NationStates Jolt Archive

MODEDIT: This thread has been split from a discussion about fat people (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14251264#post14251264). I am damned if I know how it happened, but TJ and Jocabia somehow fell into a parallel discussion about perceptions of/existence of reality. Pray continue, gentlebeings, in your very own thread.


You snipped out the rest of my post. You can't just pick one sentence.

A sentence which was wildly ignorant. See arguments really are like a chain. They are as strong as the weakest link. If you are making a logical argument (and, trust me, you hope you are), then any breakdown in the logic causes a breakdown of the argument.

So if one part of your argument is wrong, and obviously it is (in fact, almost all of your argument is wrong), then your overall argument fails. And it has.

So if one part of your argument is wrong, and obviously it is (in fact, almost all of your argument is wrong), then your overall argument fails. And it has.

Not to get in a side-debate, but I don't think that holds a lot of water. "The Holocaust was a terrible event. Millions of people were murdered. People were put in concentration camps based on their ethnicity, religion, political views and physical and mental disabilities. People who wore green hats were also targeted for concentration camps."

Now, clearly one of those statements is not supported by facts, but that doesn't mean the entire argument is garbage. I admit it reduces the credibility of the argument, but it does not definitively overturn it.

Not to get in a side-debate, but I don't think that holds a lot of water. "The Holocaust was a terrible event. Millions of people were murdered. People were put in concentration camps based on their ethnicity, religion, political views and physical and mental disabilities. People who wore green hats were also targeted for concentration camps."

hey, Godwin's Law (http://xkcd.com/261/)

Not to get in a side-debate, but I don't think that holds a lot of water. "The Holocaust was a terrible event. Millions of people were murdered. People were put in concentration camps based on their ethnicity, religion, political views and physical and mental disabilities. People who wore green hats were also targeted for concentration camps."

Now, clearly one of those statements is not supported by facts, but that doesn't mean the entire argument is garbage. I admit it reduces the credibility of the argument, but it does not definitively overturn it.

Women burn=true
Wood burns=true
Wood floats=true
Ducks float=true
If she weighs the same as a duck, she's not a witch=bad logic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

Not to get in a side-debate, but I don't think that holds a lot of water. "The Holocaust was a terrible event. Millions of people were murdered. People were put in concentration camps based on their ethnicity, religion, political views and physical and mental disabilities. People who wore green hats were also targeted for concentration camps."

Now, clearly one of those statements is not supported by facts, but that doesn't mean the entire argument is garbage. I admit it reduces the credibility of the argument, but it does not definitively overturn it.

Really, it would, in fact. Once you debunk an argument, particularly at the level the example you just gave would be debunked, the entire argument would unravel.

See, either the person is losing the debate because they included an argument that was unnecessary (which would get them picked apart, badly). Or they included an argument that the conclusion relied on (which is the only argument that should be made) and the conclusion fails.

That's how argument works. You don't just toss out garbage arguments and hope one sticks. I know that you'd think it works this way based on some of the crap arguments on this forum, but the fact is, that in debate, your argument collapses when you bolster it with weak elements. The weak elements weaken the entire structure of your argument and call into question your understanding and your line of argument in general.

Not to get in a side-debate, but I don't think that holds a lot of water. "The Holocaust was a terrible event. Millions of people were murdered. People were put in concentration camps based on their ethnicity, religion, political views and physical and mental disabilities. People who wore green hats were also targeted for concentration camps."

Now, clearly one of those statements is not supported by facts, but that doesn't mean the entire argument is garbage. I admit it reduces the credibility of the argument, but it does not definitively overturn it.

It rather depends. If the form of logic is 'if...then' it absolutely falls down if the 'if' component can be shown to be faulty.

Amor has a claim about losing weight - but it's fundamental premise can be shown to be flawed. The logic falls apart if you can show that one link doesn't hold.

(The points you made - they were connected statements, but one does not lead to the next as logical cause and effect).

(The points you made - they were connected statements, but one does not lead to the next as logical cause and effect).

Hmmph. Can you show for certain that people who wore green hats were NOT targetted for concentration camps?

I'm pretty sure that with Gypsies and Homosexuals being targetted, I wouldn't wander past the SS headquarters wearing a green hat.

Muscle is more dense than fat. <-- AP's argument defeated.

Please don't presume what I know. I live in a world outside of NSG. As for the last statement, that's consistent with what I said. I also said that having a weak or flawed argument does not actually make the facts untrue, it just makes them unconvincing.

Heh. I love it when people squirm. It is not consistent with what you said.


You: Black people are criminals.
Me: SOME black people are criminals
You: How does your statement disagree with mine?

It most certainly does overturn the entire argument. Your statement was wrong. It was close enough to right that I was comfortable massaging it a bit into a true statement. You're welcome. An argument where the credibility is damage IS overturned.

The "facts" are irrelevant. We generally don't have access to facts. Debate is about the argument. Did Jesus exist? Well, factually one side or the other must be right, but there is no way either side will ever have access to that fact.

Jocabia, you're doing that thing again where you focus on winning the argument rather than trying to find the truth.

Jocabia, you're doing that thing again where you focus on winning the argument rather than trying to find the truth.

We can't find the truth. We don't have access to it.

Doing it again? When did I stop? I'm just enjoying the competitive nature of debate. Honestly, I actually like losing better than winning if I know I played my best game. I'm this way with anything competitive in nature. There is nothing better than a good buttwhooping by someone who is just that good.

It should be noted that I do actually care about the evidence. If there is evidence my position is wrong, I'm quite happy to acknowledge it and change my position as necessary. It's happened a lot on this forum. Not frequently, but a lot.

We can't find the truth. We don't have access to it.

This is simply wrong.

This is simply wrong.

No, it isn't. It's definitional to science. We can handle evidence, but the only TRUTH we have access to is that with new evidence the "facts" and "truths" are subject to change.

The only thing we have available to us is the best fit for the evidence.

No, it isn't. It's definitional to science. We can handle evidence, but the only TRUTH we have access to is that with new evidence the "facts" and "truths" are subject to change.

The only thing we have available to us is the best fit for the evidence.

Is it the truth that in my previous post I wrote: "This is simply wrong."?

Yes, it is true.

Apparently, one can find the truth. I just did it.

Is it the truth that in my previous post I wrote: "This is simply wrong."?

Yes, it is true.

Apparently, one can find the truth. I just did it.

No, actually, it isn't and you didn't. You THINK you wrote that. Every part of that is up to question.

I don't know YOU wrote it. I don't because I don't know who you are. For all I know, there is a program set on this site that responds with that post when I combine the time, date and certain letters. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why I BELIEVE you wrote it. But fundamentally, I cannot know it's a 'truth'.

You don't know you WROTE it. You could be dreaming, or hallucinating, or your brain could be mixing up the signals. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why you BELIEVE you wrote it. But, fundamentally, you cannot know it's a 'truth'.


Your base assumption is that the evidence you're receiving is correct. Science accepts that we have several fundamental flaws that make our efforts simply a best fit.

1. We cannot analyze the 'truth' of our evidence. We can apply rules to help them be as accurate as we can, but, in the end, our evidence can be fundamentally wrong. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
2. We cannot know what evidence we are missing and whether that evidence would change the conclusion. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
3. We cannot know whether there is a flaw in our conclusion until we actually find the flaw. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.

You are making assumptions. While those assumptions are based on evidence, they are still assumptions. Your 'truth' is nothing more than a best fit according to how you analyze the evidence.

No, actually, it isn't and you didn't. You THINK you wrote that. Every part of that is up to question.

I don't know YOU wrote it. I don't because I don't know who you are. For all I know, there is a program set on this site that responds with that post when I combine the time, date and certain letters. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why I BELIEVE you wrote it. But fundamentally, I cannot know it's a 'truth'.

You don't know you WROTE it. You could be dreaming, or hallucinating, or your brain could be mixing up the signals. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why you BELIEVE you wrote it. But, fundamentally, you cannot know it's a 'truth'.

Your base assumption is that the evidence you're receiving is correct. Science accepts that we have several fundamental flaws that make our efforts simply a best fit.

1. We cannot analyze the 'truth' of our evidence. We can apply rules to help them be as accurate as we can, but, in the end, our evidence can be fundamentally wrong. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
Not quite, and you're dodging the basic problem of empiricism. The fundamental problem of empiricism is the question of whether the future has any necessary relationship with the past.

This can never be addressed by referring to the past. However, it has been confirmed repeatedly that the past, which we think to have once been our future, had a close relationship with the prior past, which we think to have been our past at the time that we believe the current apparent past to have been our future.

To within this framework, we have seen that empiricism works very well to predict the future from the past. We may readily make claims of truth, both of tautological natures and of natures relating to reality; with a few basic assumptions, these can be justified as well as anything. If we are to consider truth inaccessible, then justified belief is clearly sufficient to claim knowledge.
2. We cannot know what evidence we are missing and whether that evidence would change the conclusion. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
3. We cannot know whether there is a flaw in our conclusion until we actually find the flaw. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.

You are making assumptions. While those assumptions are based on evidence, they are still assumptions. Your 'truth' is nothing more than a best fit according to how you analyze the evidence.
And yet still, some truths are quite a bit more "true" than others. The claim to complete skepticism rests in an implicit trust in certain truths of logic. Namely, you deny the possibility that others have access to a priori truths, something you cannot claim to know via your own standards; to wit, when you claim that "it isn't and it doesn't," you are assuming your own access to certain truths.

This is the problem of skepticism. You cannot know that your own claims are true, and this includes your skepticisms that you set forth as true. For all you can claim to know of your own accord, the rest of us have a prior access to all the truths in the universe and are simply entertaining ourselves with you.

No, actually, it isn't and you didn't. You THINK you wrote that. Every part of that is up to question.

I don't know YOU wrote it. I don't because I don't know who you are. For all I know, there is a program set on this site that responds with that post when I combine the time, date and certain letters. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why I BELIEVE you wrote it. But fundamentally, I cannot know it's a 'truth'.

You don't know you WROTE it. You could be dreaming, or hallucinating, or your brain could be mixing up the signals. Is that what the evidence suggests? Nope. That's why you BELIEVE you wrote it. But, fundamentally, you cannot know it's a 'truth'.


Your base assumption is that the evidence you're receiving is correct. Science accepts that we have several fundamental flaws that make our efforts simply a best fit.

1. We cannot analyze the 'truth' of our evidence. We can apply rules to help them be as accurate as we can, but, in the end, our evidence can be fundamentally wrong. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
2. We cannot know what evidence we are missing and whether that evidence would change the conclusion. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.
3. We cannot know whether there is a flaw in our conclusion until we actually find the flaw. This has proven out repeatedly in the past.

You are making assumptions. While those assumptions are based on evidence, they are still assumptions. Your 'truth' is nothing more than a best fit according to how you analyze the evidence.

Does my previous post say what I say it said? Yes it does. All the solipsism in the world won't change the fact that those words are written for everyone to see.

Does my previous post say what I say it said? Yes it does. All the solipsism in the world won't change the fact that those words are written for everyone to see.

The answer you're seeking is "as far as we know". Again, you're making an assumption. Denying that assumption doesn't make it go away.

wow this debate is irritating

The answer you're seeking is "as far as we know". Again, you're making an assumption. Denying that assumption doesn't make it go away.

Blah, blah. blah. You can pretend that by simply pretending to doubt the existence of that which we empirically observe we somehow make it false, but that's just so much mind games. Let's face it. You can claim to doubt everything but that just means that you get to descartes' idea that you can't deny the fact, the truth, that you are doubting it.

I think you might also be confusing scientific truth (as in models and theories) with facts.

Blah, blah. blah. You can pretend that by simply pretending to doubt the existence of that which we empirically observe we somehow make it false, but that's just so much mind games. Let's face it. You can claim to doubt everything but that just means that you get to descartes' idea that you can't deny the fact, the truth, that you are doubting it.

I think you might also be confusing scientific truth (as in models and theories) with facts.

Emperically observe. Exactly. What do you think emperical means? The idea that it doesn't reference "truth" is definitive.

Even Descartes' idea of I think therefore I am is questionable. Either it's a truism (which is not truth, but simply a definition we chose) or it's not supportable. The only way you can argue that you experiencing what we call thought means you are thinking is to define it as what thinking means. Otherwise, what you are experiencing could simply be inserted into you.

Again, do we have evidence for these things? Nope. But that's the point of emperical. The we base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change with new evidence. We base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change if some evidence is shown to be wrong. We base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change if a better fit for the evidence is found.

I love how you try to seperate science from facts. In other words, you want me to say that because you've chosen a philosophical position that everything you observe is fact, that I have to ignore the actual evidence to the contrary. No thanks. Not interesting in ignoring the way things actually work for the way you wish they worked.

Emperically observe. Exactly. What do you think emperical means? The idea that it doesn't reference "truth" is definitive.

Even Descartes' idea of I think therefore I am is questionable. Either it's a truism (which is not truth, but simply a definition we chose) or it's not supportable. The only way you can argue that you experiencing what we call thought means you are thinking is to define it as what thinking means. Otherwise, what you are experiencing could simply be inserted into you.

Again, do we have evidence for these things? Nope. But that's the point of emperical. The we base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change with new evidence. We base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change if some evidence is shown to be wrong. We base things on evidence with the acceptance that we will change if a better fit for the evidence is found.

I love how you try to seperate science from facts. In other words, you want me to say that because you've chosen a philosophical position that everything you observe is fact, that I have to ignore the actual evidence to the contrary. No thanks. Not interesting in ignoring the way things actually work for the way you wish they worked.

if it's inserted into me, then I must exist. Thanks for proving that the existence of the doubter is a fact. You discuss evidence as if it exists. Are you saying that the existence of evidence is a fact?

And I love how you go on and on about what you think I am saying even though it's not. So, Mr. fallacious arguments expert, would that be a strawman?

I'll give you an example, GoG.

You talked about the post you wrote. If you go back to the previous page and the post is gone, no deletion mark, would you still hold that you wrote it? Probably.
If you suddenly woke up, in bed, right now, would you still hold that you wrote it? Probably not. If you went and looked at the desk where you remember sitting and writing the post and no computer was there, would you still hold that you wrote it? I doubt it.

See, changing evidence results in changing conclusions. "Truth" doesn't change. What you have can and does.

As far as truth goes, if you suffered from a psychological disorder that caused you to believe things that aren't there, you'd have every bit the level of assuredness of your "truth" you have now. How can you distinguish between the two? You cannot. By definition, if you had a psychological or physiological disorder that caused you to believe things that hadn't happened, you couldn't.

I'll give you an example, GoG.

You talked about the post you wrote. If you go back to the previous page and the post is gone, no deletion mark, would you still hold that you wrote it? Probably.
If you suddenly woke up, in bed, right now, would you still hold that you wrote it? Probably not. If you went and looked at the desk where you remember sitting and writing the post and no computer was there, would you still hold that you wrote it? I doubt it.

See, changing evidence results in changing conclusions. "Truth" doesn't change. What you have can and does.

As far as truth goes, if you suffered from a psychological disorder that caused you to believe things that aren't there, you'd have every bit the level of assuredness of your "truth" you have now. How can you distinguish between the two? You cannot. By definition, if you had a psychological or physiological disorder that caused you to believe things that hadn't happened, you couldn't.

If evidence changes, then it must exist. That is a fact.

If i had a psychological disorder that had me suffering from hallucinations, we would know by comparing my hallucinations to what actually exists: i.e. the truth. That which you claim we can not know.

For someone claiming that the truth is unknowable and facts are irrelevant, you seem to be using arguments that assume the exact opposite.

if it's inserted into me, then I must exist. Thanks for proving that the existence of the doubter is a fact. You discuss evidence as if it exists. Are you saying that the existence of evidence is a fact?

We weren't arguing your existence, but if you'd like to, that's easy enough.

See, you're relying on Descartes. His evidence only works to prove YOU exist to YOU. And only so much as he offers his definition of YOU.

The problem there of course is that it's a tautology. Obviously, you cannot prove something to you if you don't exist. As such, he relies on a tautology, a definitional phrase that has not truth or falsity. It just is. Yellow isn't something that exists in reality, for example. It's a word we defined to mean a certain part of the spectrum. If I say, yellow represents x part of the spectrum, it's not a truth. It's a definition. Tomorrow we could all agree that yellow doesn't represent that part of the spectrum and the definition disappears and reality remains unchanged. The only change to occur would be our way of communicating our perceptions of reality.

It's amusing that in the end the only "truth" you could come up with is a tautology.

And I love how you go on and on about what you think I am saying even though it's not. So, Mr. fallacious arguments expert, would that be a strawman?
Yes, I totally made it up.

"I think you might also be confusing scientific truth (as in models and theories) with facts."

You seperate scientific truth from facts. It's explicit. In saying I'm confused, you are asking me to take your position that they are seperate which requires me to ignore the evidence. And to the last bit I stated, that you accept everything you observe as fact, if you don't, then I can't rely on ANYTHING you observe. Either your observations are infallible or I have to test every observation, which of course I cannot do, since I'm not in your head. Nor can you because such tests require observation. Again, we reach the point where your "truth" doesn't actually exist.

I extrapolated. If you don't know how to apply a strawman, please just use the word googlefucker or some similar word you've made up a definition for. Bastardizing logical fallacies is annoying.

If evidence changes, then it must exist. That is a fact.

No it isn't. It's a definition. You're defining existence. The "evidence" needn't exist as it's observed.

If i had a psychological disorder that had me suffering from hallucinations, we would know by comparing my hallucinations to what actually exists: i.e. the truth. That which you claim we can not know.

Who is we? Me? How do you know I'm not a part of the hallicination? How would you know what actually exists? Everything you observe is up to question at that point, so how would you test it? Similar with me. Neither of us can claim "truth" because our observations could or could not be real.

For someone claiming that the truth is unknowable and facts are irrelevant, you seem to be using arguments that assume the exact opposite.

Amusing. I'm arguing about what we experience. Could our experiences be a perfect representation of reality? Sure. Could they also not be a perfect representation of reality? Absolutely.

I'm showing what they COULD be, not what they are. Are you confused? Tell me what I need to change to make it more clear? Would you prefer I start saying COULD or POSSIBLY in every sentence to make it clear I'm talking about the flaws in your assumptions?

My base argument is a tautology. So is yours. The problem is that I recognize I could be wrong and our observation is perfectly reliable, but because neither you or I would be able to tell if I'm wrong or you are, by definition, we're stuck in uncertainty.

At best we get to something that looks like this.

The below is a lie.
The above is true.

Definitional contradictions that only show our limitations but don't in any way demonstrate any "truth" whatsoever.

We weren't arguing your existence, but if you'd like to, that's easy enough.

See, you're relying on Descartes. His evidence only works to prove YOU exist to YOU. And only so much as he offers his definition of YOU.

The problem there of course is that it's a tautology. Obviously, you cannot prove something to you if you don't exist. As such, he relies on a tautology, a definitional phrase that has not truth or falsity. It just is. Yellow isn't something that exists in reality, for example. It's a word we defined to mean a certain part of the spectrum. If I say, yellow represents x part of the spectrum, it's not a truth. It's a definition. Tomorrow we could all agree that yellow doesn't represent that part of the spectrum and the definition disappears and reality remains unchanged. The only change to occur would be our way of communicating our perceptions of reality.

It's amusing that in the end the only "truth" you could come up with is a tautology.

Why don't you answer my question? You're doing that thing where you pretend I don't know what something is and then explain it at length, instead of just replying to my post. To be honest, I think you do this so that you look good as an arguer, even though you do this instead of arguing.

I asked: are you saying that the existence of evidence is a fact?

Yes, I totally made it up.

"I think you might also be confusing scientific truth (as in models and theories) with facts."

You seperate scientific truth from facts. It's explicit. In saying I'm confused, you are asking me to take your position that they are seperate which requires me to ignore the evidence. And to the last bit I stated, that you accept everything you observe as fact, if you don't, then I can't rely on ANYTHING you observe. Either your observations are infallible or I have to test every observation, which of course I cannot do, since I'm not in your head. Nor can you because such tests require observation. Again, we reach the point where your "truth" doesn't actually exist.

I extrapolated. If you don't know how to apply a strawman, please just use the word googlefucker or some similar word you've made up a definition for. Bastardizing logical fallacies is annoying.

Are you unaware of how scientific models and theories differ from the facts that they are trying to explain? This is really basic science. We observe facts, then come up with theories to explain them.

Can we get a split on the epistemology stuff? It's really off-topic, including the post I made on the subject that Jocabia seems to have missed reading.

No it isn't. It's a definition. You're defining existence. The "evidence" needn't exist as it's observed.

Who is we? Me? How do you know I'm not a part of the hallicination? How would you know what actually exists? Everything you observe is up to question at that point, so how would you test it? Similar with me. Neither of us can claim "truth" because our observations could or could not be real.

Amusing. I'm arguing about what we experience. Could our experiences be a perfect representation of reality? Sure. Could they also not be a perfect representation of reality? Absolutely.

I'm showing what they COULD be, not what they are. Are you confused? Tell me what I need to change to make it more clear? Would you prefer I start saying COULD or POSSIBLY in every sentence to make it clear I'm talking about the flaws in your assumptions?

My base argument is a tautology. So is yours. The problem is that I recognize I could be wrong and our observation is perfectly reliable, but because neither you or I would be able to tell if I'm wrong or you are, by definition, we're stuck in uncertainty.

At best we get to something that looks like this.

The below is a lie.
The above is true.

Definitional contradictions that only show our limitations but don't in any way demonstrate any "truth" whatsoever.

Yes. Our experience of the world can be flawed. That is totally different from claiming that we cannot know truth and that facts are irrelevant.

Ever had a rock thrown at your head?

If i had a psychological disorder that had me suffering from hallucinations, we would know by comparing my hallucinations to what actually exists: i.e. the truth. That which you claim we can not know.


How would you compare it to 'what actually exists'?

Where would you get your data for 'what actually exists' from?

Are you all torturing me or yourselves? I can't tell.

Are you all torturing me or yourselves? I can't tell.

Wrong thread... ;)

How would you compare it to 'what actually exists'?

Where would you get your data for 'what actually exists' from?

Depends if you're asking if I'm crazy and trying to figure out what's real, or if you're asking how we figure out that the other person's hallucinations aren't real.

Are you all torturing me or yourselves? I can't tell.

I'm just trying to torture fat people. It's what being fat is all about.

Wrong thread... ;)

it feels pretty wrong :tongue:


I'm just trying to torture fat people. It's what being fat is all about.

Us fatties torture ourselves enough :(

Are you all torturing me or yourselves? I can't tell.
I have a degree in philosophy. This is largely penny-ante stuff. It could be a lot worse.

Depends if you're asking if I'm crazy and trying to figure out what's real, or if you're asking how we figure out that the other person's hallucinations aren't real.


The ultimate question underlying observational evidence - and I think this is the point that Jocabia is getting at - is that we are ALL only capable of subjective interpretation of data.

If 99% of people see evidence that the sky is blue, and 1% sees evidence that the sky is red, which is TRUE?

Answer? Maybe neither. Maybe both. Maybe one, maybe the other. We don't know 'truth'.

I have a degree in philosophy. This is largely penny-ante stuff. It could be a lot worse.

lol

I just have a headache :tongue:

The ultimate question underlying observational evidence - and I think this is the point that Jocabia is getting at - is that we are ALL only capable of subjective interpretation of data.

If 99% of people see evidence that the sky is blue, and 1% sees evidence that the sky is red, which is TRUE?

Answer? Maybe neither. Maybe both. Maybe one, maybe the other. We don't know 'truth'.

If you define truth as some Platonic unchanging ideal that would always be the same if we were only perfect enough to see it, then we probably can't know it. Reality doesn't work that way. The sky is constantly changing colour. it is blue and red. To find out if it is true we need only look up and experience it.

Are you all torturing me or yourselves? I can't tell.

Depends. Which is more likely to turn you on.

If you define truth as some Platonic unchanging ideal that would always be the same if we were only perfect enough to see it, then we probably can't know it. Reality doesn't work that way.

This post pretty much regurgitates what I originally said. Way to circle around and end up agreeing with me. What you said was wrong was me saying that we don't have access to the truth. I've since further explained that I was talking about truth in a transcendent way that was beyond what we subjectively experience.

So did you choose to argue with me about something you know to be true, did you misunderstand me or did you change your mind?

This post pretty much regurgitates what I originally said. Way to circle around and end up agreeing with me. What you said was wrong was me saying that we don't have access to the truth. I've since further explained that I was talking about truth in a transcendent way that was beyond what we subjectively experience.

So did you choose to argue with me about something you know to be true, did you misunderstand me or did you change your mind?

I never thought you were using such a stupid definition of truth. My bad.

wow this debate is irritating

You don't actually know if it's irritating or not. You have no way to prove for certain that you are, in fact, irritated.

I never thought you were using such a stupid definition of truth. My bad.

Heh. Wow, when your argument finally boils down to this, it's probably better to just forego the post.

I didn't realize that any definition of truth that doesn't make truth subjective is stupid. I guess I should have read the memo. Can you remind me what day and time you sent it so I can find it? I have thousands of emails.

For the record, Descartes was trying to address the same type of truth I was. You did read all of Descartes and not just a famous phrase, oui?

I have a degree in philosophy. This is largely penny-ante stuff. It could be a lot worse.

My deepest sympathies.

Heh. Wow, when your argument finally boils down to this, it's probably better to just forego the post.

I didn't realize that any definition of truth that doesn't make truth subjective is stupid. I guess I should have read the memo. Can you remind me what day and time you sent it so I can find it? I have thousands of emails.

For the record, Descartes was trying to address the same type of truth I was. You did read all of Descartes and not just a famous phrase, oui?

Sorry. I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were discussing truth as something that was actually practical and usseful. Not some romanticised ideal that we can never access. I could say that 2 plus 2 equals four. To me that is a truth, a fact. Am I being subjective when I say that?

Sorry. I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were discussing truth as something that was actually practical and usseful. Not some romanticised ideal that we can never access. I could say that 2 plus 2 equals four. To me that is a truth, a fact. Am I being subjective when I say that?

I pointed out that truth is not available to us, only the conclusion we can reach based on the evidence. You can discuss the practical and the objective at the same time. I did. I'm sorry that the difference as expressed there isn't obvious to you. It discusses both types. It certainly seems obvious to me. Maybe I'm just smarter than you.

2 plus 2 equals four is definitive. If tomorrow we decided as a people 2 plus 2 equals 5, then it would. It will be whatever we define it to be. It cannot be true or false (other than in the simply definitive way we DECLARE them true or false).

I pointed out that truth is not available to us, only the conclusion we can reached based on the evidence.

It addresses both.

2 plus 2 equals four is definitive. If tomorrow we decided as a people 2 plus 2 equals 5, then it would. It will be whatever we define it to be. It cannot be true or false.

No. Our way of describing the quantities involved and their interrelations involved will change. You'll still get four apples if you put two apples together with another two apples.

You never answered my question about having a rock thrown at your head.

No. Our way of describing the quantities involved and their interrelations involved will change. You'll still get four apples if you put two apples together with another two apples.

You never answered my question about having a rock thrown at your head.

The rock thrown at my head is still observational. It relies on my perception of the event. Did my head actually get hit by a rock? Did I only perceive that I was hit by a rock and nothing more?

Objectively, who knows? I certainly couldn't decipher the difference.

Practically, they are the same thing.

Again, the two plus two equal four is only because we declared those values to be the same relative to one another. We defined four in such a way that when adding two to two we would get that result.

Besides mathematician worth their salt would tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 is not always true, but then, you wouldn't listen.

Also, I contend that if I take two apples and put them together with two other apples, I may very well get five cups of apple sauce and no apples. Prove me wrong.

The rock thrown at my head is still observational. It relies on my perception of the event. Did my head actually get hit by a rock? Did I only perceive that I was hit by a rock and nothing more?

Objectively, who knows? I certainly couldn't decipher the difference.

Practically, they are the same thing.

Did I ask about a hypothetical rock? No.

Now, have you ever had a rock thrown at your head?

Again, the two plus two equal four is only because we declared those values to be the same relative to one another. We defined four in such a way that when adding two to two we would get that result.

See last post.

Besides mathematician worth their salt would tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 is not always true, but then, you wouldn't listen.

Prove it.

Also, I contend that if I take two apples and put them together with two other apples, I may very well get five cups of apple sauce and no apples. Prove me wrong.

You would only get that much apple sauce if that's how much four apples makes.

2 plus 2 equals four is definitive. If tomorrow we decided as a people 2 plus 2 equals 5, then it would. It will be whatever we define it to be. It cannot be true or false.

Sorry but I can't let such ignorance pass uncorrected.

2 is a label for a concept, 4 is label for another concept. Nothing fancy or existential there, just straight forward semantics. Now it happens that the concept of 2 is defined as being s(s(null)) or the successor of the successor of the empty set. OK so far? Also the concept of 4 is defined as s(s(s(s(null)))).
Now the concept of plus is that of applying the nesting depth of one concept to the resultant of the concept to which it is being summed.
So we have 2 plus 2 is s(s()) applied to s(s(null)) which is s(s(s(s(null)))). Now lo and behold that is exactly the definition of 4.

So unless you are just relabeling the concepts - which does not change the definition in any way then we can not just define 2 plus 2 as being 5. Five denotes a different concept to that denoted by 2 plus 2. That is:
s(s(s(s(null)))) =/= s(s(s(s(s(null)))))

Got it?

Mathematics is either true or false according to its agreement with a clearly defined set of base rules. It is not true or false in terms of coincidence with the state of affairs in the world, as it is not in any way based on experience (although counting is - but the foundations of mathematics nowadays do not depend on counting)

(TJ - I too have a degree in philosophy, together with one in computing - hence the mathematical philosophy stuff. )

I think Jocabia is a masochist. :p

Sorry but I can't let such ignorance pass uncorrected.

2 is a label for a concept, 4 is label for another concept. Nothing fancy or existential there, just straight forward semantics. Now it happens that the concept of 2 is defined as being s(s(null)) or the successor of the successor of the empty set. OK so far? Also the concept of 4 is defined as s(s(s(s(null)))).
(Depending, btw, on which number theorist you talk to. There's some merit to making the numbers be:

1: {0}
2: {0,{0}}
3: {0,{0},{0,{0}}}

Where 0 denotes the null set. The main difference becomes how much work it is to encode the operators, but the definitions are equivalent on this level.)
(TJ - I too have a degree in philosophy, together with one in computing - hence the mathematical philosophy stuff. )
^.^ (Math, physics, philosophy if we're listing 'em precisely.)

Did I ask about a hypothetical rock? No.

Now, have you ever had a rock thrown at your head?

Did I say hypothetically? I gave you the answer both practically and objectively. I can tell you that practically I treated having a rock thrown at me as reality. Was it? Who knows. Reality cares not what I believe, as far as I know.

See last post.

Yes, I know. Your last post ignores the reality of that fact. You believe two apples added to two apples is four apples because we define it that way. It has no other significance.

You might as be arguing that because you defined yourself as Gift-of-God that it proves you are. Because the only evidence we have for that is the declaration.

What you're really saying is that if you take a group and put it with another group you get a larger group. The rest of the statement are just declarations we as a society agreed upon. Moreover, even the grouping concept is a perception. Reality might be that what we see as "four apples" really is sixteen pears. Two apples plus two apples equals sixteen pairs.

And the examples can get worse. What if I put together four parts of a square? What do I get? Well, I might still have four parts of square. I might also have a square. I might also have 1 part of a square. See, your relying on definitions fitting your very narrow mindset. And before you say, there are still four parts, there aren't. If the square parts bond as soon as I bring them together and I cannot seperate them without destroying them, there is no practical way to claim the four parts still exist as four parts. Now you have one part which may or may not be a whole square.


You would only get that much apple sauce if that's how much four apples makes.

Again, you make assumptions and you rely on how we declare that count. FOUR has no significance other than what we assigned to it. There are not FOUR apples unless we define four to be the number that correspondes to that grouping.

Your other failed assumption is that all of the apples were used. "Four" apples could be capable of making 10 cups and I could still get four. You make all kinds of assumptions and declare them as true and then claim it proves you have access to "truth".

(Depending, btw, on which number theorist you talk to. There's some merit to making the numbers be:

1: {0}
2: {0,{0}}
3: {0,{0},{0,{0}}}

Where 0 denotes the null set. The main difference becomes how much work it is to encode the operators, but the definitions are equivalent on this level.)

^.^ (Math, physics, philosophy if we're listing 'em precisely.)

What if I add two sets with two sets? Do I get four? No, we both know it's one. And worse, if it the sets were say, four sets of 3 numbers, you could end up with as many as 12 numbers in that one set or just 3 numbers. Sometimes two plus two equals 1 and 3 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3 equals 3 or 8 or 9 or 12 or 4.

What about you group two groups with two groups is it still four? Is it one?

2 + 2 is gradeschool math but it ignores the idea that it's just meant to teach us how we define numbers, not some overarching and unbending truth. Not even a practical truth.

I think Jocabia is a masochist. :p

I think he's a sadist, because he's inflicting himself upon us.

I think he's a sadist, because he's inflicting himself upon us.

You so wish.

Did I say hypothetically? I gave you the answer both practically and objectively. I can tell you that practically I treated having a rock thrown at me as reality. Was it? Who knows. Reality cares not what I believe, as far as I know.



Yes, I know. Your last post ignores the reality of that fact. You believe two apples added to two apples is four apples because we define it that way. It has no other significance.

You might as be arguing that because you defined yourself as Gift-of-God that it proves you are. Because the only evidence we have for that is the declaration.

What you're really saying is that if you take a group and put it with another group you get a larger group. The rest of the statement are just declarations we as a society agreed upon. Moreover, even the grouping concept is a perception. Reality might be that what we see as "four apples" really is sixteen pears. Two apples plus two apples equals sixteen pairs.

And the examples can get worse. What if I put together four parts of a square? What do I get? Well, I might still have four parts of square. I might also have a square. I might also have 1 part of a square. See, your relying on definitions fitting your very narrow mindset. And before you say, there are still four parts, there aren't. If the square parts bond as soon as I bring them together and I cannot seperate them without destroying them, there is no practical way to claim the four parts still exist as four parts. Now you have one part which may or may not be a whole square.




Again, you make assumptions and you rely on how we declare that count. FOUR has no significance other than what we assigned to it. There are not FOUR apples unless we define four to be the number that correspondes to that grouping.

Your other failed assumption is that all of the apples were used. "Four" apples could be capable of making 10 cups and I could still get four. You make all kinds of assumptions and declare them as true and then claim it proves you have access to "truth".

When you ducked, you did not treat the fact of the rock's existence as transcendental, or as simply as definition. You treated it as something real and tangible. I just wanted to point out what definition of truth you actually work with on a day to day basis.

AB Again pointed out how you're just wrong on the 2+2=4 thing.

Now your argument has descended to pretending I'm making assumptions about applesauce.

What if I add two sets with two sets? Do I get four? No, we both know it's one. And worse, if it the sets were say, four sets of 3 numbers, you could end up with as many as 12 numbers in that one set or just 3 numbers. Sometimes two plus two equals 1 and 3 plus 3 plus 3 plus 3 equals 3 or 8 or 9 or 12 or 4.

What about you group two groups with two groups is it still four? Is it one?

2 + 2 is gradeschool math but it ignores the idea that it's just meant to teach us how we define numbers, not some overarching and unbending truth. Not even a practical truth.
You could say that almost all of math is about testing the tautological - i.e. "empty" - truths derivable from nine particular axioms. The rules for handling that encoding of numbers take care of all those questions, btw.

Most mathematicians understand the unspoken assumption "Assuming this particular set of axioms, then what I tell you is true:" prefaces every mathematics paper in principle if not in fact.Truth is dependent on the [in principle untestable] truth of the axioms.

When you ducked, you did not treat the fact of the rock's existence as transcendental, or as simply as definition. You treated it as something real and tangible. I just wanted to point out what definition of truth you actually work with on a day to day basis.

Yes, which is why practical application and the actuality of it are not necessarily the same thing. If only I'd made this point, oh, I don't know, almost immediately, we could have avoid you going in a big fucking circle only to agree with me.

Unfortunately, if the rock were a hallucination, my ducking wouldn't make it a reality. Its truth is not defined by my perception. My perception is not defined by its truth, necessarily.

AB Again pointed out how you're just wrong on the 2+2=4 thing.

The problem is the concepts as we are defining them are as we declare them to be. They are our concepts.

What AB said has no merit than what you said. That he stated it better doesn't make him right. He's still ignoring the exact same problems you are.

I love that you think that if someone agrees with you and restates what you said, that somehow this means I'm "just wrong". How's that new cologne? What's it called? "Desperation"

Now your argument has descended to pretending I'm making assumptions about applesauce.

No, my argument has descending to pointout that you DID make assumptions. You keep failing to point that some things are definition.

You could say that almost all of math is about testing the tautological - i.e. "empty" - truths derivable from nine particular axioms. The rules for handling that encoding of numbers take care of all those questions, btw.

Most mathematicians understand the unspoken assumption "Assuming this particular set of axioms, then what I tell you is true:" prefaces every mathematics paper in principle if not in fact.Truth is dependent on the [in principle untestable] truth of the axioms.

Yes, precisely.

As such, 2 + 2 = 4 relies on initial assumptions.

Yes, which is why practical application and the actuality of it are not necessarily the same thing. If only I'd made this point, oh, I don't know, almost immediately, we could have avoid you going in a big fucking circle only to agree with me.

Unfortunately, if the rock were a hallucination, my ducking wouldn't make it a reality. Its truth is not defined by my perception. My perception is not defined by its truth, necessarily.

You said that you defined truth as some transcendental thing that we can't access. Your actions prove that you believe something else.

The problem is the concepts as we are defining them are as we declare them to be. They are our concepts.

What AB said has no merit than what you said. That he stated it better doesn't make him right. He's still ignoring the exact same problems you are.

I love that you think that if someone agrees with you and restates what you said, that somehow this means I'm "just wrong". How's that new cologne? What's it called? "Desperation"

You ignored the fact that he pointed out that you were quibbling over semantics, not math. You keep repeating that they're just definitions. try proving it.

No, my argument has descending to pointout that you DID make assumptions. You keep failing to point that some things are definition.

Since I've written hardly anything about applesauce, I wonder where you got all my assumptions from. Is that a strawman or are you extrapolating again?

You said that you defined truth as some transcendental thing that we can't access. Your actions prove that you believe something else.

No, they don't. They prove that I react to my perceptions because I find it practical. That doesn't change the truth of the rock.

You ignored the fact that he pointed out that you were quibbling over semantics, not math. You keep repeating that they're just definitions. try proving it.

I didn't ignore anything. AB is restating your argumenting. It's not suddenly right because he said it.

Actually, TJHairball already told you how mathematics works, which is a fact. It's definitional to mathematics. Mathematics is the description of the concepts that AB is talking about. The discipline accepts, like an logical discipline, that our limitations exist. One of them is that we have to begin with certain untestable and, thus, unverifiable assumptions.


Since I've written hardly anything about applesauce, I wonder where you got all my assumptions from. Is that a strawman or are you extrapolating again?

From the statement you did make.

"You would only get that much apple sauce if that's how much four apples makes."

One is enough comments about applesauce to comment. The only way I couldn't comment is if you made NO comments. Unfortunately, that's not the "truth" is it.

Your statement is untrue because it's fundamental assumption is untrue. I could get that much applesauce if that's how much two apples makes, as well.

If you define truth as some Platonic unchanging ideal that would always be the same if we were only perfect enough to see it, then we probably can't know it.

Right.

How else exactly does one define 'truth' in such a way that it doesn't have to be 'true'?

No, they don't. They prove that I react to my perceptions because I find it practical. That doesn't change the truth of the rock.

Go back and reread what I wrote. You'll note I wasn't talking about the truth of the rock.

....which is a fact.....

Thank you. I guess you were wrong about facts being irrelevant.

From the statement you did make.

"You would only get that much apple sauce if that's how much four apples makes."

One is enough comments about applesauce to comment. The only way I couldn't comment is if you made NO comments. Unfortunately, that's not the "truth" is it.

Your statement is untrue because it's fundamental assumption is untrue. I could get that much applesauce if that's how much two apples makes, as well.

Did you not notice that the number of cups of applesauce you can get has nothing to do with 2+2=4, because it's not the same thing being counted? Typical Jocabia tactic. Focus on possible though probably unintended implications of something that has nothing to do with the actual argument in order to make yourself look smart.

Right.

How else exactly does one define 'truth' in such a way that it doesn't have to be 'true'?

Is 'true' the Platonic unchanging ideal? I can quickly show you that you don't really use that definition. By throwing a rock at your head. The definition of truth you use when you duck to avoid the rock is practical, consistent with what we observe, and avoids all those weird solipsist mind games that are discussed in ivory towers.

Is 'true' the Platonic unchanging ideal? I can quickly show you that you don't really use that definition. By throwing a rock at your head. The definition of truth you use when you duck to avoid the rock is practical, consistent with what we observe, and avoids all those weird solipsist mind games that are discussed in ivory towers.

All that would show is that my reflexes react to perception...

All that would show is that my reflexes react to perception...

Can your reflexes not know truth? Is truth something that can only be perceived by our intellect?

I have tasted my lover. There is a truth that is beyond my mere intellect.

Is 'true' the Platonic unchanging ideal? I can quickly show you that you don't really use that definition. By throwing a rock at your head. The definition of truth you use when you duck to avoid the rock is practical, consistent with what we observe, and avoids all those weird solipsist mind games that are discussed in ivory towers.

Again, you're failing. If you're trying to argue that I don't, in fact, sit around doing nothing because I believe that everything I perceive is questionable, well, that has nothing to do with what I said.

I admitted that I believe things based on evidence. That does not mean that I believe the evidence is infallible. It means I believe the evidence is all I have to work with.

Unfortunately for you, reality doesn't reshape itself based on what I believe. If it did, it would help your argument. But it doesn't, and as such, regardless of whether or not I work from an evidence-based practical point-of-view, we remain unable to obtain objective truth.

Go back and reread what I wrote. You'll note I wasn't talking about the truth of the rock.

I know you weren't. You are conflating two different issues. I believe in the existence of God. Is it true? Do I have access to that truth?


Thank you. I guess you were wrong about facts being irrelevant.

Amusing, but you still fail. The problem is that you're equivocating. You've even admitted you're equivocating. You know there are multiple definitions of truth that can be applied to these concepts and you're intentionally mixing them up. Like I said, I like that new cologne.


Did you not notice that the number of cups of applesauce you can get has nothing to do with 2+2=4, because it's not the same thing being counted? Typical Jocabia tactic. Focus on possible though probably unintended implications of something that has nothing to do with the actual argument in order to make yourself look smart.

It was a joke. However, the point is, that again you're dealing in tautology. Something TJ also pointed out. The concepts are definitional. They may or may not describe reality. I was pointing out that I could adjust the concepts and the only thing stopping anyone from doing is so is what you're bitching about. We agree to deal in likes.

And even then, the concept doesn't hold true when you look at certain things where it's not as simple.

Again, what if unique letters is my unit. What if I add the set {a, b, c} to {c, d, e}? So I add the sets. How many unique letters do I have in the final set? Must be six, right?

Can your reflexes not know truth? Is truth something that can only be perceived by our intellect?

I have tasted my lover. There is a truth that is beyond my mere intellect.

The truth we're discussing can't be perceived by our intellect or our reflexes.

If I throw an imaginary ball at a small child, they'll flinch. The ball must be truth, huh?

NOTE: I'll be back later. I've got a nose bleed. The air is thin up here in my ivory tower.

I know you weren't. You are conflating two different issues. I believe in the existence of God. Is it true? Do I have access to that truth?

You're catching up.

Your belief in god and the truth thereof are qualitatively different from a rock thrown at our head. Stop conflating things.

Amusing, but you still fail. The problem is that you're equivocating. You've even admitted you're equivocating. You know there are multiple definitions of truth that can be applied to these concepts and you're intentionally mixing them up. Like I said, I like that new cologne.

So, you were using the word 'fact' in two different ways?

Fine. Please define 'fact'. Show how the definition you used previously is different from this one.

It was a joke. However, the point is, that again you're dealing in tautology. Something TJ also pointed out. The concepts are definitional. They may or may not describe reality. I was pointing out that I could adjust the concepts and the only thing stopping anyone from doing is so is what you're bitching about. We agree to deal in likes.

And even then, the concept doesn't hold true when you look at certain things where it's not as simple.

Please. Continue to try to prove that 2 plus 2 does not equal four. I especially liked when you said it was impractical to know that. I didn't know simple addition was so subjective and useless.

The truth we're discussing can't be perceived by our intellect or our reflexes.

Prove it.

wait, OK, so I am confused as to what truth we are looking to verify again.

fatness?
If I point to someone and say, "that person is fat", several others can return different answers because it is subjective.

Gog having posted in this thread?
If I point to a post of Gogs in this thread that he claims to have made and several others see it too, the only way they can say that he didn't post it is if they are lying because it certainly wouldn't be a truth dependent on agreement between any number of people.

Don't even fucking bring up hallucination. :p

wait, OK, so I am confused as to what truth we are looking to verify again.

fatness?
If I point to someone and say, "that person is fat", several others can return different answers because it is subjective.

Gog having posted in this thread?
If I point to a post of Gogs in this thread that he claims to have made and several others see it too, the only way they can say that he didn't post it is if they are lying because it certainly wouldn't be a truth dependent on agreement between any number of people.

Don't even fucking bring up hallucination. :p
I don't know what's going on anymore. Apparently 2+2=applesause or something.

All I know is that GoG's cock feels pretty damn real to me, and the question of whether it exists or not is completely unimportant.

Gog having posted in this thread?
If I point to a post of Gogs in this thread that he claims to have made and several others see it too, the only way they can say that he didn't post it is if they are lying because it certainly wouldn't be a truth dependent on agreement between any number of people.

Don't even fucking bring up hallucination. :pSomeone could've hacked into his account. Then it wouldn't be him.

I don't know what's going on anymore. Apparently 2+2=applesause or something.

All I know is that GoG's cock feels pretty damn real to me, and the question of whether it exists or not is completely unimportant.

No no no, applesauce isn't a real thing because you can't add numbers and come up with a non subjective answer. Do try to keep up.

Someone could've hacked into his account. Then it wouldn't be him.

:hail:

I don't know what's going on anymore. Apparently 2+2=applesause or something.

All I know is that GoG's cock feels pretty damn real to me, and the question of whether it exists or not is completely unimportant.

I think I love you, but I apparently can't know if its true.

Alright, well then this post belongs here:

I think I love you, but I apparently can't know if its true.

I'm willing to accept that it might not be true, as long as I get the practical benefits of it appearing to be true.

Hehe, a lot of the bloat in the "About being Fat" thread turns out to have been a tumour. A sort of philosophical mutation of the thread subject. Well splut, ye Mod. :hail:

My first then-off-topic post doesn't show up in this thread until the very bottom of the first page (and that post wasn't replied to). I am pleased to be given that much credit for the digression. ^.^

I would still like to know how Jocabia can claim to know something, namely, that the rest of us can't say we know anything, if we can't know anything. I think that was the point of that post; for all Jocabia knows via the skeptical standards he posited, we are Great Deceiver-like beings, omnisciently full of a priori truth yet entertained by his blind groping in the dark of non-knowledge.

To go back to the most recent page... personally, I think definitional truths are actually among the most interesting, but then, I am working on a M.A. in mathematics.

My first then-off-topic post doesn't show up in this thread until the very bottom of the first page (and that post wasn't replied to). I am pleased to be given that much credit for the digression. ^.^



Ner, TJ, the price you pay for arguing well is that the unphilosophical assume you must have started the argument. :$

Guess that makes NS the only place anyone gets undeserved credit, aside from the $7billion bailout. (/threadjack)

Those argueing that the 'truth' can not be know, I think have the truth of it!

And there was me thinking there was a thread to do with historical theory.:(

I think I love you, but I apparently can't know if its true.

This is exactly right. Unless you can see into the mind of the one that professes to love you, you can't be 100% sure, you by nescity have to take it on faith that by their words, and actions they are not lying to you.

Ahhhh. You 'philosophers' ever heard of Prof. James Flynn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Flynn) before? I took one of his papers last year.. He would always go off on truth test tangents. Epic stuff.

What is truth? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Truth Schmuth. Doesn't anybody like surprises anymore? :(

Those argueing that the 'truth' can not be know, I think have the truth of it!

The one thing about anti-realism which is funny is that there is no reason to agree with the idea at all by its own standards of verification. However, I don't think Jocabia is quite being an anti-realist.

The one thing about anti-realism which is funny is that there is no reason to agree with idea at all by its own standards of verification. However, I don't think Jocabia is quite being an anti-realist.

I agree with him as it goes. All those things we 'know' we don't really 'know', but we have got to be able to work without going mad, and so we act as if we do.

I agree with him as it goes. All those things we 'know' we don't really 'know'
Only so far as we hold 'knowledge' to a ludicrously high standard.

I agree with him as it goes. All those things we 'know' we don't really 'know', but we have got to be able to work without going mad, and so we act as if we do.

Exactly, it's all fine to debate such a topic in a philosophical thread, but totally pointless to bring it up it up in a thread about plane seats, since you could use that 'well you don't really know that this is actually true do you, truth is an illusion' as a rebuttal against anything and is counter-productive to debate.

Exactly, it's all fine to debate such a topic in a philosophical thread, but totally pointless to bring it up it up in a thread about plane seats, since you could use that 'well you don't really know that this is actually true do you, truth is an illusion' as a rebuttal against anything and is counter-productive to debate.

Heh and that's tha truth!:D

Those argueing that the 'truth' can not be know, I think have the truth of it!

The Truth is definitely out there...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/The-truth-1.jpg

You're catching up.

Your belief in god and the truth thereof are qualitatively different from a rock thrown at our head. Stop conflating things.
So, now your going to go with "I know you are but what am I". Of course they are qualitatively different. Only one of us acted like that the idea that truth might reference something other than practical knowledge was stupid. Shall I quote you? Pretending like I'm just catching up with you is really sad at this point.
So, you were using the word 'fact' in two different ways?
Duh.
Fine. Please define 'fact'. Show how the definition you used previously is different from this one.
Didn't you just accuse me of just catching up? As you pointed out there is a qualititative difference between transcendent truth and practical truth (something I've been explaining since this began). Fact always describes truth, but the truth it describes makes the usage different. For example, on a practical level, that I wrote this post is a fact. On a transcendent level, it isn't. That's how we got here.

Perhaps, if you're going to open a post with "you're catching up", you shouldn't demonstrate in that same post that you don't even understand the basic concept on which we began.
Please. Continue to try to prove that 2 plus 2 does not equal four. I especially liked when you said it was impractical to know that. I didn't know simple addition was so subjective and useless.
Uh, what? Quote me. I can't imagine I said any such thing without a typo.

Again, every advanced mathematician deals with what we're discussing. TJ fairly quickly pointed out that there are base assumptions to mathematics. Those assumptions are untestable.

Prove it.

Amusing. It can't be proven. That's the point. The proof you're asking for doesn't exist. It can't. That's why when you try to claim things about it, you're simply pulling things our of your ass. Don't get all pissy just because you got caught.

My first then-off-topic post doesn't show up in this thread until the very bottom of the first page (and that post wasn't replied to). I am pleased to be given that much credit for the digression. ^.^

I would still like to know how Jocabia can claim to know something, namely, that the rest of us can't say we know anything, if we can't know anything. I think that was the point of that post; for all Jocabia knows via the skeptical standards he posited, we are Great Deceiver-like beings, omnisciently full of a priori truth yet entertained by his blind groping in the dark of non-knowledge.

To go back to the most recent page... personally, I think definitional truths are actually among the most interesting, but then, I am working on a M.A. in mathematics.

The point is that it could be that we observe reality. It could be that we don't. It could be that we don't exist in any way relevant to the existence we believe we're experiencing. That's the point. We can't know.

It's the basis of agnosticism. Lack of knowledge is the claim. It's a negative claim and as such doesn't have to be proven. It stands as possible unless you can prove the opposite. And since it's possible. it's supported.

Think of it this way.

1. One side claims we know that we experience reality.
2. I challenge it by saying that it's possibly something else we're experiencing or nothing at all.
3. Either you show it's not possible or the basis for one is undermined and you reach an impasse. The problem is at the impasse you have to accept that you don't know.

Only so far as we hold 'knowledge' to a ludicrously high standard.

Not ludicrously high. It's a standard science uses, actually. Sciences treats a supported premise as true many times, but there is an inherent acceptance within science that we don't know.

It's a wonderful day in science when we discover something that challenges our current "knowledge". Things that we "knew" according to the standards some in this thread would like us to use have been completely overturned.

It's been shown that even things that are personal that you think you know, are often times not entirely accurate. There are all kinds of way to alter that experience through suggestion, perception, etc.

There is a level of "truth" that is practical. We generally accept our observations as descriptions of reality. We do this because it's the only way we can ever get up off the couch, but this doesn't determine whether, in fact, we are accurately describing reality. You'd have no reason to treat a hallucinated rock flying at your head differently than a real one. In fact, you'd have absolutely no way TO treat it differently.

Exactly, it's all fine to debate such a topic in a philosophical thread, but totally pointless to bring it up it up in a thread about plane seats, since you could use that 'well you don't really know that this is actually true do you, truth is an illusion' as a rebuttal against anything and is counter-productive to debate.

That wasn't how this started. How this started was that GoG made a comment to me and about me personally. He told me I should be seeking truth, rather than trying to win an argument.

I added a side point that we don't really have access to truth and we can only work with evidence. And here is where we ended up, mostly because GoG couldn't fathom that there is such a thing as transcendent truth, a truth not subject to the inherent limitations of our abilities to observe.

No, it isn't. It's definitional to science. We can handle evidence, but the only TRUTH we have access to is that with new evidence the "facts" and "truths" are subject to change.

The only thing we have available to us is the best fit for the evidence.

No one has ever denied that it's practical to simply use the best fit for the evidence. And in the original reply, I actually said that it's exactly what I do.

We can't find the truth. We don't have access to it.

Doing it again? When did I stop? I'm just enjoying the competitive nature of debate. Honestly, I actually like losing better than winning if I know I played my best game. I'm this way with anything competitive in nature. There is nothing better than a good buttwhooping by someone who is just that good.

It should be noted that I do actually care about the evidence. If there is evidence my position is wrong, I'm quite happy to acknowledge it and change my position as necessary. It's happened a lot on this forum. Not frequently, but a lot.

See.

The issue here is that people are asking me to accept despite the complete lack of evidence that the things we observe and experience are the only truth there is. It has no evidence and as such, there is no basis for calling such a thing knowledge.

So, now your going to go with "I know you are but what am I". Of course they are qualitatively different. Only one of us acted like that the idea that truth might reference something other than practical knowledge was stupid. Shall I quote you? Pretending like I'm just catching up with you is really sad at this point.

So when you say we can't access the truth, you're talking only about transcendental truth. How do you know it's true if you can't access it?

Duh.

Didn't you just accuse me of just catching up? As you pointed out there is a qualititative difference between transcendent truth and practical truth (something I've been explaining since this began). Fact always describes truth, but the truth it describes makes the usage different. For example, on a practical level, that I wrote this post is a fact. On a transcendent level, it isn't. That's how we got here.

Perhaps, if you're going to open a post with "you're catching up", you shouldn't demonstrate in that same post that you don't even understand the basic concept on which we began.

So, your transcendent truth contradicts your practical truth? That's really intelligent, useful and logically consistent. :rolleyes:

Like a unicorn being pink and invisible at the same time.

Uh, what? Quote me. I can't imagine I said any such thing without a typo.

2 + 2 is gradeschool math but it ignores...Not even a practical truth.

Again, every advanced mathematician deals with what we're discussing. TJ fairly quickly pointed out that there are base assumptions to mathematics. Those assumptions are untestable.

I like how you keep referring to TJ while ignoring AB Again's post. I guess you only like to point out thise that you think agree with you.

Untestable assumptions do not mean that we cannot access truth. It just means that we can't know for certain that what we are accessing is entirely objective. It puts limits on the certainty of our perception, not necessarily our perception. See he difference?

Amusing. It can't be proven. That's the point. The proof you're asking for doesn't exist. It can't. That's why when you try to claim things about it, you're simply pulling things our of your ass. Don't get all pissy just because you got caught.

So, not only can you not access this truth, but you can't even prove that the truth is not accessible?

So when you say we can't access the truth, you're talking only about transcendental truth. How do you know it's true if you can't access it?

You don't. That's the point.

So, your transcendent truth contradicts your practical truth? That's really intelligent, useful and logically consistent. :rolleyes:

No, it doesn't. That's also the point. Treating something as true doesn't mean you're ignoring that it might not be. That's again the foundation of science. We treat gravity like it won't ever change. We expect it to behave the same every time its tested, every time it occurs. We also accept that it might not. That's not a contradiction. Predicting based on evidence and treating such predictions as if they are right is rational. Accepting they may not be is also rational. No contradiction whatsoever.

Fact can mean something that is practically true. It is not transcendentally true. Again, not a contradiction, just a difference in meanings.

Like a unicorn being pink and invisible at the same time.

Nice non sequitur. It does however make a perfect example of how little you understand. The point of the pink unicorn is that on a practical level, we have no rational reason to believe that it exists and thus treat it as if it doesn't. On a transcendent level we have no rational reason to believe it doesn't exist and then accept it could. That's actually the point of the pink unicorn example. Pink unicorns may be dancing around you with impugnity. God may exist. Things may be an illusion. It's rational to accept these are things we cannot say are false, because we have no access to such things.

I like how you keep referring to TJ while ignoring AB Again's post. I guess you only like to point out thise that you think agree with you.

Amusing. How many times do I have to disprove AB's post to not be 'ignoring' it? 7? 10? I address AB several times. AB's post is a restatement of your point. It's as wrong as you are.

Untestable assumptions do not mean that we cannot access truth. It just means that we can't know for certain that what we are accessing is entirely objective. It puts limits on the certainty of our perception, not necessarily our perception. See he difference?

Uh, yes, that's exactly what it means. If you don't know something for certain, that's the definition of not accessing the truth. Your knowledge of the truth is limited because you don't have access to it. If you had access, it would testable. The lack of certainty is pretty much the definition of the lack of access.

So, not only can you not access this truth, but you can't even prove that the truth is not accessible?

Yes, I can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove a pink, invisible unicorn does not exist. The fact is until you prove that you can access the truth, then you're demonstrating that you cannot. If you could, you could show me to be wrong. Since you can't, you're not accessing the truth of the statement and thus supporting my claim.

The point is that it could be that we observe reality. It could be that we don't. It could be that we don't exist in any way relevant to the existence we believe we're experiencing. That's the point. We can't know.

It's the basis of agnosticism. Lack of knowledge is the claim. It's a negative claim and as such doesn't have to be proven. It stands as possible unless you can prove the opposite. And since it's possible. it's supported.

Think of it this way.

1. One side claims we know that we experience reality.
2. I challenge it by saying that it's possibly something else we're experiencing or nothing at all.
3. Either you show it's not possible or the basis for one is undermined and you reach an impasse. The problem is at the impasse you have to accept that you don't know.
What is this "we" you speak of? How do you know the non-self parts of we aren't a priori near-omniscient Great Deceiver-like beings entertaining ourselves with your blind gropings in the dark?

If you claim to know that we are not beings who experience "reality" in a grossly different fashion that allows us a priori access to truths, then you do indeed know something about reality, contradicting your main claim that "we" can know nothing reality. If you don't, then you have insufficient justification for extending your skepticism from the first person singular to first person plural, and therefore don't know that "we" can't know anything.

Now, step it back. To claim that you know we can't know anything is itself a claim to knowledge.

And as far as the practical truth of 2+2=4, you kind of missed the point. The only options aren't that it's a practical truth or it's impractical. It means that while 2+2=4 holds in some situations, it does not in other. Like I said if I take four groups of people and I add them together, do I still have four groups?

That was the part you cut out. See, without the context you miss that I'm saying that it's not as simple as you're trying to make it. You're not just making it seem like it's always true, you're downright saying it's always true. I've given you plenty of practical examples where it's not true.

It's like a true/false question when you were a kid. If it is sometimes false it is not true. It doesn't mean it's always false and, thus, it doesn't mean it's never practical. However, advanced mathematicians will tell you that there are assumptions there that if you change them, your descriptions of the concepts have to change as well, because the relationships of the concepts have changed.

For another example showing you that your assumptions are limited and occasionally impractical. What happens when I add two inches to two inches? I am literally adding 2 to 2. I don't necessarily get four.

Ignoring the apple example where I unless I make applesauce (which was a joke, of course), you have a practical example of 2+2 equalling four, because one example that holds doesn't prove your theorem. It supports it, but your theorem falls apart as soon as one example that is untrue appears. And there are buttloads. You keep ignoring them, because they are inconvenient.

What is this "we" you speak of? How do you know the non-self parts of we aren't a priori near-omniscient Great Deceiver-like beings entertaining ourselves with your blind gropings in the dark?
I don't. Are you claiming you do? Because that would be a different argument, now, wouldn't it? Would you like to make that claim?

If you claim to know that we are not beings who experience "reality" in a grossly different fashion that allows us a priori access to truths, then you do indeed know something about reality, contradicting your main claim that "we" can know nothing reality. If you don't, then you have insufficient justification for extending your skepticism from the first person singular to first person plural, and therefore don't know that "we" can't know anything.
I don't claim to know that. You haven't claimed to know that. You're correct that until someone claims to be something I'm not addressing, I don't address it. Are you suggesting that until I've shown that you cannot access the truth, I must treat it as if you can? Interesting. And here I thought we rationally did the opposite.

I say you're a child molester. Prove me wrong, while we're busy proving negatives.
Now, step it back. To claim that you know we can't know anything is itself a claim to knowledge.
It's a truism. It's definitional. As soon as you admit we can't actually know it's true, you prove it. Because, if it even MIGHT be true, then we don't know anything else. It's a logical trap.

That we get caught it because of our limitations is the point. It's like the ol' "can God make a rock even He can't lift?" or he's not omnipotent. It demonstrates our limitations and nothing more.

The problem with this particular limitation is that by demonstrating it, and you are, you're supporting my claim.

Now, let me see, scientifically, rationally, which claim holds? The one that rests on "you can't prove me wrong" or the one that is supported, one you JUST showed support for?

(By the way, English is an imprecise language. I'm certain you're better than equivocating. I KNOW you KNOW the difference between the usage of KNOW used in an absolute sense and the usage of know used in a practical sense. However, if you'd like me to use a different word instead, propose one and don't rest your argument on the different usages of words. It's a fallacy for a reason.)

You don't. That's the point.

So, the point is that truth is something that you don't know is true? Let's be honest. That's not useful or intelligent.

No, it doesn't. That's also the point. Treating something as true doesn't mean you're ignoring that it might not be. That's again the foundation of science. We treat gravity like it won't ever change. We expect it to behave the same every time its tested, every time it occurs. We also accept that it might not. That's not a contradiction. Predicting based on evidence and treating such predictions as if they are right is rational. Accepting they may not be is also rational. No contradiction whatsoever.

Fact can mean something that is practically true. It is not transcendentally true. Again, not a contradiction, just a difference in meanings.

Is it impossible for a fact to be transcendentally true?

Nice non sequitur. It does however make a perfect example of how little you understand. The point of the pink unicorn is that on a practical level, we have no rational reason to believe that it exists and thus treat it as if it doesn't. On a transcendent level we have no rational reason to believe it doesn't exist and then accept it could. That's actually the point of the pink unicorn example. Pink unicorns may be dancing around you with impugnity. God may exist. Things may be an illusion. It's rational to accept these are things we cannot say are false, because we have no access to such things.

Yes. Your definition of truth does have a lot of similarities to the IPU. It's unprovable, untestable, inconsistent...

Amusing. How many times do I have to disprove AB's post to not be 'ignoring' it? 7? 10? I address AB several times. AB's post is a restatement of your point. It's as wrong as you are.

Actually, you never replied to his post. The most you did was to say that we made the same mistake, without actually addressing what that would be, and arbitrarily defining quantities as subjective concepts, which is just semantics.

Uh, yes, that's exactly what it means. If you don't know something for certain, that's the definition of not accessing the truth. Your knowledge of the truth is limited because you don't have access to it. If you had access, it would testable. The lack of certainty is pretty much the definition of the lack of access.

The way I see it, there are three different things:

The existence of objective truth.
The knowability of objective truth.
The certainty of our knowability.


Since we see everything subjectively, we can doubt the third one. Note that even if the third one may not exist, that does not affect the other two. Only our perception of the other two. You support this argument (that we can not be certain of our knowledge) well.

Now, when you say that we can't access the truth, you're talking about the second one. You are saying that the objective universe is inherently unknowable. You have yet to provide any support for this argument.

Let me put it this way. I may be accessing the truth right now, but I don't know it. This is different from being unable to access the truth.

Yes, I can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove a pink, invisible unicorn does not exist. The fact is until you prove that you can access the truth, then you're demonstrating that you cannot. If you could, you could show me to be wrong. Since you can't, you're not accessing the truth of the statement and thus supporting my claim.

Mr. fallacious argument expert, is that an example of a false dilemma?

And as far as the practical truth of 2+2=4, you kind of missed the point....And there are buttloads. You keep ignoring them, because they are inconvenient.

No, you haven't provided any examples. You keep mixing things that are not like units. When you stick to clear units, i.e. when the things that you're adding are all identical, then you seem to always get 2+2=4.

A group is not a single unit. It's a group of units.

I don't. Are you claiming you do? Because that would be a different argument, now, wouldn't it? Would you like to make that claim?
If I were to make that argument, now, it would be rather difficult to assail from that particular skeptical position.
I don't claim to know that.
Sure you do:
We generally don't have access to facts.
We can't find the truth. We don't have access to it.
We can handle evidence, but the only TRUTH we have access to is that with new evidence the "facts" and "truths" are subject to change.
... there's probably about 20 more cases I can quote.

You are indeed making knowledge claims respective to entities you have claimed you can know nothing about.
You haven't claimed to know that. You're correct that until someone claims to be something I'm not addressing, I don't address it. Are you suggesting that until I've shown that you cannot access the truth, I must treat it as if you can? Interesting. And here I thought we rationally did the opposite.
Obviously, you must - to be consistent with your treatment of other knowledge claims - treat it as if you don't know - precisely what you're advocating regarding all a posteriori knowledge.
I say you're a child molester. Prove me wrong, while we're busy proving negatives.
Proof is always a matter of kind or degree. I can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a legal inquiry.
It's a truism. It's definitional. As soon as you admit we can't actually know it's true, you prove it. Because, if it even MIGHT be true, then we don't know anything else. It's a logical trap.
Knowing definitional truths is still knowledge.
That we get caught it because of our limitations is the point. It's like the ol' "can God make a rock even He can't lift?" or he's not omnipotent. It demonstrates our limitations and nothing more.
Not quite. It demonstrates the care with which one must define terms like "omnipotent" in order for them to refer to non-empty sets, something theologists have quietly noted
The problem with this particular limitation is that by demonstrating it, and you are, you're supporting my claim.
Not quite. I'm applying a reductio ad absurdum to the claim. If said claim is true, we cannot justifiably posit the claim as true. Return to square one of the Socratic dialogue, rinse, and repeat.
Now, let me see, scientifically, rationally, which claim holds? The one that rests on "you can't prove me wrong" or the one that is supported, one you JUST showed support for?

(By the way, English is an imprecise language. I'm certain you're better than equivocating. I KNOW you KNOW the difference between the usage of KNOW used in an absolute sense and the usage of know used in a practical sense. However, if you'd like me to use a different word instead, propose one and don't rest your argument on the different usages of words. It's a fallacy for a reason.)
Both of those are forms of knowledge. We have, as mentioned previously, the dichotomy between knowledge as justified true belief and as justified belief, a non-trivial dispute over the term. In fact, if you don't hold truth to be accessible, it only make sense to refer to knowledge as justifiable belief - which in turn means all of us can make knowledge claims, even mere mortals under the spell of some Great Deceiver ala DeCartes' first meditation.

You might find it more illuminating to re-structure your argument to distinguish more clearly between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and between synthetic and analytic truths. It's quite difficult to dispute access to analytic truths (and therefore, under a JTB description of knowledge, the existence of knowledge) especially when in the presence of mathematicians.

You can prove a negative, by the way.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Only so far as we hold 'knowledge' to a ludicrously high standard.

Not really.

We all dabble, occassionally, in 'assuming for a second that...' - which is a form of truth. It's a conditional truth that might not have any significance beyond the event or condition to which we ascribe it - and - to be honest, it's our main experience of 'truth'.

And, inherent in it, is the fact that it might NOT be 'true'.

So - GoG's example of the rock flying at your head. Does it matter if the rock really IS flying at your head? Or do you duck anyway, just in case? (Anyone who has tried to peer round a corner in a video game, or shied away from a moving object on a movie screen knows it doesn't matter)

That's most of our 'knowledge'. It's functional, and thus it has a place in our toolkit until we find it flawed, or something better.


The question then - is - are there 'truths' that can't be found flawed, that will never be replaced by something better. We tend to kind of assume that the universe would run on such 'truths', but most of us realise that - even if that is true, we'll likely never KNOW.

And that's the sort of knowledge that holds an impossibly high standard. Which is reasonable.

The question then - is - are there 'truths' that can't be found flawed, that will never be replaced by something better. We tend to kind of assume that the universe would run on such 'truths', but most of us realise that - even if that is true, we'll likely never KNOW.

And that's the sort of knowledge that holds an impossibly high standard. Which is reasonable.
I get what you're saying, I just have doubts (ha!) as to whether knowledge as 'justified true belief' is a good definition, and whether we don't need a neologism to describe this special kind of 'knowledge' that we can never know.

So when you say we can't access the truth, you're talking only about transcendental truth. How do you know it's true if you can't access it?


You don't have to 'know' it's true. Is there a 'truth' that is transcendental? It's kind of a function of a transcendental truth that you (probably) wouldn't know it was true.


So, your transcendent truth contradicts your practical truth? That's really intelligent,


Intelligent? Since when has the nature of truth been regulated by intelligence?


...useful...


If I want to undo a tight nut, a spanner is a wonderful tool. If I use a hammer, it's far less well matched to the task.

Is the hammer useless? No - I'm just trying to use it for a job it's not qualified to accomplish.


...and logically consistent. :rolleyes:


Logical consistency is irrelevent. If I look at two parallel lines with a series of arrows indicating one flow of direction between them, (with the right arrangement) it looks like the two lines converge towards the point of the direction the arrows face. Logically, since it looks like they converge, the conclusion is that they do (this is our 'observational truth'). In actuality, of course, those parallel lines effectively never change their distance from one another. We can check by measuring the interval (this is our 'transcendant truth'). The 'transcendant' truth in that example is completely logically inconsistant with the observational truth... and yet both 'truths' are logically consistent within their own parameters.

You don't have to 'know' it's true. Is there a 'truth' that is transcendental? It's kind of a function of a transcendental truth that you (probably) wouldn't know it was true.

Intelligent? Since when has the nature of truth been regulated by intelligence?

If I want to undo a tight nut, a spanner is a wonderful tool. If I use a hammer, it's far less well matched to the task.

Is the hammer useless? No - I'm just trying to use it for a job it's not qualified to accomplish.

Logical consistency is irrelevent. If I look at two parallel lines with a series of arrows indicating one flow of direction between them, (with the right arrangement) it looks like the two lines converge towards the point of the direction the arrows face. Logically, since it looks like they converge, the conclusion is that they do (this is our 'observational truth'). In actuality, of course, those parallel lines effectively never change their distance from one another. We can check by measuring the interval (this is our 'transcendant truth'). The 'transcendant' truth in that example is completely logically inconsistant with the observational truth... and yet both 'truths' are logically consistent within their own parameters.

If we can't even know if it's true, it seems silly to call it truth.

I'm not saying it's regulated by intelligence. I'm simply saying that a transcendental definition of truth is plain old fashioned dumb.

The way I see it, transcendenatl truth (TT, from now on) is like a hammer that can theoretically pull out every nail perfectly. Only you can never take it out of the toolbox.

When you measure the apparently converging interval between the lines, isn't that the observed truth?

I get what you're saying, I just have doubts (ha!) as to whether knowledge as 'justified true belief' is a good definition, and whether we don't need a neologism to describe this special kind of 'knowledge' that we can never know.

Well, the concept of such 'truth' is long established. It's the ineffable truth of god, his 'ways' which are different to our ways, those foolishness of the wise... all referring to that concept of some 'truth' beyond what we see/can know.

If anything, archelogism is warranted. :)

(I'm so funny...)

If we can't even know if it's true, it seems silly to call it truth.


Why?

'Truth' doesn't depend on us seeing it to be 'true', does it?


I'm not saying it's regulated by intelligence. I'm simply saying that a transcendental definition of truth is plain old fashioned dumb.


Not really. It refers to the fact that, no matter how colloborative our knowledge, no matter how objective we try to be - at heart, we're still subjective creatures.

Does that mean the universe HAS TO work according to our limitations? To work within the confines of our subjective ability to analyse?

(Science 'assumes' it, but is aware that it is assumption).


The way I see it, transcendenatl truth (TT, from now on) is like a hammer that can theoretically pull out every nail perfectly. Only you can never take it out of the toolbox.


Right.

If you had a long enough lever, you could move the universe, but where would you put it?

But, just because we can't use the tool, doesn't mean it's not there. That's kind of the point.


When you measure the apparently converging interval between the lines, isn't that the observed truth?

In the analogy, no - the measuring of the lines is taking us outside of the subjective confines. The 'test' - if I can call it that - takes place within the parameters of the diagram, and the addition of the ability to actually measure the distance between the lines would be the equivalent of an actual objective 'witness'.

If we can't even know if it's true, it seems silly to call it truth.

Why? Because you say so? Is there a correct answer, a truth, about whether the subject of the Bible, Jesus, a particular Jesus experienced by the authors, existed? I think most people would agree that there is. Will we ever know it? There is no reason to believe we will. We will continue to gather evidence one way or the other, but that is as much as we can do. It's not silly to realize that he either existed or didn't and that's the truth.

I'm not saying it's regulated by intelligence. I'm simply saying that a transcendental definition of truth is plain old fashioned dumb.

Well, if you say it's dumb, well, then it must be. I mean, it's not like you described the people who called those who discussed this ivory tower intellectuals. How very consistent of you?

Regardless of whether you claim it's dumb or not, it's the nature of our knowledge, or at least the nature of how we experience it. There is no sacred truth that we have access to. No truth that is subject to potentially being shown false due to new evidence. We've not found ONE. It's important that scientists accept this both philosophically and practically. Otherwise, we would reach a point where we'd say good enough and stop. The very basis of science is that there is no endpoint that we'll ever reach, but that we'll always be shooting toward the irrevocable truth of it, the transcendent truth, even if we can't reach it.

The way I see it, transcendenatl truth (TT, from now on) is like a hammer that can theoretically pull out every nail perfectly. Only you can never take it out of the toolbox.

When you measure the apparently converging interval between the lines, isn't that the observed truth?

It becomes the observed truth once you've done so. The problem that he's conveying to you is that you claimed that I'm being logically inconsistent. However, it's not logically inconsistent to act on the evidence you have if it's convincing and to simultaneously accept that it might be found wrong later.

So let's see, it's silly. It's dumb. Do you have anything relevant? Anything that actually makes an argument? Or just a bunch of nonsensical judgements that offer nothing?

Really, it would, in fact. Once you debunk an argument, particularly at the level the example you just gave would be debunked, the entire argument would unravel.

See, either the person is losing the debate because they included an argument that was unnecessary (which would get them picked apart, badly). Or they included an argument that the conclusion relied on (which is the only argument that should be made) and the conclusion fails.

That's how argument works.Hmm... Maybe. But your attitude is razor-thin close to a fallacy itself: argumentum ad logicam. Just because an argument is fallacious does not mean its conclusion is false; hence a strong response to most claims is still held to require contrary evidence in addition to any "debunking" of an argument.

No, you haven't provided any examples. You keep mixing things that are not like units. When you stick to clear units, i.e. when the things that you're adding are all identical, then you seem to always get 2+2=4.

A group is not a single unit. It's a group of units.

The problem is that some things that are like units do not actually fall within the same parameters.

I gave the example of adding to lines, two inches each. They both are two inch lines. When you add them in a simple way, you'll always get four inches. When you add them geometrically, you may or may not.

And I'm trying to keep it relatively simple so as not to lose you, but it's pretty widely accepted by those who actually use mathematics as a discipline that 2+2=4 relies on certain assumption. When the assumptions change so do the conclusions. Your problem is that for some reason you think your assumptions are infallible.

It's unsurprising that when using simplistic real world examples for which 2+2=4 was devised, that you get the results that form of addition was meant to give you. That may be the end-all and be-all of your knowledge, but it's a piss poor place to draw the line simply because you don't know any better.

It's unsurprising that when using simplistic real world examples for which 2+2=4 was devised

"2+2=4" doesn't describe an action at all; it describes a purely conceptual move. I have two groups here, and two groups there--thinking of them together, I have four groups. The act of amalgamation is a different category entirely.

So, the point is that truth is something that you don't know is true? Let's be honest. That's not useful or intelligent.
Wow, that's almost an argument. Except, well, not. Just more judgements with no foundation. In fact, not only no foundation, but not even the pretense of explaining why it's not useful or intelligent.

Fortunately, scientists actually find the acceptance that every "truth" we hold is fallible useful. Considering the progress they've made in the face of those who claimed it wasn't useful or intelligent, I prefer their type of intelligence to yours.
Is it impossible for a fact to be transcendentally true?
Nope. It's simply impossible for us to access the truth of it. The best we can do is to keep shooting for the best possible truth we can muster with the understanding that we are limited. We do our best to constantly stretch those limitations, but we could not do so without first accepting that we'll never have reaching a limit beyond which there is no knowledge to be had.
Yes. Your definition of truth does have a lot of similarities to the IPU. It's unprovable, untestable, inconsistent...
Amusing. Everything is unproveable. The best we can do is support. Many things are untestable. What is untestable is foundational to science and math. There are initial assumptions we accept for practical purposes without ever ignoring that they are both untestable and fallible.

As far as inconsistent, well, given your description of inconsistent, I'd prefer to be that kind of inconsistent. Your "inconsistent" relies on equivocation.
Actually, you never replied to his post. The most you did was to say that we made the same mistake, without actually addressing what that would be, and arbitrarily defining quantities as subjective concepts, which is just semantics.
No, I replied about his post. There are lots of posts I've not quoted. I address what his post said. I love that you're so hung up on it. I'm guessing you didn't actually understand it, but then, I accept I could be wrong since I'm only basing it on that laughable way you've leaned on throughout.
The way I see it, there are three different things:

The existence of objective truth.
The knowability of objective truth.
The certainty of our knowability.


Since we see everything subjectively, we can doubt the third one. Note that even if the third one may not exist, that does not affect the other two. Only our perception of the other two. You support this argument (that we can not be certain of our knowledge) well.

Now, when you say that we can't access the truth, you're talking about the second one. You are saying that the objective universe is inherently unknowable. You have yet to provide any support for this argument.

Let me put it this way. I may be accessing the truth right now, but I don't know it. This is different from being unable to access the truth.
No, it isn't. Having access to the truth requires that you recognize it for what it is. It's actually pretty funny that you get upset when others suggest that something is not useful and then suggest that it's useful to a complete inability to recognize the truth of something as "access". You can claim you have access to a museum, because you're allowed to say it's name and look at it from the outside, but by most standards if you can't actually, you know, ACCESS the museum, watering down the meaning of access until it doesn't resemble the actual usage is just silly.

Fortunately, I don't have to go with my usage, since you've already admitted we can never access this truth.

Sorry. I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were discussing truth as something that was actually practical and usseful. Not some romanticised ideal that we can never access.

I love that you go on the attack so frequently without actually making arguments. It pretty easily exposes you to the above. You've agreed with many of the current points several times back when you were talking about stupid it was (unfortunately, that's circled back around to be the basis of your argument again). You should be more careful. This isn't just losing an argument, but showing that this is personal for you.
Mr. fallacious argument expert, is that an example of a false dilemma?

It appears you wouldn't recognize one. The problem is that once you admit that we cannot be sure if what we have is true or not, then we have to accept that admitting as much supports my claim that our truths are not objective. In supporting my claim, you've given it as much weight as any argument will ever have.

All the evidence that we have, and by all appearances will ever have, supports my argument.

A false dillemma would be where there are multiple outcomes but someone only presents two. However, there are really only two outcomes to say "I don't know." You actually don't know. Or you do know. Some things are binary.

"2+2=4" doesn't describe an action at all; it describes a purely conceptual move. I have two groups here, and two groups there--thinking of them together, I have four groups. The act of amalgamation is a different category entirely.

Or one group. You can claim amalgamation is necessarily different, but, again, this is an imposed limitation you're simply choosing. Conceptually, there can be one group or four or sixteen or thirty, depending on makeup. Addition is intentionally simplistic. It's made as such for practical purposes, but that doesn't mean we're relegated to operating in particular ways that are definitional. See, 2+2=4 is defined by mathematics. It's how we've positioned those numbers and thieir relationship and definition the addition relationship. What I'm pointing out is that it's only when you adhere to the definition as we've chosen it that it holds up in any practical way. It's an agreement. The agreement has limits.

The more important part is that we're not even challenging the foundation at that point, but simply the tautology we created. The foundation is challenged by the other part, but given that it's the same argument, I decided to be funny by bringing up applesauce and made GoG shit himself. This is why we're still discussing this silly tautology like it's anything but.

I didn't say it describes an action. In fact, I explicitly said it describes concepts. It's our way of describing them, but that way has fundamental assumptions that are the basis of our understanding. Those assumptions are untestable. We accept this for practical reasons, but for practical reasons we also accept that it's a limitation to our understanding.

Hmm... Maybe. But your attitude is razor-thin close to a fallacy itself: argumentum ad logicam. Just because an argument is fallacious does not mean its conclusion is false; hence a strong response to most claims is still held to require contrary evidence in addition to any "debunking" of an argument.

I'm not claiming the conclusion is false. It's a nuance, but not a small one. Debunking isn't the same as proving false. In fact, the fallacy you list is about that very point.

Or one group.

No, four. Sure, I have in a sense a group of four groups, but that's irrelevant. (Or maybe you mean that I just combine all the contents of the four groups into one big group... but then I have done something quite different from mere "addition." First I altered the units I was dealing with, then I added.)

It's our way of describing them, but that way has fundamental assumptions that are the basis of our understanding.

What assumptions? Mathematical axioms? Certainly. But pointing that out is not the same as the constant references you make to the "practical truth" of 2+2=4 (which seem to be based on a confused notion of what the equation actually means), nor does it justify your original assertion somewhat back that 2+2=4 (as concepts, not as symbols) is true simply because we define it to be.

Why? Because you say so? Is there a correct answer, a truth, about whether the subject of the Bible, Jesus, a particular Jesus experienced by the authors, existed? I think most people would agree that there is. Will we ever know it? There is no reason to believe we will. We will continue to gather evidence one way or the other, but that is as much as we can do. It's not silly to realize that he either existed or didn't and that's the truth.

Are you saying it is inherently impossible to know if Jesus existed? No. We could find physical evidence that shows he actually existed, like when Schliemann found Troy.

Well, if you say it's dumb, well, then it must be. I mean, it's not like you described the people who called those who discussed this ivory tower intellectuals. How very consistent of you?

Regardless of whether you claim it's dumb or not, it's the nature of our knowledge, or at least the nature of how we experience it. There is no sacred truth that we have access to. No truth that is subject to potentially being shown false due to new evidence. We've not found ONE. It's important that scientists accept this both philosophically and practically. Otherwise, we would reach a point where we'd say good enough and stop. The very basis of science is that there is no endpoint that we'll ever reach, but that we'll always be shooting toward the irrevocable truth of it, the transcendent truth, even if we can't reach it.

With all those words, you don't make a single argument.

It becomes the observed truth once you've done so. The problem that he's conveying to you is that you claimed that I'm being logically inconsistent. However, it's not logically inconsistent to act on the evidence you have if it's convincing and to simultaneously accept that it might be found wrong later.

So let's see, it's silly. It's dumb. Do you have anything relevant? Anything that actually makes an argument? Or just a bunch of nonsensical judgements that offer nothing?

If it's the observed truth, then where is the contradiction with the trabscendental truth?

The problem is that some things that are like units do not actually fall within the same parameters.

I gave the example of adding to lines, two inches each. They both are two inch lines. When you add them in a simple way, you'll always get four inches. When you add them geometrically, you may or may not.

And I'm trying to keep it relatively simple so as not to lose you, but it's pretty widely accepted by those who actually use mathematics as a discipline that 2+2=4 relies on certain assumption. When the assumptions change so do the conclusions. Your problem is that for some reason you think your assumptions are infallible.

It's unsurprising that when using simplistic real world examples for which 2+2=4 was devised, that you get the results that form of addition was meant to give you. That may be the end-all and be-all of your knowledge, but it's a piss poor place to draw the line simply because you don't know any better.

The bolded part is an example of vector (as opposed to magnitude) addition. Again, you are 'adding' unlike things.

Please tell me what 'assumptions' are being used in '2+2=4'.

Wow, that's almost an argument. Except, well, not. Just more judgements with no foundation. In fact, not only no foundation, but not even the pretense of explaining why it's not useful or intelligent.

Fortunately, scientists actually find the acceptance that every "truth" we hold is fallible useful. Considering the progress they've made in the face of those who claimed it wasn't useful or intelligent, I prefer their type of intelligence to yours.

Scientists can't be using your definition if truth. How do they test a theory? By creating an experiment and comparing it to empirically observed data. If they thought the only truth was inaccessible, they would have no data to compare their theory with. As they would not consider their data to be truth.

Nope. It's simply impossible for us to access the truth of it. The best we can do is to keep shooting for the best possible truth we can muster with the understanding that we are limited. We do our best to constantly stretch those limitations, but we could not do so without first accepting that we'll never have reaching a limit beyond which there is no knowledge to be had.

So, facts can be true. Can we access facts?

Amusing. Everything is unproveable. The best we can do is support. Many things are untestable. What is untestable is foundational to science and math. There are initial assumptions we accept for practical purposes without ever ignoring that they are both untestable and fallible.

You can prove that something is false. It's called falsification.

As far as inconsistent, well, given your description of inconsistent, I'd prefer to be that kind of inconsistent. Your "inconsistent" relies on equivocation.

Jocabia, try to actually answer my points instead of just insulting me. If TT is not consistent with our observations, then it is inconsistent. Unless inconsistent means something else now.

No, I replied about his post. There are lots of posts I've not quoted. I address what his post said. I love that you're so hung up on it. I'm guessing you didn't actually understand it, but then, I accept I could be wrong since I'm only basing it on that laughable way you've leaned on throughout.

Show me.

No, it isn't. Having access to the truth requires that you recognize it for what it is. It's actually pretty funny that you get upset when others suggest that something is not useful and then suggest that it's useful to a complete inability to recognize the truth of something as "access". You can claim you have access to a museum, because you're allowed to say it's name and look at it from the outside, but by most standards if you can't actually, you know, ACCESS the museum, watering down the meaning of access until it doesn't resemble the actual usage is just silly.

Fortunately, I don't have to go with my usage, since you've already admitted we can never access this truth.

Again, you are conflating threee and two. You are saying that an uncertainty about your access to the truth must mean that you can't possibly access the truth. I am saying that you may access the truth, but you won't know for certain that you have.

I love that you go on the attack so frequently without actually making arguments. It pretty easily exposes you to the above. You've agreed with many of the current points several times back when you were talking about stupid it was (unfortunately, that's circled back around to be the basis of your argument again). You should be more careful. This isn't just losing an argument, but showing that this is personal for you.

Again, you wrote a lot of words but did not address the argument. The Platonic ideal version of truth is useless because it does not provide a framework by which we can judge the veracity of other things. How do you decide if something's true when you can't compare it to the truth?

It appears you wouldn't recognize one. The problem is that once you admit that we cannot be sure if what we have is true or not, then we have to accept that admitting as much supports my claim that our truths are not objective. In supporting my claim, you've given it as much weight as any argument will ever have.

All the evidence that we have, and by all appearances will ever have, supports my argument.

A false dillemma would be where there are multiple outcomes but someone only presents two. However, there are really only two outcomes to say "I don't know." You actually don't know. Or you do know. Some things are binary.

You would have been better to write: once you admit that we cannot be sure if what we have is true or not, then we have to accept that admitting as much supports my claim that our perception of truths are not objective.

It does not address the objectivity of truth, only the perception thereof.

I don't know. I do know. Because of my perspective, I can't say for sure if I know or not. I guess there are more than two answers to your question.

Okay.

I'm going to give a quick summary of my argument.

I believe that objective truth and facts exist. There is something out there called reality.

I believe we can access it through our senses.

I don't believe that our senses are always correct. So I think we can't be certain that what we sense as truth is actually truth. But most of the time we do actually sense the truth. I do believe our senses are mostly correct.

I know we are limited each to our subjective framework, but that does not mean we cannot see objectively. It only means we will never know if we actually are seeing objectively. I believe it is more practical to act as if we are seeing things objectively, and I think we all believe that we do see things that way, deep down, in our muscles, cells, and instincts.

Science: I see scientists making a difference between what they experience (observations, data, etc.) and the explanantions we make for those experiences (theories, models, etc.). The truth of our observations is regarded as self-evident. Scientists duck when you throw rocks at their heads. The truth of their models and theories is regarded as uncertain and fallible.

So, truth does exist in terms of our immediate experience. Reality is here, factual, solid as that stupid rock I keep throwing. To me, that is truth. This Platonic Ideal truth that we can not know or access, that means nothing. I've probably misunderstood it. Jocabia will come along and explain some more exactly how I got it wrong, but you will note that he and I agree on several aspects.

Jocabia, do you think you could summarise your argument for us, please?

I don't believe that our senses are always correct. So I think we can't be certain that what we sense as truth is actually truth. But most of the time we do actually sense the truth. I do believe our senses are mostly correct.


How can you prove this?

Okay.

I'm going to give a quick summary of my argument.

I believe that objective truth and facts exist. There is something out there called reality.

I believe we can access it through our senses.


That, my friend, is a leap of faith.


I don't believe that our senses are always correct. So I think we can't be certain that what we sense as truth is actually truth. But most of the time we do actually sense the truth. I do believe our senses are mostly correct.


Given how easily our sense are tricked (remember the little arrows between the lines? I think we've all seen images like that), I think that's a hell of an assumption to make.


I know we are limited each to our subjective framework, but that does not mean we cannot see objectively.


No, it absolutely does mean that.

We attempt to get closer to the truth by looking for cumulative responses in subjective evidence. When I don't believe my eyes, I nudge you and say 'did I see what I think I just saw?'


It only means we will never know if we actually are seeing objectively. I believe it is more practical to act as if we are seeing things objectively, and I think we all believe that we do see things that way, deep down, in our muscles, cells, and instincts.


It IS practical to act as if we were seeing objectively, which is why our brains always do that, even if we later decide our senses 'lied' to us. That's a survival characteristic... so yes, it's right down in our instincts.


Science: I see scientists making a difference between what they experience (observations, data, etc.) and the explanantions we make for those experiences (theories, models, etc.). The truth of our observations is regarded as self-evident.


As a scientist, I can tell you this isn't true.


Scientists duck when you throw rocks at their heads. The truth of their models and theories is regarded as uncertain and fallible.


Yes, we duck when you (constantly!) throw rocks at us. That's because our data processors treat all possible data as real, as a first response. That's why you jump in the scary movie, flinch when someone flicks a finger near your eye, and get that little dizzy feeling in your stomach when your character in a computer game looks over a huge (virtual) precipice.


So, truth does exist in terms of our immediate experience. Reality is here, factual, solid as that stupid rock I keep throwing. To me, that is truth.


That is truth. It is observational truth, as we see it.

However, most of us (one assumes) are also aware of little factors like the basic premise of gravity that holds us to the ground, the effects that cause parallax and make our world seem small and round, and the fact that even concrete and steel are mostly made of spaces between.

So - there is a second 'truth', of which we are aware, that isn't directly observation, that we also carry in our heads - even though lots of it directly contradicts what we see.

If there are overarching 'rules' of the universe (be they physical rules, or the literal existence/non-existence of god, or whatever) they are a 'truth' beyond our ability to examine... and maybe (probably?) beyond our ability to ever KNOW.


This Platonic Ideal truth that we can not know or access, that means nothing.


Not at all. It's fundamental. Does god exist? Whether you believe he does or not, you have to allow that, even if you were in his immediate presence, you still couldn't know absolutely, that this was (the) god. The religious argument is one of the strongest arguments for an un-knowable truth.

That doesn't mean it's meaningless. It means you're trying to undo a nut using a hammer.

How can you prove this?

I don't know if you can prove it in terms of a logical proof. I would say that the evidence of my continued survival attests to the veracity of my sensory experiences, because I use my senses to avoid danger and to find food, etc.

How can you prove this?

Exactly.

Inside the premise - we see evidence every day of our senses being fooled.

Outside the premise - even if we 'proved' it, we could be deceiving ourselves.

Okay.

I'm going to give a quick summary of my argument.

I believe that objective truth and facts exist. There is something out there called reality.

I believe we can access it through our senses.

Fun. I'd say 'then what?' but you'd miss the point and point me to the rest of your post, conveniently snipped. Wait here a minute while I come up with a better way of saying it...

I would say that the evidence of my continued survival attests to the veracity of my sensory experiences, because I use my senses to avoid danger and to find food, etc.

That's an interesting approach actually, it's compelling. Although it isn't proof.

I don't know if you can prove it in terms of a logical proof. I would say that the evidence of my continued survival attests to the veracity of my sensory experiences, because I use my senses to avoid danger and to find food, etc.

I don't get how an argument against solipsism can go on so long. It's the proverbial philosophical dead end. You're trying to run up a cliff face, a 90 degree angle. Even if you're moving, you're not going forwards.

Seriously, just take whatever you're going to say next, then reply 'Or so you think'. Maybe you don't actually need to eat, you're just imagining it?

I don't get how an argument against solipsism can go on so long. It's the proverbial philosophical dead end. You're trying to run up a cliff face, a 90 degree angle. Even if you're moving, you're not going forwards.

Seriously, just take whatever you're going to say next, then reply 'Or so you think'. Maybe you don't actually need to eat, you're just imagining it?

Considering sigging this...

Considering sigging this...

If you do, could you remove the god**** quote box and just use "__"? I don't get this fixation people have with wasting three of the eight lines on border and shading.

Sorry, that's bothered me for like, two years.

I don't get this fixation people have with wasting three of the eight lines on border and shading.

Mainly because people (like me), are too lazy to do anything else.

But I see you're point, sig edited. :eek:

That, my friend, is a leap of faith.

But isn't the other decision, that we are not seeing things correctly, also a leap of faith? So you end up having to accept the reality of your senses on faith while simultaneously holding some doubt as to their reality because it's on faith. Which is fine.

Given how easily our sense are tricked (remember the little arrows between the lines? I think we've all seen images like that), I think that's a hell of an assumption to make.

But we found out we were wrong by applying our senses in a more rigourous fashion. So we still depend on our senses to bring us truth.

No, it absolutely does mean that.

We attempt to get closer to the truth by looking for cumulative responses in subjective evidence. When I don't believe my eyes, I nudge you and say 'did I see what I think I just saw?'

I don't think I'm explaining myself well. Is it impossible for someone stuck in a subjective framework to ever see things objectively? I don't think so. I think it only means that the observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a subjective perception and one that happened to be objective. So, when I nudge you and you say, yeah, i saw that, I can take that as evidence that my perception of events did access objective truth, even though it was through a subjective filter.

It IS practical to act as if we were seeing objectively, which is why our brains always do that, even if we later decide our senses 'lied' to us. That's a survival characteristic... so yes, it's right down in our instincts.

No. Wait, you're supposed to disagree with me!:mad:

As a scientist, I can tell you this isn't true.

I did some science. At some point I remember looking at a thermometer and then writing down the temperature. Didn't I treat what my eyes observed as being factually true?

Yes, we duck when you (constantly!) throw rocks at us. That's because our data processors treat all possible data as real, as a first response. That's why you jump in the scary movie, flinch when someone flicks a finger near your eye, and get that little dizzy feeling in your stomach when your character in a computer game looks over a huge (virtual) precipice.

Like I said, our senses can be tricked. Our 'data processors' are empiricists.

That is truth. It is observational truth, as we see it.

However, most of us (one assumes) are also aware of little factors like the basic premise of gravity that holds us to the ground, the effects that cause parallax and make our world seem small and round, and the fact that even concrete and steel are mostly made of spaces between.

So - there is a second 'truth', of which we are aware, that isn't directly observation, that we also carry in our heads - even though lots of it directly contradicts what we see.

If there are overarching 'rules' of the universe (be they physical rules, or the literal existence/non-existence of god, or whatever) they are a 'truth' beyond our ability to examine... and maybe (probably?) beyond our ability to ever KNOW.

So, the tangible world we taste and smell is observational truth.

And this other truth that tells us of things that we cannot directly observe, is the same thing as the truth I am speaking of when I discuss scientific models and theories, is it not? The uncertain and fallible one?

Not at all. It's fundamental. Does god exist? Whether you believe he does or not, you have to allow that, even if you were in his immediate presence, you still couldn't know absolutely, that this was (the) god. The religious argument is one of the strongest arguments for an un-knowable truth.

That doesn't mean it's meaningless. It means you're trying to undo a nut using a hammer.

So, what would you use this Platonic truth for?

I don't get how an argument against solipsism can go on so long. It's the proverbial philosophical dead end. You're trying to run up a cliff face, a 90 degree angle. Even if you're moving, you're not going forwards.

Seriously, just take whatever you're going to say next, then reply 'Or so you think'. Maybe you don't actually need to eat, you're just imagining it?

Deceits within deceits.

Additionally, people spending hours on NSG, especially when they have Sin, should not be allowed to complain about 'not useful/intelligent/helpful'

Deceits within deceits.

Within an enigma within a mystery within a tortilla?

But isn't the other decision, that we are not seeing things correctly, also a leap of faith? So you end up having to accept the reality of your senses on faith while simultaneously holding some doubt as to their reality because it's on faith. Which is fine.


I kind of think you answered your own question, there.

It's not a matter of rejecting our capacity to see truth, per se. We know our senses can be fooled. Easily. Regularly. That being the case, accepting "the reality of your senses on faith while simultaneously holding some doubt as to their reality" is a good pattern. I think, the only logical pattern.

But that's very different to accepting that there is "objective truth and facts" and "we can access it through our senses."


But we found out we were wrong by applying our senses in a more rigourous fashion. So we still depend on our senses to bring us truth.


If I take off from the surface of the Earth, and head in the same direction, at the same speed, how long will it take me to reach the limit of... everything?

Isn't that what the pursuit of ultimate truth, with the limitations of subjective sense, is?


I don't think I'm explaining myself well. Is it impossible for someone stuck in a subjective framework to ever see things objectively? I don't think so. I think it only means that the observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a subjective perception and one that happened to be objective. So, when I nudge you and you say, yeah, i saw that, I can take that as evidence that my perception of events did access objective truth, even though it was through a subjective filter.


No - you can maybe assume that - if it's subjective, it's similarly subjective for others. You can reason that, maybe, you're trending towards objective.

You can't jump to the conclusion that two subjective witnesses equates to objective fact.


No. Wait, you're supposed to disagree with me!:mad:


Sorry. No! You're wrong!

That better? ;)


I did some science. At some point I remember looking at a thermometer and then writing down the temperature. Didn't I treat what my eyes observed as being factually true?


No. Not exactly. You made certain assumptions. You actually probably made some wrong assumptions (because your thermometer reads accurately at 'standard pressure', and you probably didn't measure the elevation of your workplace, am I right?). It depends what you mean by 'factually true' in the context.


Like I said, our senses can be tricked. Our 'data processors' are empiricists.


Afraid I'm going to have to agree with you again.

That's kind of the point, actually.


So, the tangible world we taste and smell is observational truth.

And this other truth that tells us of things that we cannot directly observe, is the same thing as the truth I am speaking of when I discuss scientific models and theories, is it not? The uncertain and fallible one?


I'm not sure I'm getting the question. Can you reword it?


So, what would you use this Platonic truth for?

Changing tyres? That's a good question, though - if we knew such truth, what could we do with it?

'Truth' doesn't depend on us seeing it to be 'true', does it?Perhaps, though it could be that there is no truth beyond what we see.

Perhaps, though it could be that there is no truth beyond what we see.

Perhaps. Although our increasing science says there is already truth beyond what we see...