To more "gems" from WSP's "treasure trove"

[R_Daneel]

Gotta love this guy. He tells all those utterly weird statements, with enormous self-assurance. And then it turns out that he does not even understand his own arguments. It just don’t get any better than this. Here are the two “problems” which he keeps on inserting into every thread, whether they are applicable or not. First one is the “problem” of the verify/falsify principle.

The incorrect variant he keeps quoting is this:

Put it this way, where p is “for ANY proposition p, a necessary if not sufficient condition for rational assent to p is the ability either to verify or falsify the truth of p” how does one verify or falsify that? One doesn’t. Rather, they accept it or they don’t. But if they accept it then they must reject it and hence the self-referential defeat

If this would be a correct definition, then indeed the principle would be self-refuting. Of course the definition is not correct. Here is the correct one:

Put it this way, where p is “for SOME proposition p, a necessary if not sufficient condition for rational assent to p is the ability either to verify or falsify the truth of p” how does one verify or falsify that? One doesn’t. Rather, they accept it or they don’t.

The difference is the incorrect use of the universal operator, instead the existential operator. The correct variant does not lead to any self-referential problem. Now, what are the exceptions to the verify/falsify principle? The basic assumptions and the axioms, which are self-evident.

The second one is the “problem” of empiricism. The incorrect variant runs like this:

For ANY propostion “p” the veracity of the propostion can only be rationally accepted if the propostion can be empirically verified"

Again, if this were a correct definition, it would lead to the same self-referential problem. But again, it is not the correct definition. The correct one is this:

For SOME propostion “p” the veracity of the propostion can only be rationally accepted if the propostion can be empirically verified"

And there is no self-referential problem at all. What are the exceptions? Again, the basic axioms and principles. But there are some more exceptions here. The propositions of abstract sciences (mathematics) are exempt from this principle. No empiricist would assert that the proposition “all even numbers are divisible by two” should be empirically verified.

It would be nice if such misstatements could be eradicated from the arguments. I am afraid that it will not happen. But, nevertheless, it is important to expose these “arguments” as bogus, incorrect, false and ludicrous. If someone asserts that the empricism and verification principles are inapplicable to the supernatural realm, that is fine and dandy. They can bring up arguments why these principles are inapplicable. But to take a cheap shot, and quoting an incorrect definition (a strawman) to use as an argument is simply the sign of ignorance and arrogance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Gotta love this guy. He tells all those utterly weird statements, with enormous self-assurance. And then it turns out that he does not even understand his own arguments. It just don’t get any better than this. Here are the two “problems” which he keeps on inserting into every thread, whether they are applicable or not. First one is the “problem” of the verify/falsify principle.

The incorrect variant he keeps quoting is this:

If this would be a correct definition, then indeed the principle would be self-refuting. Of course the definition is not correct. Here is the correct one:

The difference is the incorrect use of the universal operator, instead the existential operator. The correct variant does not lead to any self-referential problem. Now, what are the exceptions to the verify/falsify principle? The basic assumptions and the axioms, which are self-evident.

The second one is the “problem” of empiricism. The incorrect variant runs like this:

Again, if this were a correct definition, it would lead to the same self-referential problem. But again, it is not the correct definition. The correct one is this:

And there is no self-referential problem at all. What are the exceptions? Again, the basic axioms and principles. But there are some more exceptions here. The propositions of abstract sciences (mathematics) are exempt from this principle. No empiricist would assert that the proposition “all even numbers are divisible by two” should be empirically verified.

It would be nice if such misstatements could be eradicated from the arguments. I am afraid that it will not happen. But, nevertheless, it is important to expose these “arguments” as bogus, incorrect, false and ludicrous. If someone asserts that the empricism and verification principles are inapplicable to the supernatural realm, that is fine and dandy. They can bring up arguments why these principles are inapplicable. But to take a cheap shot, and quoting an incorrect definition (a strawman) to use as an argument is simply the sign of ignorance and arrogance.

i love the fact that when you lose an argument, you start a thread to demonstrate it publicly.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Gotta love this guy. He tells all those utterly weird statements, with enormous self-assurance. And then it turns out that he does not even understand his own arguments. It just don’t get any better than this. Here are the two “problems” which he keeps on inserting into every thread, whether they are applicable or not. First one is the “problem” of the verify/falsify principle.

youre right, it doesnt get better than this, every time you lose an argument to me, you get mad and post it as a thread for even greater public display!


now your making your insistence on an argument dead for 50 years, even more public.
everyone knows that verification principles are self refuting, even the folks that write the wiki.

the universal operator the blogger used, has nothing to do with the self refuting nature of verification/falsifications schemes. they are not axioms, and cannot be by definition because they are self refuting.

ive even explained it again in the other thread

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.

as to the idea that the verification/falsification schemes are axioms themselves. this isnt possible.

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.

 

[Black_Rose]

If someone asserts that the empricism and verification principles are inapplicable to the supernatural realm, that is fine and dandy. They can bring up arguments why these principles are inapplicable. But to take a cheap shot, and quoting an incorrect definition (a strawman) to use as an argument is simply the sign of ignorance and arrogance.

Empiricism or verification principles do not apply to the supernatural realm if we are unable to observe them. One has to respect the views of people such as materialists who adopt an empiricist view primarily relying on observations to discover knowledge when their epistemology renders the supernatural irrelevant because it is inaccessible to empirical methods. For a materialist, they should be humble and admit that the supernatural cannot be perceived or sensed, not claim it does not exist because they cannot see it.

Well, we are currently a point in four dimensional Minkowski space time where matter and energy alter the fabric of spacetime. As time passes, we move along space time along a geodesic called a world line. As humans who rely on empiricism, we could only observe events that intersect with our world line; for instance one can observe distance stars because some of the photons they emit travel through space eventually intersecting with our position in three dimensional (non-Euclidian) space and time. Furthermore, because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, some events would eventually not be observable because an expanding universe would profoundly redshift the photons rendering them too weak to produce a detectable signal. The point being that if the supernatural does not interact with our world line, then it would not be observable.

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

Guess what, you misquoted it again. Your linguistic skills are on par with your analytical skills. The structure “A statement…” uses the universal operator. The correct version runs like this, and I already explauned it in the OP, in detail:

SOME statements cannot be held as fact unless they can be empirically verified

You just don’t get it, do you? No one asserts that this principle is universal. No one says that mathematical propositions are subject to the verification principle. How many times does this have to be explained before you get it? Everyone else seems to understand…

 

[R_Daneel]

Empiricism or verification principles do not apply to the supernatural realm if we are unable to observe them. One has to respect the views of people such as materialists who adopt an empiricist view primarily relying on observations to discover knowledge when their epistemology renders the supernatural irrelevant because it is inaccessible to empirical methods. For a materialist, they should be humble and admit that the supernatural cannot be perceived or sensed, not claim it does not exist because they cannot see it.

There are some materialists who deny outright the existence of supernatural. But they do not do this only and solely because the supernatural in not observable. There are other reasons (much more fundamental) for their denial. However, here we deal with the possibility of observation (or lack of it), so these objections are out of the scope of this discussion. What most materialists say that since the supernatural is not observable, its existence is very improbable (but not impossible).

Well, we are currently a point in four dimensional Minkowski space time where matter and energy alter the fabric of spacetime. As time passes, we move along space time along a geodesic called a world line. As humans who rely on empiricism, we could only observe events that intersect with our world line; for instance one can observe distance stars because some of the photons they emit travel through space eventually intersecting with our position in three dimensional (non-Euclidian) space and time. Furthermore, because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, some events would eventually not be observable because an expanding universe would profoundly redshift the photons rendering them too weak to produce a detectable signal. The point being that if the supernatural does not interact with our world line, then it would not be observable.

Correct. This is our current worldview - which might or might not be correct. Anything and everything which occurs outside the “light-cone” is unobservable to us. One can hypothesize and speculate about events like that, but such speculation is fruitless.

If something is unobservable and if something cannot affect us, then its existence is of no consequence. It does not matter, if it exists or not.

Going back to the supernatural. There are two hypothetical possibilities: 1) the realm of supernatural does not interact with the physical world, or 2) even though we cannot observe or affect the supernatural, it can observe and affect us.

Case #1 is the same as the events outside the light-cone. Whatever happens there is irrelevant. Speculation about it is fruitless.

However, no theist subscribes to case #1. They say that the supernatural can observe us, and can affect us - though we cannot observe or affect it. Here is the rub. If there is a one-sided interaction, it happens in the physical realm, and moreover, it happens within our light-cone. As such, it would be an observable physical event, even though there is a non-physical causative factor to it. The secondary problem is that this assumed interaction is unexplainable. It assumes some truly “magical” properties.

And that is where the problem occurs. If something is observable, yet it cannot be observed, then we have a serious problem. It is quite similar to the “ether-hypothesis”. It was assumed that light must travel in some unobservable substance (luminopherous ether). The Michaelson-Morley experiment conclusively proved that the hypothesis is incorrect. Since the theists assert that the supernatural can “reach” into the physical realm, and can cause physical changes in it, this activity is observable and testable. Yet, no such observation and testing has ever given evidence that it happened. The usually quoted “miracles” all happened way in the past, there is no evidence (except anecdotal evidence) for them.

One question. You chose to respond only to the last paragraph. Do you agree or disagree with the beginning of the OP?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The incorrect variant he keeps quoting is this:

that is the correct statement. we have been talking about empirical verification.

If this would be a correct definition, then indeed the principle would be self-refuting. Of course the definition is not correct. Here is the correct one:

it is, so thank you for admitting it is self refuting.

The difference is the incorrect use of the universal operator, instead the existential operator. The correct variant does not lead to any self-referential problem.
Now, what are the exceptions to the verify/falsify principle? The basic assumptions and the axioms, which are self-evident.

which excludes verification/falsification schemse, because they are demonstrably self refuting.

The second one is the “problem” of empiricism. The incorrect variant runs like this:

again, it is, we have been talking about empirical objects

Again, if this were a correct definition, it would lead to the same self-referential problem. But again, it is not the correct definition. The correct one is this:

it is, thank you for again admitting it is self refuting.

And there is no self-referential problem at all. What are the exceptions? Again, the basic axioms and principles. But there are some more exceptions here. The propositions of abstract sciences (mathematics) are exempt from this principle. No empiricist would assert that the proposition “all even numbers are divisible by two” should be empirically verified.

we arent talking about, and empiricism doesnt refer to mathematical propositions

this is entirely too easy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Guess what, you misquoted it again. Your linguistic skills are on par with your analytical skills. The structure “A statement…” uses the universal operator. The correct version runs like this, and I already explauned it in the OP, in detail:

SOME statements cannot be held as fact unless they can be empirically verified

You just don’t get it, do you? No one asserts that this principle is universal. No one says that mathematical propositions are subject to the verification principle. How many times does this have to be explained before you get it? Everyone else seems to understand…

i completely understand your straw man.

it still doesnt change the bare fact that verification/ falsification schemes are self refuting.

if you hold them to be true, then they are false.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If something is unobservable and if something cannot affect us, then its existence is of no consequence. It does not matter, if it exists or not.

 

[R_Daneel]

You don’t even understand the difference between the use of the universal and existential operators. That is all I have to say.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You don’t even understand the difference between the use of the universal and existential operators. That is all I have to say.

yes, thats much easier to assert than to actually admit what almost every philosopher of science has known to be true for 5 decades.

verification/falsification systems are self refuting.

 

[R_Daneel]

yes, thats much easier to assert than to actually admit what almost every philosopher of science has known to be true for 5 decades.

The incorrect version (which I quoted “A statement cannot be held as fact unless it can be empirically verified” - and which could have been formulated as “NO statement can be held as fact unless it can be empirically verified”) was discarded, precisely because it was self-refuting. It was self-refuting because it referred to “every statement” - which included itself. It was called logical positivism. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

verification/falsification systems are self refuting.

I already asked you show where is the self-refuting property in the correctly posited principle: “SOME statements cannot be held as fact unless they can be empirically verified”. Obviously the correctly formulated principle does NOT refer to itself. So far you did not, because you could not. And you could not, because there is none, and because you do not understand the fundamental difference between the universal operator and the existential operator. There is a world of difference between the two.

Adding: the concept of verification/falsification is NOT an axiom. It is not an axiom, because the word “axiom” is reserved to mathematics, geometry and other abstract sciences. It is a principle. It is the one and only principle which allows to separate the true and the false propositions. True, some people do not accept it, but not because it has some self-refuting property to it, but because it puts them into an awkward position, regarding their deity. But when push comes to shove, they are unable to offer any substitute. They talk about “faith” and “intuition” as if wishful thinking would be an arbiter to separate the wheat from the chaff.

How about attempting to show that there is a logical self-contradiction in the correct version - which does not refer to itself? How about talking about my actual position, instead of something that I never talked about? Or is that too much to ask for?

 

[Leela]

youre right, it doesnt get better than this, every time you lose an argument to me, you get mad and post it as a thread for even greater public display!

It is a shame that you see conversations as having winners and losers. No wonder it is such a drag trying to converse with you.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is a shame that you see conversations as having winners and losers. No wonder it is such a drag trying to converse with you.

How true. You used the best word to describe it: “it is a drag”. The only reason I am still trying is for the edification of those who might not have encountered the nonsense he spouts, and give them the ammunition to counter it. Sometimes it brings unexpected results, too. His latest gem was: “(a) statement neednt refer to itself, to be self refuting”… and that certainly qualifies for the most nonsensical propostion of all times.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The incorrect version (which I quoted “A statement cannot be held as fact unless it can be empirically verified” - and which could have been formulated as “NO statement can be held as fact unless it can be empirically verified”) was discarded, precisely because it was self-refuting. It was self-refuting because it referred to "every statement

" - which included itself. It was called logical positivism. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

looking up what logical positism was, just now, isnt going to impress me. once again that is the correct version he meant exactly what he said.

i think what you are trying to do in your fumbling way, is what is called positing a weaker version of the verification principle. try to use actual philosophical terms instead of disjointed allegations that the statement is incorrect, or it has something to do with the operator.

when the logical positivists tried to rescue the verification principle with a weaker version, they opened it up to metaphysical statements. which is contrary to the purpose of the verification principle. in order to save it you eventually kill it.

now, if your going to stumble through the last fifty years of the philosophy of science, then just say the name of the philosopher or concept you are going to next. it will speed up the process quite a bit.

let me help you Popper is next.

I already asked you show where is the self-refuting property in the correctly posited principle: "SOME

 

[warpspeedpetey]

His latest gem was: “(a) statement neednt refer to itself, to be self refuting”… and that certainly qualifies for the most nonsensical propostion of all times.

you just admitted admitted it is self refuting.

 

[R_Daneel]

please tell me why you think it is necessary then? strong verification doesnt refer to itself and is self refuting. you even admitted it is self refuting.

The original (and incorrect) version speaks of “ALL” propositions. Therefore it does include (or refer to) itself and that is why it is self-refuting. It includes all the propostitions and therefore it includes itself. How hard is this to comprehend? If you don’t understand it, that is your problem.

 

[R_Daneel]

yes, i understand. and i will point out once again, because you dont seem to understand what it means to be self refuting, there is no need for the statement to refer to itself for it to be self refuting. the operator has nothing to do with that.

Obviously I don’t know what it means to you. I do know what it **means **(to everyone else).

A self-refuting statement would be “This sentence is false” - and it directly and explicitly refers to itself.

Another version might be: “A lawyer says: all the lawyers always lie”. (if it would be told by anyone else, but a lawyer, it would NOT be self-referential, and thus would not be self-refuting). It indirectly refers to itself.

Give me an example, where the propostion does not refer to itself, either directly or indirectly, and it is ***still ***self-contradictory. All the Russel-paradoxes depend on the use of the universal operator. That is what makes them self-contradictory.

why do you think we need a substitute?

Now that is good. Let’s go through it one step at a time.

You deny the validity of the proposition: “SOME statements cannot be held as fact unless they can be empirically verified”. The negation of this would be: “There are no statements, which can be held as fact even if they can be empirically verified”. (Simple English language.) So, what are the criteria by which we decide if a statement is true or false?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The original (and incorrect) version

still the correct version. you moved the goal posts to the weak version. you just didnt know what it was called.

speaks of “ALL” propositions. Therefore it does include (or refer to) itself and that is why it is self-refuting. It includes all the propostitions and therefore it includes itself. How hard is this to comprehend? If you don’t understand it, that is your problem.

you mean to say its a member of the set of all propositions. not that it actually refers to its self like the liar sentence does.

i shouldnt have to explain your arguments to you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Obviously I don’t know what it means to you. I do know what it **means **(to everyone else).

A self-refuting statement would be “This sentence is false” - and it directly and explicitly refers to itself.

Another version might be: “A lawyer says: all the lawyers always lie”. (if it would be told by anyone else, but a lawyer, it would NOT be self-referential, and thus would not be self-refuting). It indirectly refers to itself.

Give me an example, where the propostion does not refer to itself, either directly or indirectly, and it is ***still ***self-contradictory. All the Russel-paradoxes depend on the use of the universal operator. That is what makes them self-contradictory.

i answered this in the post above.

So, what are the criteria by which we decide if a statement is true or false?

ive explained how i do it, but you didnt care for that, so why dont you tell me?

it may be a good idea to take my advice and give me the name of the argument or the original philosopher. this is well covered territory, and unless your talking an original idea of yours, it would be faster. and easier to understand.