NationStates Jolt Archive

Answer me this question....if it is in fact true that the pope is infallible in his interpretation of scripture...how are you describing the pope as an evil pole that has sold the catholic church to libralism? Is he not still the pope? You contradict yourself.

FD claims that there is at present no Pope, instead the seat is empty (SEDE VACANTE): upon what definite basis he makes this claim still eludes me somewhat.

Yet it is also the belief of the Chuch (remember it is infalible) that the succession of Peter will be constant. So either the church is wrong...or Defizer Shiezer is.

Yet it is also the belief of the Chuch (remember it is infalible) that the succession of Peter will be constant. So either the church is wrong...or Defizer Shiezer is.

The church as a whole is not infallible: only the Pope when he makes a statement and declares himself to be so.

It is also necessary that there be some periods of inconstancy in the Papacy, correct me if I'm wrong here, but a Pope is appointed, but rather than recognised, yes? - thus there is always some gap between holders of the position.

Point being.....some of his arguments don't match...besides.he still has not answered if he feels Jesus has freed him from the guilt of his sins.

The idea that the way in which words are used changes over time is 'pointless relativism'?

Yup. Because if you accept that, then you accept that all meaning is relative. Which it is not. You can't apply hermenuetics to physics for example.

Look, I fully understand that people need to justify their jobs on the faculty. Notwithstanding I don't see how it advances the state of mankind.

Yup. Because if you accept that, then you accept that all meaning is relative. Which it is not. You can't apply hermenuetics to physics for example.

Are you seriously claiming that the meaning of words doesn't change over time? Really?

So, the word 'gay' has always meant homosexual then?

The word 'computer' has always meant an electronic device, and never a person that computes?

The phrase 'nine one one' always refered to a set of terrorist attacks on the US, even before said attacks took place?

This is simply laughable.


****

Check your Wittgenstein: meaning is given by use in a linguistic community, and over time the customary rules and guidelines for using language alter, and thus meaning itself is variable through time.

In all seriousness, I have a question for Defensor Fidei,

Do you believe you are completely 100% without sin?

Or that you've never sinned?

Honestly?

Are you seriously claiming that the meaning of words doesn't change over time? Really?

So, the word 'gay' has always meant homosexual then?

The word 'computer' has always meant an electronic device, and never a person that computes?

The phrase 'nine one one' always refered to a set of terrorist attacks on the US, even before said attacks took place?

This is simply laughable.


****

Check your Wittgenstein: meaning is given by use in a linguistic community, and over time the customary rules and guidelines for using language alter, and thus meaning itself is variable through time.

Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one should be silent.

In any event, you prove my point. Gay may change it's meaning, but it is essentially meaningless anyway.

Real terms are strictly defined, and the consequence of commonly observed phenonmena. Thus I can speak accurately to others using them. In no event could I ever talk about how "gay" something was, because it is meaningless.

On the other hand, if I tell you then in 1999 something measured 1 metre, there is no other analysis needed. With a little reasearch you would have an exact idea of what I meant.

Like I said, left wing poop.

Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one should be silent.


That is the early Wittgenstein of th Tractatus, which was seen to be fundamentally flawed and rejected by the man himself.

In any event, you prove my point. Gay may change it's meaning, but it is essentially meaningless anyway.

So, you now allow that words can change their meaning, after earlier declaring "if you accept that, then you accept that all meaning is relative"? So all meaning is relative then?

Real terms are strictly defined, and the consequence of commonly observed phenonmena. Thus I can speak accurately to others using them. In no event could I ever talk about how "gay" something was, because it is meaningless.

So, 'gay' as an unstrictly defined term is essentially meaningless, according to you, yes? Yet, you persist in using other terms which fall into this same category in your writing here - such as "meaningless", "commonly", "essentially", "accurately".

Why do you persist in talking about how accurate something could be, but declare yourself unable to talk about how gay it is?

It seems to me that you are sailing dangerously close to the rocks upon which logical positivism floundered...

That is the early Wittgenstein of th Tractatus, which was seen to be fundamentally flawed and rejected by the man himself.



So, you now allow that words can change their meaning, after earlier declaring "if you accept that, then you accept that all meaning is relative"? So all meaning is relative then?



So, 'gay' as an unstrictly defined term is essentially meaningless, according to you, yes? Yet, you persist in using other terms which fall into this same category in your writing here - such as "meaningless", "commonly", "essentially", "accurately".

Why do you persist in talking about how accurate something could be, but declare yourself unable to talk about how gay it is?

It seems to me that you are sailing dangerously close to the rocks upon which logical positivism floundered...

1. I floated a bit of Wittgenstein only because you mentioned it. I think it is all crap. (Though he was an engineer so he is good in my book).

2. I am not unable to talk about accuracy whatsoever, I just can't use english to do it. For example I could give you an unvarying definition of a meter; or a unit of temprature. Neither of which would be subject to re-interpretation. You live in the world of consensus, I live in the world of absolutes. You will never understand.

2. I am not unable to talk about accuracy whatsoever, I just can't use english to do it. For example I could give you an unvarying definition of a meter; or a unit of temprature. Neither of which would be subject to re-interpretation. You live in the world of consensus, I live in the world of absolutes. You will never understand.

The two concepts of absolutes and consensus are themselves the product of consensus.

The two concepts of absolutes and consensus are themselves the product of consensus.

No, arts grad. There is no consensus in science. only proved absolutes.

I can define a unit of length, i.e. a metre exactly, and it requires no consesus. It just is what it is.

This is where western education has gone down the pan.

No, arts grad. There is no consensus in science. only proved absolutes.


No, science works on the basis of falsification, not on the basis of proof.

I can define a unit of length, i.e. a metre exactly, and it requires no consesus. It just is what it is.

This is where western education has gone down the pan.

You can define a metre to be whatever you like, but a consensus is required to universalise that definition.

You are wrong my dear lad, science has some absolutes but not all for we have not discovered all of them yet (or will we?) anyway, science deals with speculation and endless testing there are still no absolutes for everything in science. looking at life in black and white is limiting and perhaps you may miss something along the way.

No, science works on the basis of falsification, not on the basis of proof.



You can define a metre to be whatever you like, but a consensus is required to universalise that definition.


well done sir! well done unless of course your opponent seems to think that science, math etc are all ruled by an evil dictator?

well done sir! well done unless of course your opponent seems to think that science, math etc are all ruled by an evil dictator?

Maths is different to science, as it is an axiomatic system, whereas science, at heart, is a particular methodology.

Ok brainiac you done lost my ass I"ll go and talk theatre somewhere....

No, science works on the basis of falsification, not on the basis of proof.



You can define a metre to be whatever you like, but a consensus is required to universalise that definition.


Crap, crap and more crap.

There is no consensus required for any definition. THIS IS NOT LITERATURE.

I can define a metre in such a manner that everyone will understand exactly what I mean. No consensus is required.

Maths is different to science, as it is an axiomatic system, whereas science, at heart, is a particular methodology.

I can't even begin to explain what is wrong with this one.

Suffice to say, no.

Edit: From your little foray into the WWII thread, your grasp of history is also poor.

:eek: I just sat here, read all 18 pages on this thread and realized what a waste of time it was. I would have been much happier had I seen it earlier... all the good arguments were taken. You got to love the the transition from talking about the nazinoobs to attacking one. Too bad I missed the best part. Though what's his face has not only made all catholics look like immense assholes but I think my intelligence dropped just from the stupidity of his arguments. :eek:

I can't even begin to explain what is wrong with this one.

Suffice to say, no.

So, maths isn't an axiomatic system then, or science isn't at heart a particular methodology?

Edit: From your little foray into the WWII thread, your grasp of history is also poor.

No, that was an attempt to provide an alternate viewpoint: one which I admit, I lost interest in shortly after posting, and didn't have the energy to pursue.

So, maths isn't an axiomatic system then, or science isn't at heart a particular methodology?


Yes, finally. Science is not a particular methodology. It is science, it is either correct or incorrect. Fin.(Try falsifiable hypothesis).

And no maths is not an axiomatic system either. It is an internally self consitent set of rules. That is all. Try Godel.

Yes, finally. Science is not a particular methodology. It is science, it is either correct or incorrect. Fin.(Try falsifiable hypothesis).

However, because we do not have direct access to the truths of the world science is judged as correct or incorrect based upon how closely it adheres to its own ideal methodology.


And no maths is not an axiomatic system either. It is an internally self consitent set of rules. That is all. Try Godel.

We are in agreement here: an internally self consistent set of rules is a type of axiomatic system.

However, because we do not have direct access to the truths of the world science is judged as correct or incorrect based upon how closely it adheres to its own ideal methodology.




We are in agreement here: an internally self consistent set of rules is a type of axiomatic system.

No, no and no.

We do have direct access to the truths. Hence the falsifiable hypothesis. A therom is never judged upon which methodology was used to produce it. It is judged upon its correlation with observed phenomena.

I could pull the big theory of everthing out of my ass right now, and if it was: A; supported by repeated observations; B; had some predictive function which was later observed; and c; was falsifiable: Well then it would be a legitimate scientific theorem.

As to your second point, about maths. You are still fiddling around with Russel and Whitehead. Godel made that approach redundant. Things move on.

No, no and no.

We do have direct access to the truths. Hence the falsifiable hypothesis. A therom is never judged upon which methodology was used to produce it. It is judged upon its correlation with observed phenomena.

I could pull the big theory of everthing out of my ass right now, and if it was: A; supported by repeated observations; B; had some predictive function which was later observed; and c; was falsifiable: Well then it would be a legitimate scientific theorem.

Yes, the methodology to which I was refering was the method of falsification.



As to your second point, about maths. You are still fiddling around with Russel and Whitehead. Godel made that approach redundant. Things move on.

Godel showed that within any axiomatic system there remain statements which cannot proved or disproved: he did not dispute whether mathematics was an axiomatic system (or as you describe it 'an internally self consistent set of rules') just showed that it was always incomplete.

Ah, but I prefer the cold, Likeinland. I'm a viking!

::mutters:: And if I knew how to quote your post, I would...

::continues to wallow in noob-shame:: I like Vikings. Well, except for the fact that they raided our coasts for hundreds of years - but that's old news, isn't it?

Grrrmmmhhh? How did we get here?

:eek: I just sat here, read all 18 pages on this thread and realized what a waste of time it was. I would have been much happier had I seen it earlier... all the good arguments were taken. You got to love the the transition from talking about the nazinoobs to attacking one. Too bad I missed the best part. Though what's his face has not only made all catholics look like immense assholes but I think my intelligence dropped just from the stupidity of his arguments. :eek:
Oh, wow what a light of revelation coming from the intelligence just exuding from your post. :rolleyes:

Jews have been drinking the blood of Christian children in their synagogues for far too long.

*sigh* The only blood I've ever tasted was my own, when I bit my tongue to keep myself from saying something uncivil to you.