Empiricism vs realism
Randy Story
theory of
knowledge is the only way to test truth. I am not sure why because logical
positivism was debunked years ago.
The reason for this debunking is quite simple, the principle of
empirical
verification is in itself not empirically verifiable. If someone makes the
truth claim that only empiricism is true, his statement can not be put to
the empirical truth test.
Empiricism may be a good test for sceintific knowledge that is limited
to inductive logic and probability but knowledge is not limited to that
which can be gained inductively and only probable. Knowledge can be gained
by other epistomological means.
What means? I am glad you asked!! Realism, Realism is the theory of
knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of all
truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
objective in nature.
Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true and whatever is
unaffirmable is false, in other words a self defeating proposition.
I do not exist is unaffirmable, you have to exist to say it, therefore the
statement is false, because it is undeniable that I exist
Logic does not apply to realiy is a false statement because you would have
use logic in the process of trying to deny that logic applys to reality.
Truth is unknowable is a false statement because one is affirming that one
can know that truth is unknowable, therefore truth is knowable and
undeniably so.
Truth is relative is a false statement because the one affirming that truth
is relative is not making a relative truth claim, is is an absolute truth
claim that all truth is relative.
All morals values are relative is a false statement because the one
affirming that all moral values are relative is not making a relative value
statement, he is making an absolute value statement that all values are
relative.
Just a few examples( there are many more ) of how things are known apart
from empiricism. In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
only probability and opinion. True knowledge is not limited to simple
materiallity alone.
Mark Richardson
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> True knowledge is not limited to simple
>materiallity alone.
>
Mark.
*Not saying I do.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Randy Story
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1hroavk6e3veee5pg...@4ax.com...
I agree Mark, as you notice I did not say all. This is a theory of knowledge
not ontology so you can hold this view, but most atheists dont because of
some of the implications.
AckbarJedi
news:vaogiv8...@corp.supernews.com...
I'm still confused about how this description of realism is any different
from empiricism. If all statements must corrospond to reality and be
objective in nature, how else can something be *objective* without being
testible under empirical methods?
--
AckbarJedi, Agnostic Atheist #2113
---
"That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!"
~Wolfgang Pauli
---
To e-mail remove DeathtoSpam from my e-mail address.
Mark K. Bilbo
> In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
> only probability and opinion.
Certainty and truth are largely fiction...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
Randy Story
"Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.28...@eac.org...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:49:21 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
>
> > In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
> > only probability and opinion.
>
> Certainty and truth are largely fiction...
Response: Is the above statement true or is it fiction, if its fiction it
has no value, if its true then you just self destructed.
xyzzy
> Empiricism may be a good test for sceintific knowledge that is limited
>to inductive logic and probability but knowledge is not limited to that
>which can be gained inductively and only probable. Knowledge can be gained
>by other epistomological means.
>
> What means? I am glad you asked!! Realism, Realism is the theory of
>knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of all
>truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
>objective in nature.
>
> Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true
I asked you this before: How do you decide if something is undeniable?
How do you determine what the meaning of "true" is?
>and whatever is
>unaffirmable is false, in other words a self defeating proposition.
>
>I do not exist is unaffirmable, you have to exist to say it, therefore the
>statement is false,
Why? If I don't accept logic (or even language), what you say sounds
like "bla bla bla..". How do you come up with logic (and/or language)
to begin with? The problem of bootstrapping is always there. One needs
to live with it, rather than pretend that it's not there.
>because it is undeniable that I exist
>Logic does not apply to realiy is a false statement because you would have
>use logic in the process of trying to deny that logic applys to reality.
No. I don't need to use logic to deny that statement. Here's how I
deny it: "Logic does not apply to realiy". Period. Why would you
assume that I would need logic to make a statement (Hint: You cannot
use logic, which I don't know remember, in this demonstration)? If you
axiomatize that, you can never establish the connection of your
axiomatic theory with reality. In fact, formal logic can be used in
reality only if you define the terms to make the outcome make sense.
Take the statement: Something can either be a particle or a wave. Is
it true or false? Depends on your correspondance. If we define the
sets of wave and particle mutually exclusive and complete, it's a true
statement. But who says those sets are mutex? Logic? No. We make the
logic after the observation. Just like that if we happened to live in
a universe where 2 apples and 3 apples sometimes added to 5 sometimes
to 6 apples in observation, we would still attempt to formalize the
process and still call it mathematics but it would be a different type
of mathematics. Eucledian and non-Eucledian geometries are a more
practical example.
>Truth is unknowable is a false statement because one is affirming that one
>can know that truth is unknowable, therefore truth is knowable and
>undeniably so.
There are true statements which you can make within a system that you
cannot prove. As a starter, I suggest you do a search on Goedel.
Randy Story
It means that reality itself defeats your claim.
It also means if you have to affirm something ontologically while you try to
deny something logically, reality wins.
Yes, you are using logic to make the statement logic does not apply to
reality. Does your statement mean what it means or does it mean what it
doesnt mean.
If it does mean what it means then it follows the law of identity.
The same is true of language.
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.28...@eac.org...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:49:21 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
>>
>> > In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
>> > only probability and opinion.
>>
>> Certainty and truth are largely fiction...
>
>
> Response: Is the above statement true or is it fiction, if its fiction it
> has no value, if its true then you just self destructed.
Oh look, semantic taffy!
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>> Empiricism may be a good test for sceintific knowledge that is limited
>>to inductive logic and probability but knowledge is not limited to that
>>which can be gained inductively and only probable. Knowledge can be gained
>>by other epistomological means.
>>
>> What means? I am glad you asked!! Realism, Realism is the theory of
>>knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of all
>>truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
>>objective in nature.
>>
>> Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true
>
> I asked you this before: How do you decide if something is undeniable?
> How do you determine what the meaning of "true" is?
Arbitrarily of course...
Mark K. Bilbo
Oh look, somebody took a first year logic course...
(But probably didn't get more than a C)
Randy Story
> >
> >
> > Response: Is the above statement true or is it fiction, if its fiction
it
> > has no value, if its true then you just self destructed.
>
> Oh look, semantic taffy!
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
No, it is reality itself defeating your assertion, so why not accept it.
Randy Story
"Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote in message
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:26:46 +0000, xyzzy wrote:
>
> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Empiricism may be a good test for sceintific knowledge that is
limited
> >>to inductive logic and probability but knowledge is not limited to that
> >>which can be gained inductively and only probable. Knowledge can be
gained
> >>by other epistomological means.
> >>
> >> What means? I am glad you asked!! Realism, Realism is the theory of
> >>knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of
all
> >>truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
> >>objective in nature.
> >>
> >> Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true
> >
> > I asked you this before: How do you decide if something is undeniable?
> > How do you determine what the meaning of "true" is?
>
Mark K. Bilbo
Funny position for a theist to take...
Mark K. Bilbo
>> >> Certainty and truth are largely fiction...
>> >
>> >
>> > Response: Is the above statement true or is it fiction, if its fiction
> it
>> > has no value, if its true then you just self destructed.
>>
>> Oh look, semantic taffy!
>
> No, it is reality itself defeating your assertion, so why not accept it.
Accept what? Reality? You mean the one with no evidence for your god?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Jos Flachs
>Undeniability does not mean that you cant verbally deny something.
>
>It means that reality itself defeats your claim.
Such as all your claims?
>It also means if you have to affirm something ontologically while you try to
>deny something logically, reality wins.
Don't you get tired of loosing always?
>Yes, you are using logic to make the statement logic does not apply to
>reality.
Wrong. You do.
>Does your statement mean what it means or does it mean what it
>doesnt mean.
That is for you to figure out.
>If it does mean what it means then it follows the law of identity.
Law of identity? It has to carry a photo id?
>The same is true of language.
What about it? If anything is NOT logical, it is language. (Exception:
Esperanto)
Randy Story
"AckbarJedi" <DeathtoSpa...@DeathtoSpamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eac728f_3@newsfeed...
Jos Flachs
<ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote:
>> The same is true of language.
>
>Oh look, somebody took a first year logic course...
Primary schools have logic courses? I am impressed!
Randy Story
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
> Realism, Realism is the theory of
> knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of all
> truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
> objective in nature.
> Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true and whatever is
> unaffirmable is false, in other words a self defeating proposition.
How did you determine that the above statement corresponds to reality?
...
> Just a few examples( there are many more ) of how things are known apart
> from empiricism. In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
> only probability and opinion. True knowledge is not limited to simple
> materiallity alone.
How do you propose to resolve the Liar's Paradox?
Regards,
Josef
Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful
twilight that enhances every object.
-- Albert Camus
Darwin
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote in message
>news:pan.2003.04.28...@eac.org...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:49:21 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
>>
>> > In fact Realism brings certainity and truth as compared to
>> > only probability and opinion.
>>
>> Certainty and truth are largely fiction...
>
>
>Response: Is the above statement true or is it fiction, if its fiction it
>has no value, if its true then you just self destructed.
Check out what Hume had to say about your argument:
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hume%20Treatise/hume%20treatise1.htm#PART%20IV.
"This I take to be the true state of the question, and cannot approve
of that expeditious way, which some take with the sceptics, to reject
at once all their arguments without enquiry or examination. If the
sceptical reasonings be strong, say they, 'tis a proof, that reason
may have some force and authority: if weak, they can never be
sufficient to invalidate all the conclusions of our understanding.
This argument is not just; because the sceptical reasonings, were it
possible for them to exist, and were they not destroy'd by their
subtility, wou'd be successively both strong and weak, according to
the successive dispositions of the mind. Reason first appears in
possession of the throne, prescribing laws, and imposing maxims, with
an absolute sway and authority. Her enemy, therefore, is oblig'd to
take shelter under her protection, and by making use of rational
arguments to prove the fallaciousness and imbecility of reason,
produces, in a manner, a patent under her band and seal. This patent
has at first an authority, proportioned to the present and immediate
authority of reason, from which it is deriv'd. But as it is suppos'd
to be contradictory to reason, it gradually diminishes the force of
that governing power and its own at the same time; till at last they
both vanish away into nothing, by a regulax and just diminution. The
sceptical and dogmatical reasons are of the same kind, tho' contrary
in their operation and tendency; so that where the latter is strong,
it has an enemy of equal force in the former to encounter; and as
their forces were at first equal, they still continue so, as long as
either of them subsists; nor does one of them lose any force in the
contest, without taking as much from its antagonist. 'Tis happy,
therefore, that nature breaks the force of all sceptical arguments in
time, and keeps them from having any considerable influence on the
understanding. Were we to trust entirely to their self-destruction,
that can never take place, 'till they have first subverted all
conviction, and have totally destroy'd human reason."
Darwin - a.a. #1985
"No doubt alcohol, tobacco, and so forth, are things
that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a
thing that human beings must avoid." -George Orwell
Darwin
>I do not exist is unaffirmable, you have to exist to say it, therefore the
>statement is false, because it is undeniable that I exist
As long as "I" involves more than one thought, it cannot be proven to
exist.
Randy Story
>
> How did you determine that the above statement corresponds to reality?
> Whatever is undeniable is true corresponds to reality because it is not
affirmable to conclude the opposite.
>
> ...
> >
> How do you propose to resolve the Liar's Paradox?
> The liars paradox is a simple catagory mistake and is meaningless,
The statement" this sentence is false" is meaningless as it makes no claim
or assertion about objective reality. It is like me saying I am false, but
people are not true or false. It is a catagory mistake. Not all statements
are meaningful like" how does the blue taste"
Randy Story
I read it, what your point please. The problem with the skeptic is that he
is skeptical about everything except his own skepticism. If he was
consistent he would be skeptical of his skepticism and come back to knowing.
Randy Story
"Darwin" <jo...@NOSPAMlost-horizon.com> wrote in message
news:h5jpav4uj46nsmpgt...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:49:21 -0700, "Randy Story"
> <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I do not exist is unaffirmable, you have to exist to say it, therefore
the
> >statement is false, because it is undeniable that I exist
>
> As long as "I" involves more than one thought, it cannot be proven to
> exist.
>
statement is not based solely on logic but on existential undeniability.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> > How did you determine that the above statement corresponds to reality?
> > Whatever is undeniable is true corresponds to reality because it is not
> affirmable to conclude the opposite.
Avail yourself of a dictionary, and look up the meaning of the word
"affirm".
The inability to establish the negative claim does NOT establish the
validity of the positive claim. You have presented nothing more than an
Argument from Ignorance.
You kicked off this thread with the criticism that Empiricism cannot
validate itself. Unfortunately, your Realism(TM) suffers from the same
failing.
> > How do you propose to resolve the Liar's Paradox?
> > The liars paradox is a simple catagory mistake and is meaningless,
> The statement" this sentence is false" is meaningless as it makes no claim
> or assertion about objective reality. It is like me saying I am false, but
> people are not true or false. It is a catagory mistake. Not all statements
> are meaningful like" how does the blue taste"
That's easy to fix. Change it to read "This claim is false".
Regards,
Josef
Mere words do not feed the friars.
-- Irish Proverb
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> I read it, what your point please. The problem with the skeptic is that he
> is skeptical about everything except his own skepticism.
I doubt that.
> If he was
> consistent he would be skeptical of his skepticism and come back to knowing.
I doubt that too.
Do you have any philosophical justification for such a claim?
Regards,
Josef
Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true
answer to the doubts it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities
which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.
-- Bertrand Russell
xyzzy
>Undeniability does not mean that you cant verbally deny something.
Good :) Do please explain what it means. Where does it come from? How
do you derive it, using logic(?!)
>It means that reality itself defeats your claim.
That isn't an explanation. That doesn't even make any sense. Is
reality a warrior? How does it defeat my statement? What you are
trying to say is that my statement is false. My question is, how can
you show that? (Also do remind me which statement of mine you are
talking about because you snipped my whole post).
>It also means if you have to affirm something ontologically while you try to
>deny something logically, reality wins.
Forget ontology. Ontology has nothing to do with reality. Or to be
more precise, you can not ever show that ontology has anything to do
with reality. This is not an ontological statement and no, I cannot
prove it (ontologically or otherwise). However, it's true. Logic
doesn't tell you which statements are true. Logic only operates on
statements. It's a theory with which you can manipulate strings and
derive more strings. Not only it doesn't tell you which strings are
true, it cannot even prove that the method with which it manipulates
the strings (the theory) corresponds to reality. Normally it doesn't
matter because we rely on empiricism to determine what strings are
true and we are flexible enough to adjust to new observations. It
becomes a problem, however, when people like yourself misunderstand
what logic is and try to make ontological statements based on it.
>Yes, you are using logic to make the statement logic does not apply to
>reality.
No I am not. What I am saying is that 1) Logic isn't defined until you
observe reality and build an abstract model of it 2) That you are able
to define (a) logic doesn't mean that you have proven anything about
reality (in other words, the correspondance between logic and reality
is still empirical) 3) Even the logic you defined (axiomatized) is
bootstrapped to itself, you cannot even communicate the principles of
logic without using logic. It's an acquired (empirical) concept, like
language. In fact, logic, mathematics, language and chess are
essentially the same beast, with the exception being that the first
three are capable of self description and hence more powerful and also
problematic.
>Does your statement mean what it means or does it mean what it
>doesnt mean. If it does mean what it means then it follows the
>law of identity.
No, it precedes the law of identity. It gives rise to the law of
identity. The law of identity is there because my statement means what
it means and you realize it's a good idea to formalize what you
observe. However, that comes at the price of being contingent.
>The same is true of language.
See above.
xyzzy
Being skeptical of one's own skepticism will not produce knowledge.
That would be magical and creepy. The fact is, one can only pretend to
have such knowledge. It's like the fact that saying that I am rich
doesn't make me rich (I may or may not be).
xyzzy
>> As long as "I" involves more than one thought, it cannot be proven to
>> exist.
>If by proven you mean logically proven your missing the argument. The
>statement is not based solely on logic but on existential undeniability.
What do you base existential undeniability on?
Randy Story
without using logic" if you cant then logic is the basis of thought and not
the other way round. Therefore it is undeniably true that logic applys to
reality.
You are using it in denying using it, so the truth is obvious.
Sorry, you cant weasel out of this one.
You must know what Ontology means, from Ontos the study of the real.
You skeptics are amusing!!
Randy Story
Randy Story
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1916d3108...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
TO JOSEF: Anyone can affirm something, but you cannot affirm it based on
reality an this is the point.
To affirm that I dont exist does not mean I cant make a statement I dont
exist. It means that my existence rules my statement wrong, not logicly ,but
ontologically. My reality is the basis of my existence, not my thoughts
about reality.
Descartes had it backwards!
He said " I think therefore I am" He should of said " I am therefore I
think"
Realism is based on ontological necessity not on logical necessity. It is
not logicly necessary that I exist, but it is undeniable that I exist. I can
not deny my existence. Reality comes before knowing about reality.
>
>
>
Elf M. Sternberg
>> What do you base existential undeniability on?
> Reality itself!!
How do you determine what is real?
Elf
Randy Story
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:m3r87mp...@drizzle.com...
Reality is that which is, non reality is that which is not. It is an
ontological first principle. If its first, you cant go beyond it.
eyelessgame
How do you tell what is (i.e. what reality is), other than by
observing it (i.e. experimenting)?
How does "undeniable" differ from "appears to be so to all tests"?
I'd like a specific example.
How is your description of realism different from empiricism? Please
give an example of a statement where empiricism and realism come to
different conclusions about the truth of the statement, and explain
why.
eyelessgame
eyelessgame
How do you tell what reality is? Is there some other method than by
observation and experiment? If I assert that there is a dragon in my
garage, how do you determine the truth or falsehood of my assertion?
Wouldn't you need to perform some number of observations (i.e. tests)
to determine the "reality" of whether a dragon was in my garage?
eyelessgame
Elf M. Sternberg
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:m3r87mp...@drizzle.com...
>> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> writes:
>> >> What do you base existential undeniability on?
>> > Reality itself!!
>> How do you determine what is real?
> Reality is that which is, non reality is that which is not. It is an
> ontological first principle. If its first, you cant go beyond it.
No, no, no, I don't want a circular definition, Randy, I want a
step-by-step system by which we determine what is "real" versus what is
not.
Elf
Randy Story
It doesnt matter what you want, when you get to first principles you cant go
past them. To ask what is before the first principle is as stupid as asking
what caused God.
Undeniabily is a first principle of reality.
Logic is a first principle of thought. You cant very well meaningfully ask
what is behind the the first principle of thought. It is first, period.
The runner asked the official where is the starting point of the race was
before the starting point of the race. The official said the starting point
is right over there.
The runner said NO,NO,NO I want to know where to start before the start.
Josef Balluch
...
> TO JOSEF: Anyone can affirm something, but you cannot affirm it based on
> reality an this is the point.
You cannot establish that your affirmations are actually based on
reality, and that is the point.
[ snip pedantry ]
> Realism is based on ontological necessity not on logical necessity. It is
> not logicly necessary that I exist, but it is undeniable that I exist.
The fact that you cannot deny it does not establish ontological
necessity. Your claim remains an Argument from Ignorance, and that is
the point.
...
How about addressing the point I made with the Liar's Paradox?
How does your "Realism(TM)" deal with the fact that there are statements
that cannot be shown to be true, and also cannot be shown to be false?
Regards,
Josef
We believe nothing so firmly as what we least know.
-- Michel de Montaigne
Randy Story
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
To Josef: I cant say this any simpler. Your existence disproves your
statement that you dont exist. Your reality is, and for statements to be
true they must correspond to the reality that is, which in this case doesnt.
I believe you see my point clearly, you are locked into a viewpoint that is
not reality based.
This claim is false, is a meaningless statement as it make no claim upon
reality.
Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge. Meaningless question. It is
asking a location question of a process action.
This claim is false. meaningless statment. It is claiming a falsehood
concering reality where no claim has been made.
>
>
>
CoffeeFiend
> It doesnt matter what you want, when you get to first principles you
> cant go past them. To ask what is before the first principle is as
> stupid as asking what caused God.
You can replace the word God with Universe and it still works. Even in the
context of the Big Bang theory.
> Undeniabily is a first principle of reality. Logic is a first principle
> of thought. You cant very well meaningfully ask what is behind the the
> first principle of thought. It is first, period.
Well, homogeneous Euclidian space and geometry were once thought to be an
undeniable principle of reality. As is tured out in the first half of the
20th century, as a result of empirical verification of the theory of
relativity, it wasn't so. So one should never assume that something is
undeniable, even how logic is applied to describe reality, for the reality
that is our universe doesn't really care about common sense or simple
logic 8-) One always needs to test things to see if they describe the
universe accurately.
>The runner asked the official where is the starting point of the race was
>before the starting point of the race. The official said the starting
>point is right over there.
>The runner said NO,NO,NO I want to know where to start before the start.
That's not what he meant. The question he asked would translate into this
context more like "How do you determine where the starting point of the
race is or does the starting point exists in the first place ?" Or how do
distinguish between your own flights of fancy and reality ? Some ideas
might be logically coherent in the context of human reasoning, but at the
same time could not describe reality accurately. How do you "glue" the
concepts that human reasoning is cable of grasping and the reality that is
our together ?
Joshua
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.28....@eac.org...
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:26:46 +0000, xyzzy wrote:
> >
> > > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Empiricism may be a good test for sceintific knowledge that is
> limited
> > >>to inductive logic and probability but knowledge is not limited to that
> > >>which can be gained inductively and only probable. Knowledge can be
> gained
> > >>by other epistomological means.
> > >>
> > >> What means? I am glad you asked!! Realism, Realism is the theory of
> > >>knowledge the says reality, not necessarily materiality is the basis of
> all
> > >>truth. All statements about reality must correspond to reality and be
> > >>objective in nature.
> > >>
> > >> Realism says that whatever in undeniable is true
> > >
> > > I asked you this before: How do you decide if something is undeniable?
> > > How do you determine what the meaning of "true" is?
> >
> Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Reality is that which is!!
Your response is a good example of empiricism. What is reality? It is
what is. What is? It's what exists. What exists? There is no resting
point. Every bit of language is an abstraction... a translation of a
translation of a translation, ad infinitum. There can be no final,
absolute destination. No matter what, you will just have to keep
explaining what you mean. The same goes for mathematics and logic,
which another poster said very well. To postulate a reality beyond our
ability to perceive is to postulate something that is by definition
unverifiable and inaccessible.
Are we living in the Matrix? (You know, the one in the movie.) The
truth is that we both are and are not. We are living in the matrix.
The devil wrote the Bible to trick everyone into going to Hell. Our
history is the history of Tlon, and your memories from five minutes
ago are not your own.
Darwin
You were arguing that a skeptical statement is self-refuting because
it assumes the validity of reason. Hume's metaphor puts the lie to
that argument.
Darwin
Oh bloody hell! 'Round and 'round we go.
Darwin
>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vaqfmsn...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "xyzzy" <xy...@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3eaf1786.38070172@news...
>> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> As long as "I" involves more than one thought, it cannot be proven to
>> > >> exist.
>>
>> > >If by proven you mean logically proven your missing the argument. The
>> > >statement is not based solely on logic but on existential undeniability.
>> >
>> > What do you base existential undeniability on?
>>
>> Reality itself!!
>> >
>
>How do you tell what reality is?
That which is existentially undeniable, of course!
Randy Story
Randy Story
for logic. Logic only structures reality if you are logicly consistent
WE keep going round and round because you keep putting thought before
reality. We learn from reality, reality learns nothing from our thoughts.
Spike Nail
If you, yourself, were logically consistent, you would take your own
advice and be skeptical of what you think you know, ESPECIALLY when you
cannot produce any logically satisfactory demonstration of any evidence
that warrants your personal subjective conviction that the tenets of your
religion are true.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of (or even outright denial
and repudiation of) any religious doctrine that there are propositions
which people ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
Religious belief is simply unsupported personal subjective conviction.
---
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
---
Agnostics go one step further to righteously deny and repudiate, as
immoral, unsupported religious belief in the existence of gods.
---
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley (who coined the term
'agnostic') in "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
---
Randy Story
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
> To Josef: I cant say this any simpler. Your existence disproves your
> statement that you dont exist. Your reality is, and for statements to be
> true they must correspond to the reality that is, which in this case doesnt.
>
> I believe you see my point clearly, you are locked into a viewpoint that is
> not reality based.
No, it is you that is commited to an indefensible viewpoint, and the
Liar's Paradox makes this clear. The Liar's Paradox is undeniable, ie:
it cannot be shown to be false. According to your Realism(TM), if it is
undeniable then it is true. Your attempt to dismiss it as meaningless
shows the inadequacy of Realism(TM), as you now need to add another
truth value (meaningless) in order to keep Realism afloat. This
acknowledges that Realism(TM) is inadequate to fully deal with reality,
as it now must contend with the fact that meaningless statements can
still be found in reality. The irony here is that you started off this
thread with the claim that Logical Positivism was "debunked" years ago.
> This claim is false, is a meaningless statement as it make no claim upon
> reality.
The statement parses properly, is syntactically correct, and the parts
of the sentence can be meaningfully related to one another. In what way
is the statement meaningless?
Is it meaningless in the same way that "This claim is true" is
meaningless?
Is it meaningless in the same way that "This claim is made up of eight
words" is meaningless?
The statement that "This claim is false" is a self-referential
statement. It surely exists, as you can see for yourself on your screen.
What basis do you have for saying that it "makes no claim upon reality"?
...
Regards,
Josef
All fanaticism is a strategy to prevent doubt from becoming conscious.
-- H. A. Williams
Spike Nail
> Hume was wrong!!
I doubt it. Where is his error?
xyzzy
>> >> What do you base existential undeniability on?
>> > Reality itself!!
>> How do you determine what is real?
>Reality is that which is, non reality is that which is not. It is an
>ontological first principle.
It's first because?
>If its first, you cant go beyond it.
Then _this_ principle (that you cant go beyond a first principle) has
to be the real first principle. Now you have two first principles
(with more on the way). Not only that but you are now stuck in a
circle.
xyzzy
>It doesnt matter what you want, when you get to first principles you cant go
>past them.
Is *that* a first principle?
>To ask what is before the first principle is as stupid as asking
>what caused God.
Or is *this* a first principle?
>Undeniabily is a first principle of reality.
Why so?
>Logic is a first principle of thought.
Why is that?
>You cant very well meaningfully ask
>what is behind the the first principle of thought.
Why not? Are you saying that I cannot ask what's behind the first
principle is *the* first principle?
>It is first, period.
You don't realize, do you? To even formulate a first principle, you
need to formulate the formulation withing which that principle is a
first.
Mark K. Bilbo
> The problem with the skeptic is that he
> is skeptical about everything except his own skepticism.
What the hell does that *mean?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
Darwin
wrote:
Just take Randy's word for it.
eyelessgame
> On 28 Apr 2003 10:46:47 -0700, aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
> >"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vaqfmsn...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> "xyzzy" <xy...@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3eaf1786.38070172@news...
> >> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> As long as "I" involves more than one thought, it cannot be proven to
> >> > >> exist.
>
> >> > >If by proven you mean logically proven your missing the argument. The
> >> > >statement is not based solely on logic but on existential undeniability.
> >> >
> >> > What do you base existential undeniability on?
> >>
> >> Reality itself!!
> >> >
> >
> >How do you tell what reality is?
>
> That which is existentially undeniable, of course!
Cue Joni Mitchell. ("and go round and round and round in the circle
game")
No, really, I want to hear the answer. If existential undeniability
is based on reality itself, how do you tell what reality is?
eyelessgame