/lit/ - Literature

Is there any reason NOT to adopt a strictly coherentist epistemology?

>>10760749
>Therefore, if it reflects nothing but individual whim and fancy,
Yes, or "phenomenological intuition" as another anon put it
>it has no objective grounding,
Yes
>and is therefore meaningless.
There it is. This is where you're messing up

>>10721614
scientism thot begone

Is a claim like "murder is bad" an "ought" statement or an unfalsifiable "is" statement? It declares something that murder is, but I could also argue that a description like "bad" or "good" really means "what ought/ought not to exist."
What do you think? I'm trying to stress-test this model/diagram I came up with for an essay I'm writing about the implications of the notion of a sex/gender schism (not for school, just to pass the time and organize my thoughts) and this question gave me pause.

Is a claim like "murder is bad" an "ought" statement or an unfalsifiable "is" statement? It declares something that murder is, but I can also argue that a description like "bad" or "good" really means "what ought/ought not to exist."

What do you think? I'm trying to stress-test this model/diagram I came up with for an essay I'm writing about the implications of the notion of a sex/gender schism (not for school, just to pass the time and organize my thoughts) and this question gave me pause.