Could you be wrong
Forums › General Discussion › Could you be wrong-
Ojibwe wrote:
But all dogs go to heaven. There must be something to that monochrome vision thing.I like an amount of uncertainty and ambiguity in my life, keeps me on my toes. I feel sorry for people who can only see black and white.
-
Bphucker wrote: ...
Yeah, but...It should tell you something about the epistomology if apologia has to retreat to these disingenuous tactics.
X=X and triangles do not exist in reality. Only in human models and rule systems.
(When the occult tries to use logic against you, pull it out from under them. It's just so simple.😉)
-
You guys make no fuckin sense 😂
-
₭ıƝɠβaℒℒєω wrote:
You guys make no fuckin sense 😂
Here's a better explanation.
http://youtu.be/O7gU2XHh3SY
-
Most interesting thread I've read in awhile! I actually learned something!
-
We disagree, they do actually exist; independent of minds (ex materia and as a mapped out synapse pattern in brains that recognize the material. It can be shown to you us well, if we accept evidence; if someone doesn't care about evidence... what sort of evidence could we show them to advocate the importance of evidence?). If every mind in the universe ceased to exist... Triangles would still exist and X would still be equal to X... there just wouldn't be anyone around to articulate or enforce the definitions the purveyors of the lexicon invented. Not being accepted by a mind is not relevant to existence Reality is not relative, we all just experience a slightly different version of it which has no barring on reality itself. Careful about conflating our ability to perceive something's existence with that things actual existence, they aren't related.
-
There is a shape on a comet 10 billion light years from earth. This shape exists no where else in the observable universe, there are no minds which have ever been able to observe it to establish a definition or construct a model representative of the shape. Can the shape exist? Why does observation or the ability to model it establish its reality? It doesn't, the shape exists without regard of any mind being able to define/model/observe it.
To say 'I could be wrong about everything I know' is a possibility statement, hardly useful because almost anything is possible. We care about probabilities and what evidence is used to determine them. Possibilities are for fumbling freshmen trying to get laid with bammer bong resin under their fingernails.
If in fact you were wrong about everything you know, then "I'm wrong about everything I know" would be a factually accurate statement about reality concerning something you do know, therefore self refuting.
-
FALSE.
X=X and triangles exist ONLY in the human mind.
Please show me a triangle. Not a symbol for a triangle, or a rough representation of a triangle, but an actual real triangle.
A triangle is a polygon with exactly 3 line segment sides. It's impossible that something like that could exist in reality. (Outside a subjective mind.)
There is a difference between symbology and reality. Logic is a set of rules and ideas held as a model in a subjective mind. It does not exist in objective reality either.
Stuff your false intellectualism where the objective photons emitted from Sol don't exist as waves or particles. 😝
-
The answer is very simple. If you come to a conclusion through induction, abduction, or and unsound (though possibly valid) deductive argument, there is an inherent possibility that your conclusion is wrong. If, on the other hand, you came to your conclusion through a sound deductive argument, there is no possibility that you are wrong.
-
A few definitions in laymen's terms:
A) Induction: Using what you've observed in the past to come to a conclusion.
B)Deduction: Using known "facts", axioms, or scientific laws to come to a conclusion (note that very few, if any, of these are ever 100% true, as they are come to through induction)
C)Abduction: Using what you know to come to the "most probable" conclusion.
D)A Valid Argument: An argument in which, if all premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusions is guaranteed to be true.
E) A Sound Argument: A valid argument in which all the premises are actually true. -
Carpenter wrote:
You can never prove that a sound argument exists.A few definitions in laymen's terms:
A) Induction: Using what you've observed in the past to come to a conclusion.
B)Deduction: Using known "facts", axioms, or scientific laws to come to a conclusion (note that very few, if any, of these are ever 100% true, as they are come to through induction)
C)Abduction: Using what you know to come to the "most probable" conclusion.
D)A Valid Argument: An argument in which, if all premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusions is guaranteed to be true.
E) A Sound Argument: A valid argument in which all the premises are actually true. -
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
Ah, your first step into logic, and your further plunge into being a horrid sophist 😄 Then we may abduce that there is always an inherent possibility one's conclusion is not true.Carpenter wrote:
You can never prove that a sound argument exists.A few definitions in laymen's terms:
A) Induction: Using what you've observed in the past to come to a conclusion.
B)Deduction: Using known "facts", axioms, or scientific laws to come to a conclusion (note that very few, if any, of these are ever 100% true, as they are come to through induction)
C)Abduction: Using what you know to come to the "most probable" conclusion.
D)A Valid Argument: An argument in which, if all premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusions is guaranteed to be true.
E) A Sound Argument: A valid argument in which all the premises are actually true. -
Go ahead. Give us an example of a premise (assumption) that is objectively true so that you can perform deduction (subjectively) to prove your argument 100% correct in objective reality.
Yeah.
-
Did you call me a sophist? Did you mean solipsist? I'm so confused.
-
Unless I misunderstood you or you misspoke (or mistyped, rather), this should more than suffice:
P1) All blips are blops
P2)All blops are blaps
C) All blips are blaps
A valid, though horrendously unsound, deductive argument. And should I, or anyone, choose to believe the premise are indeed true, you have objective premises and a conclusion that is 100% true, objectively. -
Carpenter wrote:
P1 and P2 are not objective truth. By your own definitions, your argument is merely valid and not sound. Blips blops and blaps are not objective. Also, equivalence exists only in language, and therefore is also not objective. I think you are missing the point of the argument here.Unless I misunderstood you or you misspoke (or mistyped, rather), this should more than suffice:
P1) All blips are blops
P2)All blops are blaps
C) All blips are blaps
A valid, though horrendously unsound, deductive argument. And should I, or anyone, choose to believe the premise are indeed true, you have objective premises and a conclusion that is 100% true, objectively. -
Let me elaborate on equivalence...
X=X is true, assuming the most basic understanding of reality, an object IS itself. Labels aside.
Nowhere else in known reality do all attributes of any discrete object "equal" those of any other discreet object.
A blip can never be a blop. A blip is a blip and a blop is a blop. Maybe a blip can be bloppy, but that's just silly. Heheheh...
-
Ah, then I have misunderstood you, my apologies. I thought you wanted an argument that was objective only because it with within a subjective deduction. In response to your actual challenge, I refer you to my original statement "Then we may abduce that there is always an inherent possibility one's conclusion is not true.", which was meant to have led you to conclude that sound deductive arguments (which is what you asked for) probably don't exist.
-
Don't get me wrong.. I'm not saying logic isn't a great thing.
But when it is used to "prove" the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I feel the need to point out that logic is symbols. It's language. It's subjective.
Math can "prove" that [1+2+3...] = -1/12. It's very difficult to argue that it's not true unless you understand some very advanced stuff like the rules for divergent series... But any child intuitively knows it's not really true.
It's the same with the logical "proof" that first-cause Easter bunnies exist. They can't be disproven, so it's just easier to say that we cannot prove anything outside our mind exists, therefore, go bother someone else.
-
Your tangentiality amazes me, Brownnote 😂 Are you continuing your previous points (though we've already come to similar conclusions- what we think are truths are not necessarily true) or merely stating that you find solipsism the only viable solution to life's numerous questions?
-
Carpenter wrote:
I'm just continuing the theme to my own conclusions. Logic is not objective, and we should keep that in mind when using it.Your tangentiality amazes me, Brownnote 😂 Are you continuing your previous points (though we've already come to similar conclusions- what we think are truths are not necessarily true) or merely stating that you find solipsism the only viable solution to life's numerous questions?
Solipsism is a problem; not a solution, but there are degrees of Solipsism, and I would say I'm more on the moderate end of it. We can't know for sure anything outside our own consciousness is real, but I have no trouble assuming it to be real for the purpose of being functional.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC