W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
if you know they dont prove anything than why post them?
ok lets play by your rules of evidence. here ya go!
- Status
R
R_Daneel
Guest
How would they be self-refuting? Spell it out in detail. Because so far you just asserted it, without any argument. The need for verification is a basic concept. It does not apply to itself. It does not apply to axioms and other basic assumptions. You don’t have to accept it, but then you are just there - holding an empty basket. You can try and offer some substitute.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
sure no problem.
here is one, i found
s928.photobucket.com/albums/ad125/warpspeedpetey/?action=view¤t=moon_nasa_apollo14.jpg
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
because in the act of holding them to be true, they are shown to be false.
for instance.
the verification principle. 'a statement cannot be held as fact unless it can be empirically verified.'
if you hold this statement to be true, the logical consequence is that the statement is false.
the verification priciple isnt an axiom. specifically, because it is self refuting. i know of no accepted axiom that is self refuting among the laws of logical inference, the mathematical logics, not even the para-consistents.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
But, I don’t and no one else does, because it is NOT the way the principle goes. Again, you are quoting the principle incorrectly. Try again, with the correct definition. Here it comes, again:
’SOME statements cannot be held as fact unless they can be empirically verified.'
Where is the self-reference here? The pronoun in the structure “A statement” is a universal operator. The structure “SOME statements” is the existential operator. And no one asserts that the proposition “all even numbers are divisible by two” must be epmirically verfied, therefore your variant is nothing, but a distortion. Everyone can see that, but you.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
An what does that statement have to do with empirical evidence?
Empirical evidence is accepted as the best form because the results of empirical evidence are consistently more accurate than any other from of evidence.
Your statement that you keep posting, even although this has been pointed out to you several times, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
yes it is the way the statement goes. we are talking about what can be empirically verifed. not some of those propositions apply, but all of those propositions which can be empirically verified.
im not sure why you think thats important? its not an axiom.
we arent talking about non-empirical events. straw man.
yeah, just me, and almost all of the major figures in the philosophy of science for the last century.
you can keep trying to stress your strawman. but it doesnt change the reason that verification/falsification are false.
specifically, because if you hold them to be true then they are false.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
nothing, it deals with statements based on it, like the one below.
this is a verificationist statement, it is self refuting and false.
why are you shouting? we already discussed this, a piece of empirical evidence, like a rock, or a plant simply is what it is, and is not self refuting.
the statements you make based on them are the problem.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Empirical evidence is accepted as the best form because the results of empirical evidence are consistently more accurate than any other form of evidence.
Err why is that self refuting? It can be tested empirically, and it is 100% true.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Which sums up your inability to comprehend my point. No surprise there… your cognitive dissonance is evident.
By the way, I am not doing this to enlighten you. I am doing it for the sake of those who might not have encountered the refutation of your nonsensical claims.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i wouldnt agree with that. empirical evidence is open to interpretation, its application is inductive, etc
i trust the various schools of logic much more when it comes to a standard of truth
because your attempting to show a statement true based on a verificationist standard. which, since it is self refuting is false.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i completely understand your argument, im pointing out that the universal operator that blogger decided to use is of no consequence in regard to the self refuting nature of the verification/falsification schemes. the statement neednt refer to itself, to be self refuting. it doesnt belong, and cannot belong to the class of axioms because it is self refuting. the very idea that self refuting statements can be axioms, is patently ridiculous.
of course if you can demonstrate to me a widely accepted axiom that is self refuting…?
im in line with the current thinking in the philosophy of science. youre pushing an argument thats been dead for 50 years.
i dont think people will construe my modern, widely accepted position as ‘cognitive dissonance’, while i do think it is pretty easy to come to that conclusion when you argue in support of long dead arguments. simply because they support your cherished belief
only, thats not the refutation.
the mere fact that you call widely accept philosophical arguements ‘nonsensical’ demonstrates that you are not familiar with them. if you were we wouldnt even be having this discussion for longer than it took you to read any of the multiple sites ive posted.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Haha !!! This sentence qualifies for the “dumbest propositon of all times”. If someone else told me that he saw a statement like this, I would not believe him. No one could be ***that ***confused… or so I thought. How on Earth can something be self-refuting, if it does not refer to itself???
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You might, but i am afraid to tell you that logic is not fit to lace the boots of science.
You do not even seem to be able to understand that a self refuting statement has NOTHING to do with empirical evidence.
Even in your example they are clearly pointing out that the STATEMENT is self refuting, it has NOTHING to do with empirical evidence.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
you already admitted it is self refuting on another thread.
but the way soemthing is self refuting is that when you hold it to be true, it is false. no self reeference required.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
ummm…yeah. i dont think you have worked past degree level if this is your position. without logic, no math, without logic, no science.
further, science is repeatedly wrong, hence the constant stream of superseded scientific theories
logic doesnt have that problem, solid logic spoken by a greek 3000 years ago is still as good today. while science from just a few decades ago is debunked quite often
that was a silly thing to say
how many times do you need to be told that empirical evidence isnt self refuting? do you need me to print it in capitals? a rock or tree simpl is what it is, it cannot be self refuting
its statements you make based on the empirical claim.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Only according to your reading incomprehension.
Your cognitive dissonance is showing again.
L
Lightbee
Guest
Umm… Please correct me if I’m wrong, but having a ruptured hymen doesn’t prove a lack of virginity. Hymens can be broken through horseriding (for example) and don’t involve any sexual act.
Therefore I see no issue with Mary being a virgin even after giving birth.
Mind you - I believe God performs miracles and if he chose to keep her hymen intact - or even to heal it again after birth - then I see no issue with that.
The realm of the possible expands infinitely when you believe in an infinite God.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Yes, that is true.
That is true, too. All you have to do is believe. Btw, hymens can be surgically restored, if one so chooses. But it does not restore virginity.
A broken vase can be glued together.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
yeah, you admitted it.
you attempted to deny that it didnt by presenting the weak version of verification.
please, feel free to explain how this indicates a state of cognitive dissonance?
- Status