RE: A bit on epistemology.

RE: A bit on epistemology. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 9:59:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras No the point is that you shouldn't use it... I disagree. I have asked you repeatedly to back up with a source why you interpret the word as you do. I'm beginning to think there is no reasoning with you which is pretty ironic given the topic of the thread! [:D] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras You did say that which possibly inferred that was my stance: "Although I did mention that both use rules and axioms, that does not make them equal or (always) interchangable." Ditto. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras By contrast you listed science separately and extolled its virtues. That placed philosophy in a negative light. I am sorry but this is a subjective impression of you which does not correspond to the meaning of my words. I'm afraid it does. I am afraid it does not. So its come down to a "no I'm right your wrong" stance has it? [:D] I justified my assertion above with "I'm afraid it does. There is a movement within academia and science which dismisses the worth of philosophy. That was indeed my subjective impression but it justifiably led from you lumping together philosophy and religion as systems of unsupported axioms where rules applied, whilst you discribed science and reason in glowing terms much later on." which you selectively edited out. That is misleading. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras philosophy and religion as systems of unsupported axioms where rules applied I described reason as being another system with (not "of") axioms, and I said that all axioms are unsupported. So, in this sense, I lumped clearly all three together. As knowledge systems. But you decide to ignore this, I do not know why. No I didn't, I asknowledged this in several previous posts, and in fact it is one of the arguments I made against your stance. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras No, proof by reason is always supported by reason. If not, it is not proof by reason. I have the impression that you mistake reason and logic. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras You are misreading the point I am making again. I suspect you are deliberately stripping the points of context. Stopped reading here on that point, I think this conversation is escalating and I do not wish that. That is very unlikely since you then replied to subsequent points in my previous reply. If you are concerned about a discussion getting unpleasant then it is not a good idea to misprepresent what the other is saying. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I made the point repeatedly that you define reason in one way but treat it in another (for example with respect the apparent truths that reason "tells you") which is incompatible. You are not telling which exact assert I am affirming and denying, therefore you are not indicating and contradiction. I have made the very point to you again and again and again. Here it is in the last post "I made the point repeatedly that you define reason in one way but treat it in another (for example with respect the apparent truths that reason "tells you") which is incompatible." quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Affirming and then denying something is not the only way in which a person can contradict themselves. It is. This is getting silly. I think you need to familiarise yourself more with the word which has a broad application: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras For example if you define something in one very particular way but then treat it in another seemingly incompatible way, it is contradictory. No. Only if it is incompatible. And if it is, then you can derive from the treatment, an assertion which denies the initial definition. Thus - you can show the assertion being affirmed and denies, even if only implicitly. I invite you to do so. It "is" incompatible if it is seemingly so. We can only go by our own observations which we can justify if they are robust. Again you stated reason is based on axioms which you aeerted are unsupported by proof. Yet you then went on to say reason somehow tells you truth exists: "Reason tells me that the absolute truth exists." and " It also tells me that it is possible to reach it." quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It certainly sounds like you did in Post 67: " Maybe I must explain that with "absolute truth" I refered to an accurate description of the real world." It may sound like that to you. It does. If it is incorrect tell me what the sentence I quoted means. My point was that absolute truth is never quite achieved even if there is a lot of certaintly, as Kant pointed out. quote: I am starting to finish this because I dislike being accused of intentionally degrading the conversation. If you cannot say which assertion I affirmed and denies (even if IMPLICITLY) then you cannot show a contradiction. If for example, a => b, and I said a and not-b, then I contradicted myself. In this, you are right. But I invite you to mention "b", so that I can say for example "I do not think that b is true", and then you can say why my words imply it (why a => b) and I can explain why IMO a does not imply b (thus resolving the contradiction). So please - mention that contradiction or let is finish in a near point. Again you misrepresent what a contradiction is. It can merely be an incompatibility with an initial claim. As I stated above (just below the third last quote box), your pretty comprehensive definition of reason does not allow you to apply it to the real world. Yet you do so by saying that reason tells you things about reality, such as the claim that absolute truth exists.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:10:13 AM)
I see you have edited your last post a lot since I replied to it so will reply briefly to the additions. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras You are misreading the point I am making again. I suspect you are deliberately stripping the points of context. I stopped reading here on that concrete "thread", I think this conversation is escalating and I do not wish that. If you concentrated on less points maybe I could get them more into context, but as it is, I answer to the most immediate sentences because I do not want to spend the time to follow the whole chain of conversation in order to understand one sentence. Please make them more complete and self-explanatory if you fear I am taking things out of context. That is incorrect. You actually edited out the part of the quote that pointed to the context of the argument, in this case in Post 72 the context was there but you edited it out in your reply (post 74). It is not my fault if you are not able to follow the threads of arguments after editing out the previous quotes that contextualise them. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It certainly sounds like you did in Post 67: " Maybe I must explain that with "absolute truth" I refered to an accurate description of the real world." It may sound like that to you, but it is not what I said nor meant. It most certainly is what you said, even if it is not what you meant to say. You appear to be claiming I misquoted you, which I have not and I named the post for you to check it.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP All I can say is that the op's post makes a strong case for returning the original title of this forum. Stupidities not snippets. QFT

Kirata -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm beginning to think there is no reasoning with you... you selectively edited out... it is not a good idea to misprepresent what the other is saying... Again you misrepresent... I guess this means you two won't be getting a room. K.

myotherself -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:22:35 AM)
...and there'll be no photos. I can live with that.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:24:34 AM)
Mr. Anaxagoras, the conversation has escalated too much. I prefer to cut it here, sorry, your tone is unpleasant and disrespectful now. See you. For everybody, things I consider important on that conversation with Anaxagoras: Both science, philosophy (or better, the different philosophies) and religion (the different religions) include or are knowledge systems, therefore including rules and based on axioms (see [3] for what I am calling an axiom). Unlike most philosophies and all religions, science uses exclusively reason, and that in a very specific way. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. For example, due to this, science cannot make moral evaluations. Using reason includes using our perceptions, to derive (in this case: deduce) information. This way, we can deduce things, for example, that there is an objective universe, or that China exists. All these are asserts, deduced with reason (and subject to modification). The world as we percieve it using reason, is a world where reason is very effcient. However, this is not "proof" of the validity of reason as a whole: There cannot be such proof, as it would mean (proving = deducing correctly) using reasons outside reason. Everybody can, with a bit of effort, construct another system which shows a world, where that other system is very efficient and reaons is perfectly useless. I have made this as a joke in some Spanish forums, it is not very hard (about 1-2 hours). So... that a system shows us a world where this system is efficient, does not proove the system nor is it an exclusive characteristic of "reason". In a conversation, you can define an ant as "elephant" and then say that ants are mammals. There is no problem here, definitions are language conventions, and as long as the other one is informed about your redefinition, he can understand your sentence and then: Accept the redefinition for that context. - OR - Reject it and use the meaning ("elephant") or another word for it. Both are acceptable, none is a problem. That's it. Nice talk, and goodbye.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:24:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm beginning to think there is no reasoning with you... you selectively edited out... it is not a good idea to misprepresent what the other is saying... Again you misrepresent... I guess this means you two won't be getting a room. Even if I were that way inclined, that would be a definite "no". quote: ORIGINAL: myotherself ...and there'll be no photos. I can live with that. Surely you jest? [:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:26:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Mr. Anaxagoras, the conversation has escalated too much. I prefer to cut it here, sorry, your tone is unpleasant and disrespectful now. See you. To borrow a word you use a lot: "ditto"

myotherself -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:26:58 AM)
ok - maybe a vid would have been kinda fun.... But no talking, ok? [:D]

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:39:14 AM)
Message edited. Gosh, this goes fast, everybody is online :D . Well, that was it.

GreedyTop -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: myotherself ok - maybe a vid would have been kinda fun.... But no talking, ok? [:D] all I would want is those lovely squeaks and yelps as I spank ya silly.. no talking needed, see? grins

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 10:47:26 AM)
I for one would pay good money to see MyOther spanked! I'm not too good at lighting but I can bring along a decent HD camcorder! [;)]

GreedyTop -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 11:04:13 AM)
ok, we'll need those goldish colored umbrella thingies..

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 11:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop ok, we'll need those goldish colored umbrella thingies.. Ah yes to give some soft reflected light... I see your time in film school was well spent! [8D]

myotherself -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 11:30:33 AM)
Hang on just a cotton pickin' minute... I get the feeling you lot are plotting against me! Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!

GreedyTop -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 11:52:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop ok, we'll need those goldish colored umbrella thingies.. Ah yes to give some soft reflected light... I see your time in film school was well spent! [8D] hey, it wasone quarter!! LOL We didnt get that far by then!! LOL Bunny: quote: I get the feeling you lot are plotting against me! Plotting FOR you, dear lapin!!

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 2:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: myotherself Hang on just a cotton pickin' minute... I get the feeling you lot are plotting against me! Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy! Don't worry, the edge play will come much later... [:D]

voidbrat -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 3:30:19 PM)
ahhh yessss but keats said "an axiom is not proved until it is proved upon our pulses" and since beauty is truth and truth beauty and if she walks in beauty like the night and in so walking her pulse doth increase so that grace may increase all the more where then, horatio, wherefore then will thine axioms come when you DO call?

DeviantlyD -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 3:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster DeviantlyD: I may be a bee wee arrogant sometimes :) . It comes natural. You say that like it's something to be proud of. Trust me, it isn't. And I know I certainly didn't say it to flatter you. quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: You're both a couple of frickin' sadists!! And not the good kind either!!!! pout Just wait Zeph...one of these days I'll find your weaknesses and put them to the test. blows a big fat raspberry Zeph's way I've discovered my inner sadist and I need to explore that side of me. Sorry you got caught in that....actually I'm not, it's fuuuun! As for finding my weaknesses, good luck, I don't post them here lest some random sadist take advantage. Zeph the sadist LOL No random drive-by sadistic acts for you, huh. hee!! quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I already provided you with a link to prove what the standard usage of Axiom is. If you disagree provide an alternative source. No, I am sorry, I have met different sources with different definitions of this word, and i repeat that if you disagree simply don't use it. He's asked you to link your source. It would seem you don't have one. You can't just make up your own definitions to words and expect anyone to take you seriously when you use your own self-invented definition. [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD Fuck. Now I'm thinking about Belgian waffles with whipped cream, butter and yummy strawberries with a nice dusting of powdered sugar...kinda like... [image]http://www.saltlakefoodietours.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BELGIANWAFFLE-188x125.jpg[/image] Yummmmmm.... Hurmphhhh.. i am having my breakie ya know!... i see belgian waffle but i taste bean and cheese burrito (yeah, my breakie)... [&o] I might have to find an IHOP later.. mmmmm those fresh strawberries and waffles look so good.. Don't they? :) I shall, however, likely have oatmeal for my breakfast...and just have to fantasize about those waffles. sigh quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Mr. Anaxagoras, the conversation has escalated too much. I prefer to cut it here, sorry, your tone is unpleasant and disrespectful now. See you. Are you kidding me?? Hello! Have you seen some of the threads in this forum? He's been entirely patient with you. You're just getting into a snit because he can prove his words and you just come back with "I don't agree" and no coherent thoughts to back up your claims. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster For everybody, things I consider important on that conversation with Anaxagoras: Let me elucidate a very fine point for you: no one gives a flip what you think is important in your conversation with Anaxagoras!! And the truth of it is, I highly doubt there is a single person who has even read every single word in the exchanges between the two of you, except possibly Anaxagoras! This is for you.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 4:09:51 PM)
SpMat this habit of editing in huge changes after others have replied is inconsiderate. I suggest starting a new post instead if you know someone has already replied. You should take some responsibility for making this discussion "unpleasant" as well. For example it isn't pleasant to address all others about a given poster and slant that debate your favour. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Mr. Anaxagoras, the conversation has escalated too much. I prefer to cut it here, sorry, your tone is unpleasant and disrespectful now. See you. For everybody, things I consider important on that conversation with Anaxagoras: Both science, philosophy (or better, the different philosophies) and religion (the different religions) include or are knowledge systems, therefore including rules and based on axioms (see [3] for what I am calling an axiom). Unlike most philosophies and all religions, science uses exclusively reason, and that in a very specific way. I thought you were dissing philosophy as I said earlier and your statement above adds to the view that I was correct. Most philosophies actually use reason as a fundamental path for deduction. It can be applied with a formal logic system or more informally through conventional argumentation. Entire philosophical systems fall due to errors in reason. quote: This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. For example, due to this, science cannot make moral evaluations. Using reason includes using our perceptions, to derive (in this case: deduce) information. This way, we can deduce things, for example, that there is an objective universe, or that China exists. All these are asserts, deduced with reason (and subject to modification). The world as we percieve it using reason, is a world where reason is very effcient. However, this is not "proof" of the validity of reason as a whole: I already pointed out that the above was not what that part of the discussion was about. As I explained at length in Post 72 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3869394 you took a wrong turn or were strawmanning my position deliberately. It seems the latter is the case as you are repeating yourself. The chief bone of contention was your claim that reason uses axioms which you described as always being unsupported, and subsequently your step toward using reason to tell you things about the truth of existence! I wonder why is that not clear enough!! quote: In a conversation, you can define an ant as "elephant" and then say that ants are mammals. There is no problem here, definitions are language conventions, and as long as the other one is informed about your redefinition, he can understand your sentence and then: Accept the redefinition for that context. - OR - Reject it and use the meaning ("elephant") or another word for it. Both are acceptable, none is a problem. That's it. Nice talk, and goodbye. Thats rubbish. If you use a word against its common usage you must clearly state that you are not using it in that way. You did not say it was a "redefinition", rather you adapted the common meaning to mean something similar but significantly different, which would quite probably lead to confusion. That is why I commented about its use being misleading.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875