This post is another one of the ones I was talking about. I wasn’t really paying attention to where in the sequences anything was (it’s been so long since I read them that they’re all blurred together in my mind).
There are certainly strong arguments against the meaningfulness of coincidence (and I think the heuristics and biases program does address some of when and why people think coincidences are meaningful).
But this doesn’t answer the legitimate philosophical dilemma: If every belief must be justified, and those justifications in turn must be justified, then how is the infinite recursion terminated?
I do not assume that every belief must be justified, except possibly within rationality.
Do the arguments against the meaningfulness of coincidence state that coincidences do not exist?
I didn’t vote on this article, as it happens.
This post is another one of the ones I was talking about. I wasn’t really paying attention to where in the sequences anything was (it’s been so long since I read them that they’re all blurred together in my mind).
There are certainly strong arguments against the meaningfulness of coincidence (and I think the heuristics and biases program does address some of when and why people think coincidences are meaningful).
The page says:
I do not assume that every belief must be justified, except possibly within rationality.
Do the arguments against the meaningfulness of coincidence state that coincidences do not exist?