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

[seer]

Still waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions.. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.

What are you saying Shuny? That the LONC isn't absolute? That it would be possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment?

[shunyadragon]

What are you saying Shuny? That the LONC isn't absolute? That it would be possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment?

LONC is not absolute.

till waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.

[seer]

LONC is not absolute.

till waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.

If the LONC is not absolute then it is possible for the the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment. Of course it is impossible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment - which proves the LONC.

[shunyadragon]

If the LONC is not absolute then it is possible for the the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment. Of course it is impossible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment - which proves the LONC.

This line of thinking only shows that the behavior of the sun is predictable by the Laws of Nature, which is what we observe discriptively threough as with all science.

till waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.

Science and logic cannot prove the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Still waiting . . .

[Stoic]

If the LONC is not absolute then it is possible for the the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment. Of course it is impossible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment - which proves the LONC.

How do you know that it is impossible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same time, without using the LONC?

Doesn't it seem a bit circular to prove the LONC by using the LONC?

[seer]

How do you know that it is impossible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same time, without using the LONC?

Doesn't it seem a bit circular to prove the LONC by using the LONC?

Are you saying it is possible? How? What would that look like? And I'm saying that that impossibility demonstrates the LONC. And what would be wrong with circular logic? If the LONC doesn't hold universally why would circular logic be a rational faux pas? Based on what? It seem to me that you would be cutting off the branch that you are sitting on.

[Jim B.]

Long wordy verbage, and still no 'decisive truths' presented on your part.

Did you see the questions I posed to you in my last post? Why didn't you respond? I guess it's a lot easier to just keep putting up the same pat response than to actually read and try to, you know, understand, what's been written. Still waiting for some shred of evidence that you actually comprehend what I've been saying....

[Jim B.]

OK. So, this reinforces my original point that moral standards vary according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.

That's the 'Diversity Thesis.' Because there is a difference of opinion in a matter does not mean that there is no fact of the matter. The diversity can be due to other factors.

A phenomenon as complex as a human being can be "fully explained" in principle by means of scientific methodology inasmuch as it falsifies theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of our physical existence. Philosophical argumentation is unable to do this.

You're equivocating. You're retreating to your fall-back scientistic reductionism. We were talking specifically about the all-explanatory scope of the genetic algorithm, not of scientific methodology more broadly construed..

Except that in this instance we are talking about genetic algorithms grounded in the concept of DarwinÂ’s Theory of Natural Selection and as such based in biology, which can be empirically tested and verified.

Yes, as can these other factors. Genetic algorithms are too simple to be all-explanatory even within a physicalist framework.

The foundation of “implicit knowing” in science is the body of acquired falsifiable theories and hypotheses, not philosophical speculation.

Acquired falsifiable theories are built on a foundation of implicit knowing and knowing how. Communication would be impossible without immediate acquaintance that cannot be reduced to explicit discursive knowledge. This is what AI has been learning over the past 50 years.

The total lack of empirical evidence merely emphasizes the implausibly of your claim that “the secret of the universe is popcorn”.

No, that's not it. It's not primarily an empirically based question. We also assign plausibility and probability that aren't specifically tied to empirical evidence.

And such knowledge cannot be considered anything other than subjective knowledge, remember?

Unless it's the assumptions that make 'objective, testable knowledge' possible in the first place. In that case, the objective/subjective dichotomy is too simplisitic to capture what's going on. And, yet again, one must remain mindful of the two different meanings of the word 'subjective.'

Certainly, physicists and cosmologists speculate about things for which there is no known empirical test at the time. Such speculations are called hypotheses. But in principle they acknowledge that empirical testing is or will be possible - e.g. it took 50 years, IIRC, for the hypothesized Higgs boson to be discovered. Similarly, the discovery of the predicted ‘cosmic microwave background radiation’ which has constituted a major development in modern physical cosmology.

There is a concept called 'post-empirical science.' My point was that scientific speculation, and speculation generally, has not, is not and should not be fettered by what is considered 'empirically verifiable.'

You may well consider such a view to be impoverished, but that is not to say it is wrong. Non-empirical knowledge cannot be considered decisive knowledge.

I'd like to put this point to rest once and for all. Not all knowledge is empirical knowledge. This is scientism and positivism. They are both self-refuting positions. Not all decisive knowledge is one kind of knowledge. To believe so is to contradict oneself. Empirical knowledge cannot be more certain than the knowledge that it assumes.

[Jim B.]

2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. A fact is NOT a 'decisive truth.' In base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57, which is only true in based ten math.

true facts are not 'decisive truths.'




Seer, you often post thing you don't understand, so again are you suggesting that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute, that the sun in fact can both exist and not exist at the same moment?

I post references, which you fail to resond to, and respond posting opinions. Read the reference and respond.

Again true facts are NOT 'decisive truths' They are simply true facts.

How do you define "decisive truth"? Is it a perspective-free truth, one that's only accessible to God? "Decisive" suggests something that has been decided upon, about which there is no disagreement. It does not suggest "absolute" or "incontrovertible under any conceivable circumstances."

[Stoic]

Are you saying it is possible? How? What would that look like? And I'm saying that that impossibility demonstrates the LONC. And what would be wrong with circular logic? If the LONC doesn't hold universally why would circular logic be a rational faux pas? Based on what? It seem to me that you would be cutting off the branch that you are sitting on.

If you're going to allow circular logic, what do you need the LONC for?

[Stoic]

How do you define "decisive truth"? Is it a perspective-free truth, one that's only accessible to God? "Decisive" suggests something that has been decided upon, about which there is no disagreement. It does not suggest "absolute" or "incontrovertible under any conceivable circumstances."

I was wondering if you guys were ever going to get around to defining your terms...

[shunyadragon]

Did you see the questions I posed to you in my last post? Why didn't you respond? I guess it's a lot easier to just keep putting up the same pat response than to actually read and try to, you know, understand, what's been written. Still waiting for some shred of evidence that you actually comprehend what I've been saying....

Your posts have been answered so many times it has becom redundant. Many of your posts have to wordy and missing the mark.If wish please repeat the question.

If this is your question.

How do you define "decisive truth"? Is it a perspective-free truth, one that's only accessible to God? "Decisive" suggests something that has been decided upon, about which there is no disagreement. It does not suggest "absolute" or "incontrovertible under any conceivable circumstances."

See the next post.

Still no 'decisive truths' presented.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

How do you define "decisive truth"? Is it a perspective-free truth, one that's only accessible to God? "Decisive" suggests something that has been decided upon, about which there is no disagreement. It does not suggest "absolute" or "incontrovertible under any conceivable circumstances."

This an OK definition, but you have not provided an 'decisive truths' yet. All you have mentioned is a few facts that would be in agreement as simply objective observations.

Still waiting . . .

[Jim B.]

Your posts have been answered so many times it has becom redundant. Many of your posts have to wordy and missing the mark.If wish please repeat the question.

If this is your question.



See the next post.

Still no 'decisive truths' presented.

Still waiting . . .

My posts have never even been understood, afaict, let alone answered by either you or tassman. But hope springs eternal.

[Jim B.]

This an OK definition, but you have not provided an 'decisive truths' yet. All you have mentioned is a few facts that would be in agreement as simply objective observations.

Still waiting . . .

But there are scientific truths about which there is general, if not universal, agreement, such as that the earth revolves around the sun, the speed of light, that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level, etc. This is not to say that they do not depend upon contexts, just as the fact that 2+2=4 is true within base ten, but we're not talking about philosophy of science after all, i.e the ontological status of scientific truths. We're talking about scientific claims that have been decided upon as true.