Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 344

Thread: When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

  1. #311
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    942
    Amen (Given)
    31
    Amen (Received)
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Very very wordy of no account. You still have not provided anything that would be 'decisive' as you claim.

    Still waiting . . .
    You're still waiting because you're confused, as usual. Anything I cite as a decisive claim from philosophy, such as the refutations of logical behaviorism, logical positivism, and type identity theory, or even the common sense conclusions that not all paintings cannot be forgeries or that I am conscious, or ethical statements such as torturing small children for fun is morally wrong, you would circularly and pre-emptively dismiss because they do not (surprise!) fit your already decided upon criterion for knowledge. That criterion, as I've stated numerous times, is not itself empirically verifiable, so by your own standards, does not qualify as truly reliable knowledge. So we can hereby dismiss it!

    And if I say that I am conscious or that torturing small kids for fun is wrong, those statements cannot be 'falsifiable' in Popper's sense. And if you come back by saying that they are only 'subjective', this will only once again betray your confusion between the different meanings of the word 'subjective'. The statement "I am conscious" is subjective ontologically but not epistemically, ie it does not depend upon anyone's personal opinions or attitudes.

    How about responding to the rest of my last post? If you can, that is?
    Last edited by Jim B.; 07-29-2020 at 02:30 PM.

  2. #312
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,332
    Amen (Given)
    2645
    Amen (Received)
    1941
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    That criterion, as I've stated numerous times, is not itself empirically verifiable, so by your own standards, does not qualify as truly reliable knowledge. So we can hereby dismiss it!

    [/U][/I]And if I say that I am conscious or that torturing small kids for fun is wrong, those statements cannot be 'falsifiable' in Popper's sense. And if you come back by saying that they are only 'subjective', this will only once again betray your confusion between the different meanings of the word 'subjective'. The statement "I am conscious" is subjective ontologically but not epistemically, ie it does not depend upon anyone's personal opinions or attitudes.
    Was it “wrong” for Mayan priests to sacrifice children to petition the gods for rain and fertile fields? Was it “wrong” for Dominican priests to torture heretics for the good of their souls in earlier times? Or to kill witches in Salem?

    This is reliable knowledge according to the subjective moral standards of the culture of the day. But you are erroneously conflating decisive, falsifiable empirical knowledge with subjective, changeable moral standards. The latter are simply how humans behave under particular circumstances at specific periods of history, not decisive, objective knowledge.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  3. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  4. #313
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,267
    Amen (Given)
    1857
    Amen (Received)
    1101
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    You're still waiting because you're confused, as usual. Anything I cite as a decisive claim from philosophy, such as the refutations of logical behaviorism, logical positivism, and type identity theory, or even the common sense conclusions that not all paintings cannot be forgeries or that I am conscious, or ethical statements such as torturing small children for fun is morally wrong, you would circularly and pre-emptively dismiss because they do not (surprise!) fit your already decided upon criterion for knowledge. That criterion, as I've stated numerous times, is not itself empirically verifiable, so by your own standards, does not qualify as truly reliable knowledge. So we can hereby dismiss it!

    And if I say that I am conscious or that torturing small kids for fun is wrong, those statements cannot be 'falsifiable' in Popper's sense. And if you come back by saying that they are only 'subjective', this will only once again betray your confusion between the different meanings of the word 'subjective'. The statement "I am conscious" is subjective ontologically but not epistemically, ie it does not depend upon anyone's personal opinions or attitudes.

    How about responding to the rest of my last post? If you can, that is?
    Actually Tassman and I have responded to this many times, no problem.

    Arguing from ignorance, subjective propositions and negative hypothesis cannot demonstrate anything decisive.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  6. #314
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    942
    Amen (Given)
    31
    Amen (Received)
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Was it “wrong” for Mayan priests to sacrifice children to petition the gods for rain and fertile fields? Was it “wrong” for Dominican priests to torture heretics for the good of their souls in earlier times? Or to kill witches in Salem?
    Yes. Certain moral duties would supersede certain religious claims.

    This is reliable knowledge according to the subjective moral standards of the culture of the day. But you are erroneously conflating decisive, falsifiable empirical knowledge with subjective, changeable moral standards. The latter are simply how humans behave under particular circumstances at specific periods of history, not decisive, objective knowledge.
    You're begging the question again. Is that basically all you do on here? You're assuming the very point at issue, which is not rational. The rational approach is to attempt to make an argument which does not implicitly embed the conclusion in one of the premises.

    I've gone to great lengths on other threads, such as the one with with Carpe Diem, to demonstrate why moral relativism is mistaken. And no knowledge is 'decisive' in the sense that it could not conceivably be overturned or radically re-contextualized by future paradigm shifts, including scientific knowledge.

    It's curious why neither one of you will ever respond to my central point that your claim contradicts itself. You either don't understand it or you have no response.

  7. #315
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    942
    Amen (Given)
    31
    Amen (Received)
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually Tassman and I have responded to this many times, no problem.

    Arguing from ignorance, subjective propositions and negative hypothesis cannot demonstrate anything decisive.
    I must have missed it when either one of you responded to it in anything other than a "But gee, science works for x; therefore science must work for a through zed!" case of begging the question.

    And no, this is not "Argument from Ignorance." Argument from ignorance is assuming that a proposition is true because it's not yet been proven false or false because it's not yet been proven true. I am giving positive reasons for why your position is self-contradictory and incoherent, reasons to which you never respond.

  8. #316
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Los Angeles County
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    155
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet View Post
    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
    I'm not sure what a "proof for that proof" would be.

    If you try to prove something to me, and I don't accept your conclusion, I can either criticize your logic, or I can refuse to accept one or more of your premises. Let's assume that you understand logic pretty well, and I don't have any problem with it.

    In the event that I don't agree with one of your premises, you can try to prove it, or you can rewrite your proof with other premises, or (as often happens) we will end up having to agree to disagree.

    Ultimately, your premises have to be so obviously true that it would be more difficult for me to dismiss them than to accept your conclusion. This isn't always possible.

    The short answer to your question is that it ends when we agree, or when one or both of us runs out of patience.

    Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
    Sure. It only has to be proven if you want to convince someone else to believe it, who doesn't already believe it.

  9. Amen shunyadragon, Tassman amen'd this post.
  10. #317
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,267
    Amen (Given)
    1857
    Amen (Received)
    1101
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    I must have missed it when either one of you responded to it in anything other than a "But gee, science works for x; therefore science must work for a through zed!" case of begging the question.

    And no, this is not "Argument from Ignorance." Argument from ignorance is assuming that a proposition is true because it's not yet been proven false or false because it's not yet been proven true. I am giving positive reasons for why your position is self-contradictory and incoherent, reasons to which you never respond.
    You have NOT provided a positive hypothesis that may be falsified and decisive. Yes, you have proposed 'arguing from ignorance' as what science cannot currently expalned concerning for example cosnciousnes,

    Still waiting , , ,

    be specific.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #318
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,332
    Amen (Given)
    2645
    Amen (Received)
    1941
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Yes. Certain moral duties would supersede certain religious claims.
    Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.

    And no knowledge is 'decisive' in the sense that it could not conceivably be overturned or radically re-contextualized by future paradigm shifts, including scientific knowledge.
    Indeed. All knowledge has the potential to be “overturned”, but unlike subjective moral standards, objective verifiable scientific knowledge and its predictability over time can be to all intents and purposes, decisive.

    It's curious why neither one of you will ever respond to my central point that your claim contradicts itself. You either don't understand it or you have no response.
    The claims of established scientific knowledge are generally NOT contradicted in practice – e.g. you are banging away at a computer keypad (a product of scientific technology) even as you simultaneously witter on about scientific claims contradicting themselves.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  12. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  13. #319
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    942
    Amen (Given)
    31
    Amen (Received)
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You have NOT provided a positive hypothesis that may be falsified and decisive. Yes, you have proposed 'arguing from ignorance' as what science cannot currently expalned concerning for example cosnciousnes,

    Still waiting , , ,

    be specific.
    You are using Popper's criterion of demarcation for SCIENCE which has not even been universally accepted as a criterion for science. Science is not a simple, unified activity, but a continuously changing landscape that connects it with non-scientific activity.

    We are talking about the explanatory scope of science itself, so you cannot justifiably demand a criterion of demarcation for science, which is itself controversial, as a necessary condition for my critique. I wasn't talking about consciousness. That was anther thread. Try to focus! I was talking about the self-contradiction and incoherence of your and Tassman's position, and the the simple laws of logic as undergirding ALL of rational thought, including science.

    So, specifically, once again, your position is incoherent and self-contradictory.

  14. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  15. #320
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    942
    Amen (Given)
    31
    Amen (Received)
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. How do you get that?



    Indeed. All knowledge has the potential to be “overturned”, but unlike subjective moral standards, objective verifiable scientific knowledge and its predictability over time can be to all intents and purposes, decisive.
    According to the standard that you've already decided is the only one you'll allow to count. And round and round we go! Nothing is more decisive than the proposition that I am conscious, which is neither objectively verifiable or falsifiable. That torturing infants for one's amusement is wrong is more decisive than any deliverance of empirical science.



    The claims of established scientific knowledge are generally NOT contradicted in practice – e.g. you are banging away at a computer keypad (a product of scientific technology) even as you simultaneously witter on about scientific claims contradicting themselves.
    I am 'wittering on' about a metaphysical and epistemological claim you are making, not a practical claim about the technical proficiencies of science and technology. The problem is that one always has a metaphysics, whether one acknowledges it or not. One either does it well or badly, and in the case of the naive, unacknowledged metaphysicians of science such as Shuny and yourself, you do it very, very badly, to the point where you can't even follow the conversation.

  16. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •