.
12:17Dean WithersOkay. So the first thing that you did was you confused an actual engine for the concept of an engine. A concept of an engine is not an engine.
12:24CooleyDean, you are knucklehead. No one said it's identical. I said prior to an engine being an engine,
12:30Cooleythis engine,
12:31Cooleyright, was conceptual.
12:34CooleySomeone had to think of all of the particulars and the properties of the engine. So it was all a concept.
12:40CooleyYou told me that logic is an irreducible
12:44Cooleyproperty that exists outside of a causal chain.
12:48CooleyThat in it of itself, Dean, is a concept, you knucklehead.
12:52CooleyYou know nothing about philosophy. You need to catch up on your metaphysics a little bit, my dog.
12:58Dean WithersOkay. You're not letting me speak.
12:59CooleyOkay. Go ahead and speak. Okay.
13:01Dean WithersFantastic. So you just made the confusion. The
13:06Dean Withersconcept of an engine that existed before actual engines existed
13:10Dean Witherswas separate and distinct from the actual engine existing.
13:12CooleyThat's not my argument.
13:13Dean WithersI'm actually you're not you're interrupting me.
13:15CooleyNo, Dean. You're off you skating because you got cooked. Did I ever say that the the concept of an engine and the engine itself is identical?
13:24Dean WithersYes. When you asked me if an engine was material and I said yes, and then you said, well, it was a concept before it was material, implying transitivity.
13:31Dean WithersNow, the next thing I'd
13:32Cooleylike to And that would be true, Dean.
13:34BreejWell, real quick, Dean.
13:35CooleyIs it not true that prior to an engine being material, was it a concept?
13:39Dean WithersThe reason the reason
13:41CooleyDean, don't offuscape. Prior to the engine being physical matter,
13:46Cooleywas it conceptual?
13:48Dean WithersNo. It was not
13:49Cooleythe same thing. You're a liar. Wait.
13:51CooleySo an engine wasn't Okay,
13:53CooleyDean. So how can you create anything
13:56Cooleyif you don't have concepts of the thing?
13:59CooleyBut look architects.
14:01CooleyArchitects, they freaking have concepts. They draw things before they actually create it in the material world. This this host You don't know what you're speaking about.
14:09Dean WithersI'm trying to tell you why you're wrong, but you won't let me.
14:11CooleyNo. You keep saying things that's incorrect. Go ahead.
14:15Dean WithersLet me explain to you why they're not.
14:17CooleySure. Go ahead. Let's see.
14:18Dean WithersDo you promise that you won't Yeah.
14:20CooleyYeah. Let's see. Let's see if you can explain how how
14:23Cooleyphysical mat how the
14:25Cooleyfreaking door or a house If you could wasn't a concept before was a door or a house.
14:31Dean WithersIf you could give me at least thirty seconds, I can do that.
14:33CooleySure. Go
14:33Dean Withersahead. So
14:35Dean Witherswhat you're equivocating between are two different things. Okay? The first thing, which is the actual, like, the material engine that sits in your car, and the second thing, which is the conceptual,
14:45Dean Withersthe idea of an engine that was possessed by the builders. No. Now there okay. You're you're interrupting me already.
14:51CooleyBut Dean So you're
14:52Dean Withersthere's a
14:52Cooleyyou're straw manning my position, Dean.
14:54Dean WithersSo that's not true.
14:55CooleyYeah. That is true, Dean. I never said that a concept
14:59Cooleyis identical to the physical matter.
15:01Dean WithersWay. This guy's getting cooked hard. He just won't let me speak. Like, that's the issue. For everybody watching, the issue here is is he will not let me speak Dean. Because he knows that he's
15:09Cooleystraw manning my position.
15:11CooleyBut try again. Go ahead.
15:14Dean WithersOkay. He he won't let me speak because he knows that
15:16Cooleyhe's speaking. Just don't straw man it, bro. Go ahead.
15:19Dean WithersSo anyways, so there's the there's the first tenet of the position that there's a difference between the concept of a thing and the actual thing. Now to go into why logic is Okay.
15:28CooleyGreat. Time out Dean. Stop it. Stop it, Dean.
15:31Dean WithersThis is I got three seconds on the clock before he interrupt.
15:34CooleyYou just said that there's
15:35Cooleya difference between the concept and the thing itself.
15:39CooleyIs that not what I said? So don't act like you're refuting what I'm saying. You're actually agreeing with what I'm saying. Correcting? Incorrect.
15:47CooleyIncorrect. They wouldn't
15:48Dean Withershave to argue that the concepts
15:50Dean Withersor the understanding of the laws of logic were identical to the laws of logic, which is why the laws of logic are conceptual, but this is not true.
15:58CooleyI think that that think not identical,
16:00CooleyOkay.
16:02Dean WithersThat was your argument for why
16:03Cooleyyou Dean. That's a straw man of the argument. You see?
16:07CooleyYou see?
16:08Dean WithersYou're interrupting me again, but that's
16:09Cooleynot true. Dean, you're saying that it's not true, but that's gaslighting. You're lying now. That's a straw man.
16:15Dean WithersI'm I'm just gonna get to the part about why you are wrong that the laws of logic are conceptual. Okay. So the reason why I don't think that the laws of logic are conceptual is because there's a difference between a concept
16:25Dean Withersand an object of a thought. So a concept is like a mental or a cogni or or or or cognitive representation
16:32Dean Withersof something real that actually exists in many senses. Now, I think that the laws of logic are an object of thought, something real with a true ontic status. Now if you wanna ask the question, well, how do we know the laws of logic? Well, by accessing them with our reliable truth guided intuitions, which would be a non doxastic attitude with propositional, acetorical, representational content that's not truth apt.
16:55CooleyOkay.
16:55Dean WithersOkay? So it should be clear, the laws of logic are a real thing with a real antic status. They exist as an object of thought, but an object of thought is not a mental or cognitive representation.
17:08CooleyOkay. Got it. So then the three classical laws of logic, the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of
17:16Cooleynon contradiction,
17:17Cooleythis is not a concept?
17:20Dean WithersRight. So
17:21Cooleywrong. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's
17:24Cooleynot a principle, Dean. That's not a concept that's a principle.
17:28Dean WithersWhat you're equivocating between is our understanding
17:31Dean Withersof the real things that actually exist. So our understanding of the laws of logic are conceptual,
17:37Dean Withersaka the mental representation that you just gave, but that's just the representation
17:42Dean Withersof the real thing, which is an object of thought with an ontic status. You're equivocating
17:47CooleyOkay. So then Dean. The representation of
17:50Dean Withersthe real thing that exists conceptually.
17:51CooleyDean, if that's the case, then basically, you're stating that the laws of logic,
17:58Cooleyit's a real thing.
18:00CooleyAnd when you say real thing, are you stating that it's the real thing of our, like, thoughts?
18:06Dean WithersAnd it's No. They're they're they're not dependent on their mental states.
18:09CooleyOkay. So they're not depending on any mental states at all.
18:13Dean WithersRia, let me give you an
18:14Cooleyanalogy here. Sure. Go ahead. So I can an analogy.
18:17Dean WithersAn analogy, like, would be morality. So do you think that the idea that it's wrong to murder is a concept?
18:26CooleyThis will be conceptual.
18:28Dean WithersOkay. But clearly,
18:30Dean Withersyou do think that morality is mine independent
18:33Dean Witherseven though we can represent it through concepts. Right? Take that idea, apply it to logic, all of a sudden you have my view. Dean. You're fucking stupid. Dean. Thank you for
18:43Cooleybeing stupid. Dean, are you dumb? If it's the case so one, you didn't do anything there, but you just proved my point and you put yourself in a bigger hole. So if it's the case that logic,
18:54Cooleyit would be both and
18:56Cooleyunder your position.
18:57CooleyIt would be also you didn't refute the claim, you proved the point and then you put yourself in a deeper hole. So logic would be conceptual,
19:05Cooleybut then you're also stating that it has some ontological existence.
19:09Dean WithersRight?
19:09CooleyNo.
19:11CooleyLogic is not conceptual.
19:13Dean WithersThat's a p
19:13Cooleyand also not p. You just contradicted yourself.
19:15Dean WithersThat's what I said. We just didn't understand what
19:17CooleyI No. I did understand what you just said. You you just said that the laws of logic is conceptual.
19:23CooleyIt's a concept,
19:25Cooleybut it also has real
19:27Cooleystatus
19:28Cooleydivorced from the concept.
19:31Dean WithersNo. That's not true.
19:32CooleySo it doesn't have any real status divorced from the concept?
19:35Dean WithersNo. The part that wasn't true is that it's a concept. So when you agree that it's a concept that murder is wrong, you agree that that's just merely a conceptual representation of the objective fact that murder is wrong, which is true independent of your mind. Correct or incorrect?
19:48CooleyDean, it would be both and. These would be concepts as well, Dean.
19:52Dean WithersWait. You think that morality includes concepts, so you are in part of subjectivist?
19:56CooleyNo. No, Dean. What are you speaking about? You just said Concepts,
20:00Cooleyeverything
20:01Cooleyis conceptual
20:03Cooleyto some degree. What are you speaking about? Okay, Dean. Let me ask you a question. What is this? Scott. Dean. Dean. Dean. Stop it. Dean. Do it. Anything that you Dean. Listen. Dean. Define
20:12Dean Withersthe word concept.
20:13CooleyOkay, Dean. Real quick. It's just very, very simple, Dean. Because now you've already agreed with me, but you're off of the point. Would actually agree with you. Listen, Dean. You made you made my argument for me. Listen. I'm gonna I'm gonna explain it to you perfectly. You
20:27Cooleyare I'm saying concept and you're just rejecting the word concept.
20:32CooleyBut what I mean by concept,
20:34Cooleyyou're inferring it within your sentences.
20:37CooleySo you said that the concept
20:39Cooleywell well, logic would have some sort of on top ontological
20:44Cooleyexistence
20:45Cooleythat is divorced
20:47Cooleywhat?
20:48Dean WithersYeah. So it has Okay. Listen.
20:50CooleyLet me lay my That's
20:51Dean Withersthat's not shared in your mind conceptually. That's just understood in your mind conceptually. No.
20:55CooleyNo. Like, the ontological ding ding ding. You're obfuscating ding.
20:58Dean WithersThing with a real ontological status.
21:00CooleyOkay. Ding.
21:01Dean WithersStop throwing that word around when I say things that you don't understand because you're uneducated.
21:04CooleyNo, Dean. You're just totally wrong. The concept of logic. Right? The ontological
21:09Cooleyexistence of it, where is that found?
21:11Dean WithersIt's found outside of the causal chain and I
21:13Cooleyhad Okay. And when you say that it's found outside of the causal chain
21:17Dean WithersRight.
21:17CooleyOkay. Dean, stop it. When you say that it's Dean
21:20Dean WithersWhen you say found, you don't even
21:21Cooleymean that phenomenon. Listen. When you say that it's found outside of the causal chain
21:25Dean Withersquestion.
21:26CooleyThat is not telling me where it is. If it's outside of the causal chain, that's great. But where is it?
21:32Dean WithersSo platonic objects do not have a space it's in plural location.
21:36CooleyDane doesn't believe in a god. Right? But he believes in things that exist in outside of the causal chain.
21:43CooleyAnd these things that exist outside of this causal chain spirit. Where is it? What is it? And what's grounding it? What's making that true other than it just being a concept? Go
21:53Cooleyahead.
21:53Dean WithersDo you actually let me speak, I can answer all three of those questions. Where is it? Is it? What grounds it?
21:58BreejSure. Go ahead.
21:59Dean WithersSo the answer to
22:01Dean Withersthe question where is it? It's just to say that the question in of itself is confused because platonic objects don't have a space suit temporal location.
22:07Dean WithersThe answer is something that's function okay. Well, I can answer the question of how I know it after I answer the other two questions first. Is that okay?
22:13CooleyYou're stating you're you're just making assertions.
22:16CooleyHow do you know that, Dean? It's episcopalology one zero one. How do you know that?
22:20BreejSo so the way that I
22:21CooleyI thought you said that you're a great philosopher.
22:24CooleySo go ahead. How do you know that?
22:25Dean WithersWell, know that because I hold a justified true belief about it. Now, if you ask me
22:28CooleyThe justified true belief about it? Okay. What justifies that being true? How do you know it? Of course.
22:34Dean WithersYeah. The fact that I have an intuition that it is the case and I believe
22:37CooleySo your intuitions make it true? I have an intuition that you're wrong in this debate. Does that make it true?
22:42Dean WithersIt's So you're confused.
22:43CooleyWait, Thomas. I have an intuition that all dogs,
22:47Cooleycan fly. Does that make it true?
22:49Dean WithersNo. It doesn't.
22:50CooleyOkay. Dean, so what you just said was nonsensical. So back to the point, Dean.
22:53Dean WithersIt's not nonsensical.
22:54CooleyLet me see. It was very nonsensical. Go ahead.
22:56Dean WithersI could explain to you why it wasn't. So clearly, you're obviously not, you know,
22:59Cooleyconsidered you're obviously not, you know Dean, stop with that and answer the question.
23:05CooleyHow do you know that logic
23:07Cooleyexists outside of the causal chain?
23:11CooleyAnd where is it and what is it?
23:12Dean WithersNot letting me. So you're I'm trying to answer that question, but you're not letting me.
23:16CooleyI I've been letting you.
23:17Dean WithersSo there's two different answers to this question. The first answer to this question is, I'm a phenomenal conservatist. What does this mean? I think that intuitions provide prima facie justification with a feasibility condition for belief.
23:28CooleyI Dean, that's stupid. If you believe that, I can adopt that in all.
23:33CooleyThat's you you got the mindset of a woman. Women believe in intuition.
23:37CooleyOh, yeah. My intuition showed me that he was gonna he's not the right man for me. So then why you've been having sex with this man for two years if he wasn't the right man for me? Why didn't your intuition tell you to break up with him? Dean,
23:49Cooleyyou're giving very bad arguments. You're getting cooked right now.
23:52CooleyIntuition? What
23:53Cooleyis the what is the ontological
23:55Cooleystatus of intuition, Dean?
23:57Dean WithersOkay. You're interrupting me again.
23:58CooleyDean, what's the ontological
24:00Cooleystatus of intuition and is that conceptual?
24:04Dean WithersYes. Intuitions are conceptual.
24:06CooleyOkay. So wait. Time out. Stop, chat. Time out. Look. Here's the cook section. It's circular.
24:11CooleyHe just said that logic is not a concept, but logic exists
24:15Cooleyoutside of the causal chain, and the causal chain is intuition,
24:20Cooleywhich is a concept.
24:21Dean WithersNo. It's not true. It's not that.
24:24Dean WithersDean.
24:27CooleyDean.
24:29CooleyThe laws are not destroyed.
24:32Dean WithersDean. Why I'm not if you'll let me
24:33CooleyDean, you're getting destroyed in a worse way,
24:35Dean WithersDean. I'll let you know why you're wrong when
24:37Cooleyyou Okay, Dean. Let's repeat it. I'm gonna respond to the last
24:40Dean Withersthing that
24:41Breejyou said this.
24:41CooleyIt's okay. Real quick.
24:42Dean WithersI'm gonna Okay. I wanna respond.
24:45CooleyI'm gonna So the reason I'm gonna still be in your position
24:48Dean Witherslast
24:48Cooleyand correct me if I'm wrong.
24:51Dean WithersI wanna be able to respond to the last thing you said.
24:53CooleyOkay. Go ahead.
24:53Dean WithersYou just made a big blunder.
24:55BreejSure.
24:55Dean WithersGo Okay. So you just confused me telling you that I use my reliable intuitions to access the facts of what exists outside of the causal chain to be that I'm telling you that the intuition is the causal chain. Please slow down, listen to what I'm saying, and try to take it in before
25:10CooleyIf you use it to access it, Dean, that's still you not answering the question to what it is.
25:16CooleyOnce again, that's an obfuscation
25:18Cooleyagain.
25:19Dean WithersQuestion yet.
25:20CooleyDean. Ask me three questions. Stop it, Dean. Listen.
25:22Dean WithersAsked
25:22Cooleyme three Dean. Look. Now he's back pedaling. He's like, well, my intuition
25:27Cooleyisn't where
25:29Cooleythe onto isn't, outside of the causal chain. That isn't where it is. So I'm just telling you that's how I access it is through my intuition.
25:38CooleyDean, again, so if that's the
25:39Dean Witherscase every single
25:42Cooleythat's the case every single thing
25:43Dean WithersI've I've said. Said all the entire time I've been on the panel. Dean. Why should I stop? You've interrupted every single thing
25:48CooleyI have the back you know, we can do it in person, Dean. Wanna have a debated person and have a moderator?
25:52Dean WithersWhy would we why would we
25:53Cooleydo that if we can Dean. You wanna have a moderator?
25:56CooleyWell, if we had a moderator, Dean, know, we can actually
25:59CooleyI've I I'm fully confident that you have no idea what you're speaking about right now. Right? So if you want, we can set this up another time with a moderator.
26:08Dean WithersThen let me dig my grave. Then let me dig my own grave by letting
26:10Cooleyme see your own grave. So I'm gonna since you didn't answer the question,
26:15Cooleylet me
26:16Dean WithersI did
26:16Cooleynot go ahead and restate the question.
26:18Dean WithersI would have to first respond to the last very confusing
26:21CooleyWhere is logic?
26:22CooleyIf it's not a concept, again, you said it's outside of the causal chain,
26:28Cooleywhere is it? And how do you know that it's there? You obfuscate it to speak about your intuition.
26:35CooleyYou just said that your intuition is how you have access to it.
26:39CooleyOkay.
26:40CooleyWell, please tell me. That's not answering the question. That's begging the question. So go ahead. Okay.
26:46Dean WithersPerfect. I let you speak. Can you agree?
26:49CooleyBro, go ahead. Where,
26:50Cooleywhere is logic if it's not a concept?
26:54Dean WithersOkay.
26:55Dean WithersI'm gonna be clear. If you interrupt me, I'm just gonna drop.
26:58Dean WithersPlease don't do that. So the question is, where is it?
27:02CooleyYeah. Where is it?
27:02Dean WithersI've answered this already. I'll answer this again.
27:05Dean WithersThe response would be that the question in of it self is confused because
27:10Dean Withersplatonic objects do not have a spatiotemporal
27:14Dean Witherslocation.
27:15Dean WithersOkay? Very similar to God under your view. God, outside of incarnation,
27:21Dean Withersdoes not have a spatiotemporal
27:23Dean Witherslocation.
27:24Dean WithersOkay? Now to the second question. How do you know this? Well, the first answer to this question is, well, it best fits the abductive virtues.
27:34Dean WithersOkay? I have the most reason to believe this in accordance with abductive virtues because it has the most parsimonious explanation.
27:43Dean WithersIt has the best explanatory range, and it has the best explanatory power. Now, the second answer to this question that I really want you to understand because you didn't understand it earlier
27:51CooleyI've understood everything, but go ahead.
27:54Dean WithersOkay, man.
27:56Dean WithersI'm just gonna go to a job. You're not worth
27:58Breejmy time, bro.
27:59CooleyYou've you've oh, because I said I hey.
28:02CooleyHe's a beta male, chat. He left. He ran off.
28:07CooleyHe ran off. Dean Withers.
28:10CooleyW for coolly in the chat.
28:14CooleyDean ran.
28:14BreejNo food gazey.
28:15CooleyWe're gonna clip this up. Who Dean.
28:20CooleySo where
28:21Cooleyis logic if it's not a concept? How do you have access to it?
28:28CooleyDean says, well, he agrees to some of the ontology of logic. He says that it's invariant, universal,
28:34Cooleyand it's immaterial.
28:36CooleyWait. It's immaterial.
28:38CooleyAnd then I said, well, it's conceptual. Right? It's a concept. He says, no, it's not a concept.
28:45CooleyHe said, it's an irreducible
28:48Cooleyproperty
28:49Cooleythat exists outside of the causal chain.
28:54CooleyI said, that sounds like a concept,
28:57CooleyDean.
28:58CooleyThat's that sounds circular.
29:00CooleyLike that sentence itself
29:02Cooleysounds like a concept,
29:05Cooleywhich it is a concept.
29:07CooleyAnd then I said, well, Dean,
29:09Cooleywhere does it exist outside of the causal chain?
29:13CooleyHe says, well,
29:15Cooleyit exists with my intuition.
29:17CooleyBut then he walks it back and he says, no, I access it with my intuition. So he never actually answered the question
29:25Cooleyof where it exists and he says that it's a category error. No, it's not a category error Dean. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in a God, you need some sort of justified
29:35Cooleytrue belief also that solves the Gettyer problem
29:39Cooleyfor it to be true.
29:41CooleyRight? Oh, Mike, justify true belief and then he gets on the whole Gettyer thing. It's like, no, bro. You don't know what you're speaking about. And this is what happens with these atheists.
29:50CooleyVery effeminate,
29:51Cooleydon't have a world view to ground all of these transcendental categories.
29:55CooleyWe spoke about logic.
29:57CooleyHe's talking, oh, deduction. Well, deduction, what's the ontological status of that? I said, it has ontological status.
30:05CooleyIt has uniformity with logic itself.
30:08CooleyHow can you even utilize inductive and deductive reasoning without logic itself?
30:14CooleySo which means that the ontological status would be embedded within logic.
30:21CooleyHe's a dork. What Dean does on his stream, he just talks fast and off the
30:26Cooleypoint. So you guys are like, You're not letting him speak.
30:29CooleyNo. I was letting him speak, but I was holding his feet to the fire on the things that he said. If you don't hold someone's feet to the fire on the things that they say, then they're gonna off you skate to make an argument then you'll have to defeat each point one by one. It's gonna take too long. So let's do one point at a time.
30:49CooleyRight? Well, logic
30:51Cooleyyeah. It's a
30:52Cooleyyou know, it's not conceptual.
30:54CooleyIt's a
30:55Cooleyirreducible
30:56Cooleyproperty that exists outside of the causal chain.
31:02CooleyOkay. And
31:03Cooleywhere's that?
31:06CooleyHe never answered it.
31:09CooleyWhat is that?
31:10CooleyNever answered it. How do you know that?
31:13CooleyNever answered it.
31:16CooleyHe's just making assertions
31:18Cooleywith no epistemic justification at all. Someone said Dean is back.
31:22CooleyOh, Dean wants more smoke?
31:25CooleyDean.
31:26CooleyDean,
31:27Cooleyyou want round two? You ran the last time Dean is in here? You're back.
31:32Dean WithersYeah. I have an offer. Would you like to would you like to hear the offer?
31:35CooleyYeah. You wanna do this debate in person?
31:38Dean WithersWell, I actually have a better offer for you. So I'm actually willing to offer you
31:42CooleyWith a moderator.
31:43Dean WithersThousand dollars. Check this out. I'm willing to offer you $1,000.
31:48CooleyI don't need money. I'm I'm pretty
31:49Dean WithersYou're
31:51Dean Withersalready interrupting me, my friend.
31:52CooleyI'm pretty good, though. But go ahead. You can Okay.
31:55Dean WithersI hear you.
31:57Dean WithersI'm willing to offer you $1,000
31:59Dean Withersif you could debate and beat either Brege or Lit, two people who are inside of your queue right now.
32:07Dean WithersI don't think that you're gonna bring either of them up because you won't know that you are incompetent and you know that you'd get beat by them. So I'm just gonna let him drop. Okay. Real greenish and lit.
32:17CooleyOkay. Wait. If you could beat him What's their names? Hold on a photo.
32:20Dean WithersGive you a thousand.
32:20CooleyI gotta make sure I could see them. Don't go anywhere. Let me see.
32:23Dean WithersIf you could be either of them. So you actually you're gonna have two you're gonna have two chances here.
32:28CooleyOkay. Got you. Got you. Real quick. Real quick. Ding. Ding.
32:30Dean WithersConvince the chat that you beat them,
32:32Dean WithersI'll give you a thousand dollars.
32:34CooleyDing. Ding, I don't want your Dean, listen real quick. I
32:37Cooleydon't know real quick. Dean Dean, I don't want the thousand dollars.
32:41CooleyI want you to debate me. Why did you run again?
32:44CooleyI want you to debate me.
32:47CooleyHe literally had to call his minions, and I'm gonna bring them up. It's funny how Dean comes back up
32:53Cooleyand he know he can't defeat me.
32:57CooleySo he brought up his minions.
32:58CooleySo let's start with this Bree
33:01Cooleyj dot sore person. Let's start with this person first. What you wanna debate? Go ahead.
33:07BreejWell, I wanna talk about knowledge being impossible independently of God.
33:10CooleyOkay. Sure. Go ahead. So
33:13Cooleyhow is knowledge possible
33:16Cooleywithout God? Give me your best argument.
33:19BreejYeah. I just don't see a p and not p. It seems it seems that it's satisfiable on at least one model.
33:25BreejWhat it means for it to be a contradiction is that it's not satisfiable on any model.
33:29BreejSo, yeah. Make a no seem inference to say that it is satisfiable
33:32Breejon at least one model, and then I don't see the fact that it's not satisfiable on all models.
33:37CooleyGot it. So what I mean by when I say that knowledge is impossible without God, I'm not stating that, you know, these non theists or atheist worldview,
33:47CooleyI'm not saying that they're,
33:49Cooleyyou know, not like, they don't have knowledge or anything. No. I think that all human beings
33:54Cooleyhave knowledge
33:55Cooleyto a degree, some more than others,
33:58Cooleybut knowledge is definitely possible from
34:00Cooleywhat we can observe currently now. You get what I'm saying? So the question that I'm asking is a higher authority question. I'm stating that
34:09Cooleyif your worldview is true, and you're an atheist. Right?
34:13BreejNo. I'm agnostic.
34:15CooleyYou're agnostic. Okay. So if your worldview is true, then the possibility
34:20Cooleyfor knowledge
34:21Cooleywould not be true.
34:23BreejYeah. I know. You're assessing it from if it were the case that God didn't exist, we wouldn't have knowledge. Right?
34:28CooleyCorrect.
34:29BreejOkay. Yeah.
34:30BreejAnd what I'm saying is that it seems satisfiable,
34:33Breejthat you can have an account such as a justified true belief plus some condition to assess knowledge and there's no issues with doing so independent of the existence of a God.
34:42BreejOkay. Don't see what relevance God has to that assessment. Like if I say Okay. Let's go through it. Theorist.
34:47CooleyWell, let's go let's Right? Go through
34:49CooleySo when we speak about knowledge, well, what are some of the preconditions of knowledge?
34:54BreejJustification,
34:55Breejtruth, belief, then defeasibility on my view.
34:57CooleyOkay. So justification,
35:00Cooleytruth,
35:01Cooleybelief, defeasibility.
35:02CooleyWhat's that?
35:04BreejIt's a theory of knowledge.
35:05CooleyOh, it's just the theory of knowledge?
35:07BreejDefeasibility theory?
35:07CooleyWhat'd you say?
35:08BreejYeah. It's my theory of knowledge.
35:09CooleyDefeasibility?
35:11BreejYeah. It's called defeasibility theory.
35:12CooleyOh, it's called defeasibility
35:14Cooleytheory.
35:15BreejMhmm.
35:15CooleyYeah. And what does that mean?
35:17BreejTo say that knowledge is reducible to a justified true belief with a defeasibility condition
35:22Breejthat's satisfied.
35:24CooleyYeah. But what's the defeasibility condition?
35:27BreejOh, it's to say that there's no proposition that would stand in conjunction with a particular item of knowledge that would stand to make it false.
35:33CooleyOh, I got you. So it's just basically stating that it's true because it's true?
35:38BreejNope. That's not what I said. So j t b plus x, where x is some condition independent of justification, truth, and belief.
35:45BreejWhen I say x there, what I mean is diffusibility. You asked me what I meant by diffusibility. Sure. What I mean by diffusibility is that there is no proposition that would be true where if I put it in relation to
35:55Breejthe item of knowledge. So let's say I'm talking about me knowing that snow is white. Okay?
35:59CooleyOkay.
35:59BreejThe claim is I know that snow is white. What would be a defeater? What would be the case that there is a proposition such as snow in the same context is uttered and it's the case that snow is actually black. Okay. That would stand to defeat the item of knowledge that I have. So it's not simply just that it's true because it's true. Truth was already a condition embedded Yes.
36:16CooleySo it's based off of like logic,
36:18Cooleybasically.
36:19BreejThat's not what I said. Defeasible. Well, I don't know what you mean it's based on logic. Are saying there's a basing relation between diffusability and logic?
36:24CooleyWell, no. I'm just saying that how you adjust your from your example, your example
36:30Cooleyinferred that we have logic. So for you to know that while something is a contradiction or not comprehensible
36:36Cooleyto what you're observing in the external world to maybe the proposition that you're making. Like, if you look at this
36:44Cooleyif you say that snow is black,
36:47Cooleybut it's actually white, well,
36:49Cooleythat's that would be nonsensical. Meaning, you're basically saying the feasibility,
36:53Cooleyit needs to adhere
36:55Cooleyto like reality, the external world, the things that we can observe.
36:58BreejDefeasibility isn't simply just saying that things adhere to reality.
37:01BreejDefeasibility, when I say that something is defeasible,
37:04Breejright, if I say let's say I take for example, I'm justified in the belief
37:08Breejthat I'm talking to you right now. Okay. Yeah. I'm justified in the belief that I'm talking to you right now. But suppose that I wake up in three hours and I realized I was having a fever dream. Okay.
37:17BreejThe item, the belief in particular that was justified is diffused. Okay. It's diffeasible in the sense that there are certain things that can stand in relation to the item of belief that can stand to either falsify it or maybe remove the justification that I had to the belief. So it's diffused in sense that there are certain things that can stand in relation to them to either make them false or to remove the justification that I had.
37:38CooleyGot it. So with that same example,
37:41Cooleyif it was the case that it was just a dream,
37:44Cooleythen that wouldn't be justified true belief?
37:46BreejNo. Not that it well, okay. Wouldn't be true. Yeah. But it would still be justified. The the example was with respect to justification.
37:53CooleyOkay.
37:54CooleySo it wouldn't be true, but it will be justified because it's defeasible?
37:59BreejOn my reading of justification, justification is defeasible. Yeah. But it's not because it's defeasible. Justification is defeasible, true. But the reason that it's justified is because it seemed to be the case. It wouldn't be justified anymore
38:10Breejdue to the fact that it wouldn't appear to me to be the case anymore because there's undercutting or rebutting defeaters present now.
38:14CooleyOkay.
38:16CooleyAlright. So what makes something justified
38:18Cooleythat would be
38:21Cooleydistinct from what is true because you're saying
38:23Breejthat Of course.
38:24CooleyGot it. So you can have something justified
38:27Cooleyand also it not be true and Of course.
38:29Breej100%. I'll give you
38:30CooleyYeah. No. No. I know examples of that. That's fine. But I'm still trying to understand
38:34Cooleythis defeasible part because you're adding this in there. So I'm trying to understand,
38:40Cooleywell,
38:41Cooleywhat's the purpose of saying that
38:44Cooleyjustified true belief plus the feasible? When I say justified
38:48Cooleylisten real quick. When I say justified true belief plus the Gettyer.
38:52CooleyRight?
38:53BreejThat's not what do mean plus the get hold hold on. That's confused. The Gettyer is an attack on justified true belief models. Correct. JTB models Correct. Solicitor. Wait.
39:00CooleySo look. I'll explain. Justify. Let me explain it though because this is the part that Dean didn't understand. Again, if you say that you have justified true belief, it's also true. Mhmm. It's it's belief
39:12Cooleyand you have good logical reasons or some evidence of the belief,
39:17Cooleywell, you can have all of this and it can be a coincidence
39:21Cooleyor it can just be shared luck.
39:23CooleySo when I say that when I say that
39:25Cooleyyou a justified true belief,
39:28CooleyI don't think that you're justified in your true belief if it's just sheer luck
39:33Cooleyor if it's just a coincidence.
39:35CooleyThis wouldn't be
39:36BreejI was confused.
39:37CooleyReal
39:38Cooleyquick. This wouldn't you wouldn't actually be justified
39:41Cooleyin your true belief. You need to make sure it's not just sheer luck and it's not just a coincidence. So again,
39:48Cooleywhen I real quick real quick, when I because I want you to understand this too and I want
39:53CooleyDean is listening because Dean had low IQ. He didn't understand. Also, Antenna debated him mad times. Low IQ.
40:00CooleyWhen I say justified
40:02Cooleytrue belief plus
40:04Cooleysolving the Getty air, it means that it is not sheer luck that you're you got this justified true belief, and it is not a coincidence.
40:13CooleyThat's what I'm saying. So it has to satisfy the Getty air problem. So when you say real quick
40:16BreejCan I respond?
40:17CooleySo real real quick, I'm just You've
40:18Breejbeen talking for, like, two minutes.
40:19CooleyReal quick. Bro, I've been letting you speak. When I'm asking I haven't talked for two minutes straight. Got it. When I asked you the question, I gave that to an as an example.
40:27CooleyWhen I asked you the question when you when you say justify true belief and the feasibility,
40:33Cooleywhere does the the feasibility come into play like how Gettyer problem comes in a play with Shenmue.
40:38BreejCan I respond? Sure.
40:39CooleyGo ahead.
40:39BreejOkay. I will respond now. So there's few different points on the table, I'm gonna start by telling you the relevance of the feasibility.
40:44CooleyOkay. Thank you.
40:45BreejJustified true belief was an initial conception or model of knowledge. Okay? Start with Plato.
40:50CooleyNow I know all of this, bro. Just get to the just just get to the defeasibility. I'm explaining the relevance. Yeah. Listen. I don't need Listen.
40:57CooleyListen. Listen. Real quick. Real quick. I'll be honest
40:58Dean Witherswith you.
40:59CooleyNo. No. I'll be honest with you.
41:01CooleyI've been debating for seven hours.
41:03CooleyI know everything you're talking about. The thing that I don't know No.
41:08BreejYou said several things
41:09Cooleyover here. No. Listen. The thing that I don't know is what what you're not what you're not answering. Defeasibility. How does this play in to justify true belief? What's the purpose
41:18Breejto of get out of your problems. The purpose of defeasibility is to patch get out your issue. So
41:22CooleySo now I know exactly what you're saying. So
41:26Cooleyknowledge, the preconditions of knowledge is justified true belief
41:30CooleyYes. Also with the feasibility.
41:33CooleyYeah. Makes sense.
41:34BreejBut
41:35Cooleynow when we speak about the preconditions
41:39Cooleyof knowledge,
41:40Cooleywhen we speak about truth, belief, and justification,
41:44Cooleyall of these
41:44Breejbreak those down on my view?
41:46CooleyWell, well, what I'm saying is all of these things presuppose
41:49Cooleyother things. Right? I'm a presuppositionalist.
41:52CooleyRight? So I'm simply saying tag.
41:55CooleyWhat'd you say?
41:56BreejYou're on tag?
41:58CooleyI run it multiple different ways, but I could yeah. Okay. It's I'm basically running tag on you. Yeah. Okay. So when we speak about knowledge and the precondition,
42:08Cooleysome of these preconditions
42:09Cooleyunder your worldview, I know you say belief, truth, justification,
42:13Cooleyand the feasibility,
42:15Cooleybut what are some of the preconditions?
42:17CooleyWhat is the ontology of hypostasis? Justification?
42:20BreejYeah. I'll just break
42:21Cooleyit Is one of preconditions logic?
42:23BreejPrecondition for what? Precondition for being justified in a belief?
42:26CooleyNo. The precondition for knowledge.
42:28BreejThe precondition for knowledge in the sense that you cannot have knowledge if you don't have this. I just gave you the reduction of what knowledge is.
42:34CooleyOkay.
42:36CooleyYou say justify
42:37Cooleytrue belief
42:38CooleyYeah. Plus the feasibility.
42:41CooleyYes. These things are all in question.
42:45CooleyI'm asking you this. A higher authority question.
42:48CooleyWhen you look at justification,
42:50Cooleyit speaks about things like logic and reason
42:53Cooleyor good evidence.
42:54BreejLiterally just a normative hold on. Nope. Justification is a normative relation.
42:58BreejI I don't know why you're presupposing some sorts of look. The view I take on justification is if it seems to ask that p absent any defeaters asked is justified in believing p.
43:07CooleyYeah. And can you get to p in any of these things without logic?
43:11BreejWhat does that even mean? Can you reason to the conclusion of phenomenal conservatism without using reasoning?
43:15BreejDo you hear how silly that sounds?
43:17CooleyNo. It's not silly. What are the three classical laws of logic?
43:20BreejLaw of identity, excluded middle, and
43:22CooleyOkay. Right. The law of identity, law of excluded middle,
43:25Dean Withersand the
43:25Cooleylaw of non contradiction. I got you. No worries. Yeah. Okay. It's not a math test. It's not a test or anything.
43:30CooleyI'm just stating that
43:32Cooleywhen you say, right? So look at my hands. You say that we got knowledge here. I say, what are the preconditions?
43:39CooleyAnd you say, justified true belief and the feasibility.
43:43CooleyThese are all words and these words have meaning.
43:47CooleyThe word of You know what I can
43:48Breejtalk about my theory of meaning too?
43:50CooleyNo. No. That's not what a mask can look, bro.
43:53BreejOkay.
43:53CooleyThese words that
43:54Breejyou're I love that.
43:55CooleyAlright. Listen. These words that you're using,
43:58Cooleyright, these words mean certain things.
44:02CooleyYep. Right? Of course. So these words
44:04BreejYou wanna break down what they mean?
44:06CooleyWe're I'm I'm trying to get there. Right? These words like justification,
44:12Cooleythis would how can you justify something if you don't have the law of logic to identify the thing that you are trying to justify?
44:20BreejExplain this. What do you when you talk about possession there of the law of logic, you're you're talking about possession because you said we don't have it. What do you think the relevant sense of the term possession is with respect to being justified in believing something? When you say if you don't have the law of logic, what specific sense of the term are you using such that it would preclude me from understanding what it means to be reasonable in believing something if I didn't possess it? What is the relevant sense of the term possession there such that it precludes me from being reasonable in my beliefs?
44:48CooleyWhen you say justification,
44:50Cooleytruth Yep. And also belief,
44:53Cooleycan you get to any of these
44:55Cooleycategories and even defeasibility?
44:58CooleyCan you utilize
44:59Cooleyany of these categories
45:02Cooleywithout logic?
45:04CooleyYes or no?
45:04BreejI just told you. You asked me a question.
45:06CooleyThen I'm asking
45:09Breejyou a clarifying question. Okay. Deny the partition. Look. I'm asking you a clarifying question. The clarifying question is you said without having the laws of logic. Okay? And I'm asking you, what is the relevant sense of the term possession? Because you're saying I have it. When you talk about possessing the laws of logic such that I can engage in justificatory relations or processes,
45:27Breejwhat is the relevant sense of the term there? Because otherwise, how am I answering your question if I don't know what you mean by possession? We're talking about what it means to have the laws of logic Correct. Such that I can engage in justificatory processes,
45:37Breejwhat is the relevant sense of me having them You are that I can actually answer your question. Yeah. Of course. That's why I asked it before.
45:42CooleyWhen I ask you have,
45:45Cooleyright,
45:45Dean Withersbecause you
45:45Cooleywanna know, well, what's the relevancy of me having logic?
45:49CooleyWell, the relevancy is that you wouldn't be able to identify any particular in the external world if you didn't assume the laws of logic.
45:58CooleySo I'm stating that
46:02Cooleywhen
46:03Cooleyyou say knowledge,
46:05Cooleypreconditions,
46:06Cooleyjustified true belief, and the feasibility,
46:09CooleyI'm just asking you, within that, are you assuming
46:13Cooleyother categories
46:14Cooleylike logic, reason, induction, deduction, predication, the self, all of these things to identify
46:20Cooleyparticulars
46:21Cooleyand objects in the external world so you can see if things are contradiction,
46:26Cooleyso you can see if you have truth, so you can have this belief system, so you can justify things, so you can see if you can get past the Gettyer problem with the feasibility.
46:36CooleyYes. You are assuming these laws of logic. Is that yes or no?
46:41BreejAssuming them in order to do what? In order to engage
46:44Cooleyin the two processes? Yes. In order to think properly to justify something or to get to the truth.
46:52BreejSo you're saying if somebody doesn't assume those three laws, they couldn't engage in justificatory practices?
46:56CooleyIf the if the laws did not exist
46:59BreejYes or no?
47:01CooleyIf the laws did is the is that that's not the that's a category. It's not the level of question. Someone doesn't
47:06BreejIf they didn't exist.
47:07CooleyNo. Listen. Listen. Here's what I'm asking you. Someone You're
47:10Breejabout assuming them. Now you're talking about their existence. That's two different things.
47:13CooleyI'm gonna answer the part of your question. I debated Okay. Over over 50 people probably today,
47:19Cooleyand many people did not know the three classical laws of logic. This doesn't mean that they're not utilizing logic. Yeah. They're utilizing logic. You real quick. Stop it. You don't have to know what the three classical laws is, but you can still be utilizing. You didn't know the third one, but I told you it. So it's not
47:35BreejI think I cut out. Are you trolling?
47:38CooleyOh, well, didn't hear you. Okay. Maybe you didn't know. Just I didn't hear you, but it's okay. No. It's okay. I I didn't hear the third one.
47:43BreejYeah. Yeah. I happen to learn too, but not the third one. Okay.
47:46CooleyNo. No. No. It's listen. I thought you didn't know it because you didn't say it and I said it for you.
47:51BreejBut So if I ask you pop quiz questions, you would answer them too. Which one does the dilitheous reject?
47:56CooleyI don't know which one Okay. There you go. Which one rejects
47:59Breejwhen you fucking suck at logic.
48:00CooleyNo. It's for me to know what other
48:04Cooleyepistemic beliefs
48:05Cooleyreject
48:07Cooleyor or I'm sorry. What other logical
48:09BreejEpistemic beliefs? You think that's proper?
48:11CooleyNo. I'm sorry. I said what other I've been debating for seven hours. For me to know what other logical
48:17Breejbasic concepts should go down.
48:19CooleyListen. For me to know what other, like, logical systems may reject
48:22Cooleythe three classical laws of logic, well, I don't have to know all of the names of the ones that reject it. But I no. But I do know that anyone that do reject it
48:32Breejyou that was.
48:33CooleyListen. Even though I know this. All of the other laws of logical
48:38Cooleycategories that reject the law of
48:40BreejI know why I
48:41Dean Withersasked you that.
48:41CooleyNon contradiction or the law of excluded middle
48:43BreejYeah.
48:44CooleyThey all presuppose
48:46Cooleyall three of them anyway. You can't have one without the other. So Wait. You can't
48:49Breejhold on. Let's get back to that. Presupposes
48:52Breejthe law of non contradiction to reject the law of non contradiction?
48:54CooleyLet's yes or no? All Wait. Yes or You can't reject it. You can't reject it because the law of identity Are
49:00Breejyou just like excluding this whole substantive position, this whole substantive debate?
49:04CooleyNo. No. This is a good debate. You wanna go ahead and have it? Let's okay. You know what?
49:07BreejHold on. You just
49:08CooleyLet's stay here. I'm not going anywhere. Trust me. I'm not running.
49:12BreejThat's fine.
49:12CooleyYou just Listen. Trust me. I'm not running. We can stay right
49:15Breejcutting me off.
49:15CooleyTrust me. I'm not running. We can stay right here on the three classical laws of logic. Can you tell me
49:20BreejNothing by cutting me off.
49:21CooleyNo. I'm not cutting you off. Can you tell me the one the one that rejects
49:26Cooleythe law of non contradiction?
49:28BreejYes. Diolitheism.
49:29CooleyOkay. Now that one is
49:32Cooleydo
49:33Cooleyis it coherent?
49:36BreejOf course. That's a substantive position. What do mean is it coherent?
49:38CooleyIt's not coherent because does make sense. Three classical laws
49:43Cooleyof logic
49:45Cooleyinfer one another.
49:46CooleyYou can't have one without
49:47Breejthe any other position to to be clear, are you saying that any position that attempts to reject the law of non contradiction
49:54Breejis automatically just a non substantive mess that doesn't make any sense?
49:57CooleyIt's a it's actual a contradiction.
50:00CooleySo they can reject it they can reject it out of their system, but they still would be in a contradiction.
50:06BreejYou even know why they reject it?
50:09CooleyIt doesn't really matter because you can't reject it. You can't reject any of the three classical laws of logic. It's nonsensical to
50:16Cooleyattempt it because
50:17Cooleyit's all they all work within one another.
50:21BreejOkay. So to be clear, you can. Okay. What's the argument for the fact that Dioletheus cannot reject Okay.
50:24CooleyAgain, you can't. So okay. I'll ask
50:27BreejGo ahead.
50:28CooleyLet's I'll demonstrate it to you. Right?
50:30CooleySo the law of identity
50:32Cooleywould be p equals p.
50:35CooleyRight?
50:37BreejIt's actually it's actually a equals a, but go ahead.
50:39CooleyIt don't matter the letters. You get what it says.
50:42CooleyDon't freaking matter the letters. I can say x is x.
50:45BreejI care for the pedagogy.
50:47CooleySo what are you talking about? So we know the law of identity is
50:52Cooleya equals a, p equals p. That will be correct. Right?
50:57BreejSorry. The law of identity is just a equals a.
51:00CooleyThat's correct. That's what I said. Is that correct? Yes.
51:02Dean WithersI don't
51:02Breejknow why you're talking about some p and p. Yeah. It's a equals a. I had to verify though. In my pedagogical The
51:07Cooleylaw of
51:08Cooleythe law of non
51:10Cooleycontradiction,
51:12Cooleythat would be Uh-huh. If you're saying that something is true, it can't be true and false.
51:17CooleyOkay. Right?
51:18CooleyThe law of excluded I know that. Why are
51:20Breejyou doing this? Because when I tried to explain the history of Gettier to you, you cut me off and said, I already know that.
51:24CooleyNo. I'm I'm trying to tell you listen. I trying
51:27Breejdon't know why
51:28Dean Withersyou're trying to tell me things
51:28BreejI already know.
51:29CooleyHey. Hey.
51:30CooleySaid that you don't believe that they all work together.
51:33CooleyTime out.
51:33BreejNo. No. No.
51:34CooleyYou said that they all don't work together.
51:35BreejWith respect hold on. You telling me what they are doesn't have any relevance. Time out. Understand them?
51:40CooleyListen. If it's the case that I'm David
51:42Cooleyand you're Brie j, then
51:44Dean WithersOkay.
51:44CooleyI can only be David
51:46Cooleyand you can only
51:47Breejbe You can't say anything about the truth value of
51:49Cooleycontradiction You can't be me, and I can't be
51:52Breejyou. Dodging.
51:53CooleySo within the law Stop dodging. You got low IQ. Stop dodging. The law of identity
51:57BreejI know you think that, but you didn't
51:58Cooleylook so much
51:59Breejvideo dialing system.
52:00CooleyThe law of excluded middle
52:02Cooleyand the law of non contradiction.
52:06CooleyOh, they removed my life? What the heck? Hey, man. I guess I got kicked off. They removed my life off of TikTok.
52:12CooleyI got banned.
52:13CooleyIt says, violation clip, debate atheist,
52:17Cooleyviolation of reason, hate speech, and hateful behavior. Oh, I was cooking him so bad,
52:22Cooleysomeone they started like spamming to get me blocked, chat.
52:27CooleyAnd this was Dean's best debater.
52:30CooleyHis best debater thought that
52:33Cooleythe three classical laws of logic don't infer one another.
52:38CooleyThey all have a relationship with one another. That's my point. They all have a relationship with one another.
52:45CooleyAnd that's what I was trying to explain to him. I'm like, I'm David. You're Brie.
52:50CooleySo
52:51CooleyI can't be you. You can't be me.
52:55CooleyAnd this would be satisfying the law of identity.
52:58CooleyBut if you say that you are me, you just violated the law of identity
53:04Cooleyand that would also be a contradiction.
53:10CooleyAnd if you say that you're Brie and you're me, this would be violating the law of excluded middle.
53:16CooleySo once you say that a equals a,
53:20Cooleywell, how do you know that it equals a and not nothing else?
53:24CooleyBecause it infers
53:26Cooleythe law of excluded middle and the law of non contradiction.
53:30CooleyIt has relationships with one another. You can't untangle these two because let's just say that you have the law of non contradiction.
53:38CooleyWell, can't have the law of non contradiction
53:41Cooleywithout the law of identity
53:44Cooleybecause how can you point out a contradiction if you can't identify it?
53:51CooleyPlease tell me, chat.
53:52CooleyHow can
53:54Cooleyyou,
53:55Cooleyyou know, satisfy the law of excluded middle
53:58Cooleyif you can't identify it?
54:03CooleyBut which middle should we exclude?
54:06CooleyWhy can't I identify it?
54:10CooleyIs this and that or this or that? So
54:17Cooleychat, what I want you to know is that
54:20Cooleythey read books. Right? They read like chat g p they don't even read books. They read chat GPT,
54:26Cooleybut
54:27Cooleyall of these young boys, right? And you know they're young boys because I said let's have a crack session and he says, wait, what? Do crack? Bro, where I'm from and the generation I'm from,
54:37Cooleywe don't use roast.
54:40CooleyWe use crack or rank. I'm about to rank you. I'm about to crack on you.
54:45CooleyRight?
54:47CooleyThis is called making jokes.
54:49CooleyThe new kids, they say I'm about to roast you. I barely say roast.
54:54CooleyI'm from Jersey.
54:56CooleyBorn in the eighties. What do you mean?
55:00CooleyRight?
55:02CooleySo this was his best debater.
55:04CooleyNow it's funny,
55:07Cooleyhis best debater,
55:08Cooleyright,
55:09CooleyDean's best debater chat, I want y'all to know something.
55:13CooleyDean tried to say that,
55:15Cooleybro,
55:17Cooleyyou can't have JTB and the Gettyer problem. No. I said solving for the Gettyer problem.
55:23CooleySo you need to have justified true belief
55:26Cooleyand include the Gettyer problem, meaning that
55:29Cooleyit's not you're not just justifying your beliefs based off of sheer luck or coincidence.
55:35CooleyYou need to have other explanatory
55:37Cooleygood reasons
55:39Cooleyfor your beliefs to be justified because
55:42Cooleyif it's just a coincidence
55:43Cooleythat
55:44Cooleyyou know something, well that's
55:47Cooleynot justifying your belief. If it's just sheer luck,
55:51Cooleythat's not justifying your belief either.
55:54CooleyLike if you say that I know I'm gonna win the lottery.
56:00CooleyIs that a justified true belief?
56:02CooleyNo. That's luck.
56:05CooleyIf you want it, you want it by luck.
56:08CooleyYou get it? So if you like this video and wanna watch more, click right here. But if you wanna watch the full episode,
56:14Cooleyclick right here.