Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise it is simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority (�rationalists�) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who presuppose the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose that in arguing for their philosophy (�empiricism�). And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism (a fact which is, of course, the Achilles heel of skepticism). The
point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion . . . one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity then everybody is guilty of circularity.
AS, I couldn't agree more with the material above. Our beliefs define our facts, or, as Anselm said, "
Credo ut intelligam" � "I believe that I might understand."
Every statement of truth/fact will ultimately retreat to a self-authenticating source of authority which is accepted by faith. In that sense, I see Kruger's article as not a dismissal of all arguments other than the author's own but rather as an explanation of the necessity of epistemological self-consciousness on the part of any position/world-view/philosophy/religion.
All world-views begin with belief, and one's beliefs then define what one accepts as fact.
Not sure where you're coming from, but the subject matter is not new. Here for your amusement is an excerpt from another forum discussion some years back:
The dispute is irresolvable. To an outsider, the scientific materialist looks like a closed-minded fundamentalist dogmatically (even angrily) asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees. To a scientific materialist, all others seem like the dogmatists that have clung to old beliefs and inhibited the progress of mankind since time immemorial. Furthermore, scientists are something like psychopathic serial killers in their single-minded and obsessive need to seek out problems and solve them (and thank God for that). When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, ya know? And they don't take kindly to people telling them that some problems are immutable, unsolvable, non-rational mysteries. It is not only a personal insult but, since most scientists are staunch humanists, it is an insult and challenge issued to mankind from the depths of the universe itself; another defense thrown up as nature attempts to elude its master. Yes, there is something Luciferic in all this. And that's OK, too.
