On assumptions...

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Online Etymology wrote: assume (v.)

early 15c., "to arrogate, take upon oneself," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad "to, toward, up to" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take," from PIE root *em- "to take, distribute."

Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted without proof as the basis of argument" is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on fictitiously" (an appearance, etc.) is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes. Middle English also had assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), from the Latin past participle.
I'm opening this thread to try to help alleviate confusion about what 'assumptions' are and WHY they are necessary in context to beginning constructive arguments among ourselves here. Philosophy begins its serious enquiry by beginning with language and logic. [I placed this in Philosophy of Language but is coinciding with the heading under "Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics."]

While we do NOT like assumed claims, most original philosophers had to address this concern in light of the fact that regardless of what seems obvious to each of us prior to arguing, there is no other way to initiate 'proof' without them. While some may not recognize facts that we know without doubt is not about assuming, because we cannot all agree in practice to what IS obvious without negotiating terms, assumptions with respect to proving something is understood to default to include those things we 'know' (or believe we know) without a doubt. This is because what may be 'true' about totality as a whole may be so perfectly inclusive of absolutely everything real AND not real, we would still require setting up LIMITS to help delineate what we mean in LOCAL contexts.

To be perfectly unbiased would to 'not assume anything' right? But given that "not anything" can be equivalent to "absolutely nothing", many cannot agree to accept arguing FROM the state of absolutely nothing, as many of you have argued against my own preference to do this. The only alternative here when trying to 'prove' anything to others is to try to argue FROM the other person's perspective. Yet, if this is not done with respect to your own perspective, the one you are arguing with might presume that their own position is proven without recognizing that they were given 'charity' to their perspective. If one's argument though is strictly dependent upon eliminating ANY other person's perspective, you are still 'assuming' regardless. As such, assumptions are an unavoidable first step that people within a discussion require laying out with clarity or you risk leaving holes in your capacity to prove anything....especially where everything may be true at least SOMEWHERE in Totality if not our particular Universe.

Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am
Online Etymology wrote: assume (v.)

early 15c., "to arrogate, take upon oneself," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad "to, toward, up to" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take," from PIE root *em- "to take, distribute."

Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted without proof as the basis of argument" is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on fictitiously" (an appearance, etc.) is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes. Middle English also had assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), from the Latin past participle.
I'm opening this thread to try to help alleviate confusion about what 'assumptions' are and WHY they are necessary in context to beginning constructive arguments among ourselves here.
How about you provide an example of an 'argument', which you ASSUME or BELIEVE could NOT be started without an ASSUMPTION, and then we can LOOK AT it and DISCUSS.

Just maybe that EXACT SAME argument could be started without AN ASSUMPTION? But we could NEVER 'try' if you NEVER 'provide'.

By the way, YOUR CLAIM that 'you' ALONE KNOW what 'things' ARE is a completely 'contrived' ASSUMPTION.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Philosophy begins its serious enquiry by beginning with language and logic.
To 'me', 'philosophy', itself, is NOT some 'thing', which could do ANY 'thing' all by itself.

To 'me', 'philosophy' is just a word that describes the 'love-of-wisdom' that IS AVAILABLE, but NOT NECESSARILY HAD.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am [I placed this in Philosophy of Language but is coinciding with the heading under "Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics."]

While we do NOT like assumed claims, most original philosophers had to address this concern in light of the fact that regardless of what seems obvious to each of us prior to arguing, there is no other way to initiate 'proof' without them.
LOL Well that is one COMPLETELY TWISTED and DISTORTED ASSUMPTION in and of itself.

I suggest just obtain thee ACTUAL PROOF, BEFORE ASSUMING (and/or BELIEVING) ANY 'thing'.

What is supposedly SO DIFFICULT about just doing this?

If ANY one provided AN EXAMPLE of some 'thing' that SUPPOSEDLY could NOT BE initiated without ACTUAL 'proof' BEFORE an ASSUMPTION HAS TO BE SUPPOSEDLY MADE, then AT LEAST we will have some 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Otherwise all you are doing here is just providing your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, without having ANY ACTUAL PROOF for them. And, we ALL KNOW that ASSUMPTIONS, by definition, could be partly or COMPLETELY WRONG to BEGIN WITH.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am While some may not recognize facts that we know without doubt is not about assuming, because we cannot all agree in practice to what IS obvious without negotiating terms, assumptions with respect to proving something is understood to default to include those things we 'know' (or believe we know) without a doubt.
Once again ALL of this is just a convoluted MESS.

1. OBVIOUSNESS only ARISES AFTER KNOWING. KNOWING is UNDOUBTED and IRREFUTABLE. If ANY 'thing' is DOUBTED or may be able to be REFUTED, then that is just thoughts or THINKING, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT, what is OBVIOUS.

2. NEGOTIATING TERMS is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. But when people like "yourself", "scott mayers", writes things like;

"I'm opening this thread to try to help alleviate confusion about what 'assumptions' are",

Then you are SHOWING and PROVING that 'you', "yourself", are NOT open to 'negotiating terms'. As what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what 'assumptions' ARE, while BELIEVING that 'assumptions' are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for 'arguments'.

So, what 'terms' here could 'you' possibly be OPEN to 'negotiating' in, EXACTLY?

Are 'assumptions' just essentially guesses about what COULD BE true, right, and/or correct? Do 'assumptions' have the capability of being WRONG and/or FALSE?

3. IF, to you, 'assumptions', with respect to PROVING some 'thing', ARE 'understood' to default ONLY those 'things', which 'you' KNOW without DOUBT to be True, Right, and Correct, then I just call them a KNOWING, and NOT an 'assumption' at all.

I distinguish between the two of 'KNOWING' and 'ASSUMING' as, 'KNOWING' refers to 'that' what is NOT 'doubted' and which could NOT be 'refuted', and thus IS absolutely True, Right, and Correct. Whereas, 'assuming' refers to 'that' what is NOT YET KNOWN to be true, right, or correct, is STILL 'doubted', and which might be able to be 'refuted'.

In order to PROVE some 'thing', KNOWING is NEEDED but ASSUMING is NOT.

However, what APPEARS now is that you just use the 'assuming' word here the same way I use the 'knowing' word. Is this correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am This is because what may be 'true' about totality as a whole may be so perfectly inclusive of absolutely everything real AND not real, we would still require setting up LIMITS to help delineate what we mean in LOCAL contexts.
ONLY IF and WHEN 'we' are talking in LOCAL contexts would we then NEED TO, maybe, set up LIMITS.

But the 'Universe' by definition, is the WHOLE, the Totality, the Everything, and the ALL-THERE-IS, anyway.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am To be perfectly unbiased would to 'not assume anything' right?
Which is POSSIBLE, right? Or, to be, so called, 'perfectly unbiased' is NOT a possibility, to 'you'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am But given that "not anything" can be equivalent to "absolutely nothing", many cannot agree to accept arguing FROM the state of absolutely nothing, as many of you have argued against my own preference to do this.
How could one 'argue' FROM the state of absolutely nothing, when ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' involved in the 'arguing' is COMING FROM SOME 'thing'?

If you mean something like; arguing FROM a concept of 'the state of absolutely nothing', then this might be DIFFERENT, and then SOME might be ABLE to agree to accept this. We would just have to WAIT and SEE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am The only alternative here when trying to 'prove' anything to others is to try to argue FROM the other person's perspective.
Is it REALLY NOT POSSIBLE when just trying to 'prove' some 'thing' to "others" that one just uses ACTUAL 'PROOF'?

Would PROOF really not just suffice?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Yet, if this is not done with respect to your own perspective, the one you are arguing with might presume that their own position is proven without recognizing that they were given 'charity' to their perspective.
And you COULD 'presume' that one MIGHT 'presume' such a 'thing', but you do NOT 'have to' 'presume' such a thing as this, NOR ANY 'thing' else for that matter.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am If one's argument though is strictly dependent upon eliminating ANY other person's perspective, you are still 'assuming' regardless. As such, assumptions are an unavoidable first step that people within a discussion require laying out with clarity or you risk leaving holes in your capacity to prove anything....especially where everything may be true at least SOMEWHERE in Totality if not our particular Universe.
What does the word 'Universe' even MEAN, to 'you'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
If the word 'Universe' could be ACCEPTED and AGREE UPON as being defined as ALL-THERE-IS, which OBVIOUSLY it could be, then we have a least a STARTING to point to SEE if ALL 'arguments' could initiate reasoning from this.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

@Age

If you expect me to respond, I cannot without you being able to take one step of response and one PIVOTAL question at a time. If you cannot get into one's castle through its default openings, you can't expect to alter its interior complexities.
Age wrote:How about you provide an example of an 'argument', which you ASSUME or BELIEVE could NOT be started without an ASSUMPTION, and then we can LOOK AT it and DISCUSS.
This is awkward wording, given you are the one who thinks WE CAN start an argument without assumptions. I assert that you cannot argue without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people. If YOU sense something with your eyes, that may be something that YOU may believe is not assumed; but how are those you are arguing with 'know' what YOU sense?

In principle, you cannot argue among OTHERS without ANY assumptions as a starting point. If you have no assumptions, you can NEVER win (nor lose) any argument because it is non-negotiable and likely chaotic. You would just be soundboarding, like Twitter fans stating what they believe as matter of fact without wanting anyone to question it.

You 'assume' that we are 'humans' and imply that you are not by contrast to your intentional mystique, for instance. So I implore you to begin by proving yourself that you can argue without actual assumptions by proving without them that you are NOT human and that the rest of us here ARE.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Skepdick »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
Yes. State our intentions and the fact our desires.

Why do want to engage in argument?
What are you trying to achieve?

e.g I want to defend position X (even though I am not committed to it) because I want to explore it to its full depths and understand its shortcomings.

or... I want to argue with you because I know you are wrong; I am proselytizing and I don't give a shit about free will: I intend to change your mind at any cost.

or... I see you are making a sub-optimal choice about X. I think Y is a better decision, but I want to understand why you are committed to X anyway.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am @Age

If you expect me to respond, I cannot without you being able to take one step of response and one PIVOTAL question at a time.
Well MAYBE if you KEPT your writings to one 'thing' at a time, then this would help you, more than 'me'.

Either way I am fine and okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am If you cannot get into one's castle through its default openings, you can't expect to alter its interior complexities.
VERY TRUE, and some 'thing' that would have been much better for 'I' if I had recognized and stayed aware of EARLIER.

So, considering I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, at the moment, what is YOUR 'default opening', NOR what "another's" 'default opening" IS, EXACTLY, then would you be so kind to enlighten 'me' on this?

I found the 'default opening' for 'me' was just PLAIN OLD Honesty, Curiosity, Openness, and Wanting to CHANGE, for the better. But this apparently is NOT the SAME for "others".
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am
Age wrote:How about you provide an example of an 'argument', which you ASSUME or BELIEVE could NOT be started without an ASSUMPTION, and then we can LOOK AT it and DISCUSS.
This is awkward wording, given you are the one who thinks WE CAN start an argument without assumptions.
GREAT to SEE 'you' use Correct and True wording here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am I assert that you cannot argue without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people.
Okay GREAT.

First, when 'you' say 'argue' here, how EXACTLY are you using that word?

See, 'argue' here could mean;

Each of the at least three of 'us' are putting forward sentences/statements, which we think or believe are sound and valid, or just sufficient enough to get a across a point, which we think or KNOW is true, right, and/or correct. Or,

We each have decided on finding some answer/resolution, which, if we just 'logically reasoned' together, then we might find that answer/resolution. Or,

We want to put our views across as though they are absolutely and irrefutably right and correct without taking consideration into the "other's" views.


Also, I need to CLARIFY what you mean EXACTLY by 'assumptions' here?

Once I KNOW of these 'things', then, if you like, we can SEE if I can or can NOT 'argue' without some initial 'assumptions' existing, when dealing with two or more different people.

By the way, do you mean 'me' specifically in regards to 'assumptions' or to the other two but NOT 'me'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am If YOU sense something with your eyes, that may be something that YOU may believe is not assumed; but how are those you are arguing with 'know' what YOU sense?
1. I would NEVER 'believe' ANY such thing.

2. What is sensed with and by these eyes is NEITHER assumed or 'not' assumed.

3. For ANY other to 'know' what was sensed by this body, then by this body I just INFORM them of 'that'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am In principle, you cannot argue among OTHERS without ANY assumptions as a starting point.
LOOK, I ALREADY KNOW that this is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE. So, you do NOT 'need' to inform me of this AGAIN, okay?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am If you have no assumptions, you can NEVER win (nor lose) any argument
To 'me' 'arguing' is NEVER about winning NOR losing ANYWAY.

To 'me', 'arguing' is just 'logically reasoning' with "others". And, an 'argument' is either sound AND valid, and thus is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct, or in other words, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', or it is neither sound nor valid, or both, and therefore not an argument even worth repeating.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am because it is non-negotiable and likely chaotic. You would just be soundboarding, like Twitter fans stating what they believe as matter of fact without wanting anyone to question it.
You appear to have the EXACT OPPOSITE view of 'me' here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am You 'assume' that we are 'humans' and imply that you are not by contrast to your intentional mystique, for instance.
This NOT necessarily so.

Do NOT FORGET that this is just an ASSUMPTION you have made here, which you made BEFORE you CLARIFIED with 'me' to find out what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am So I implore you to begin by proving yourself that you can argue without actual assumptions by proving without them that you are NOT human and that the rest of us here ARE.
Why would you want 'me' to PROVE some 'thing', which I have NEVER even SAID nor STATED?

Oh, and by the way, since 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written can NOT YET answer the question, 'Who am 'I', properly AND correctly, or if you can you have NOT YET made this PUBLICLY KNOWN, then how could 'I' PROVE what 'you' do NOT even KNOW what IS the proper AND correct answer?

By the way, how about I do something MUCH EASIER and SIMPLER, that is; PROVE that the Universe is infinite AND eternal, through and by 'arguing' WITHOUT actual assumptions being made by 'me'?

If you are up for this, then I just NEED to KNOW your Honest answers to my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS above here in this post.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
Yes. State our intentions and the fact our desires.

Why do want to engage in argument?
What are you trying to achieve?

e.g I want to defend position X (even though I am not committed to it) because I want to explore it to its full depths and understand its shortcomings.

or... I want to argue with you because I know you are wrong; I am proselytizing and I don't give a shit about free will: I intend to change your mind at any cost.

or... I see you are making a sub-optimal choice about X. I think Y is a better decision, but I want to understand why you are committed to X anyway.
I want to SHOW how it is POSSIBLE to find thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth of 'things'.

I want to do this BEFORE this body stops pumping blood and breathing, for the greedy and selfish purpose, that 'i' can SEE that 'you', adult human beings, FINALLY KNOW HOW to end up living in peace and harmony together, forever more, while being able to teach each new generation of children what is ACTUALLY, accepted and agreed upon by ALL, True and Right in 'Life'.

I think, and hope, through 'logically reasoned' story telling that this WILL BE achieved. I just NEED to learn how to communicate better, (with 'you', human beings).
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I want to SHOW how it is POSSIBLE to find thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth of 'things'.
You are doing exactly what every philosopher in the last few thousand years has been doing.

Their method hasn't worked. Why is your method better?
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I want to do this BEFORE this body stops pumping blood and breathing, for the greedy and selfish purpose, that 'i' can SEE that 'you', adult human beings, FINALLY KNOW HOW to end up living in peace and harmony together, forever more, while being able to teach each new generation of children what is ACTUALLY, accepted and agreed upon by ALL, True and Right in 'Life'.
So you don't know how to show us?
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I think, and hope, through 'logically reasoned' story telling that this WILL BE achieved. I just NEED to learn how to communicate better, (with 'you', human beings).
So far it's not working though. At what point do you switch tracks?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I want to SHOW how it is POSSIBLE to find thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth of 'things'.
You are doing exactly what every philosopher in the last few thousand years has been doing.

Their method hasn't worked. Why is your method better?
BECAUSE it WORKS.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I want to do this BEFORE this body stops pumping blood and breathing, for the greedy and selfish purpose, that 'i' can SEE that 'you', adult human beings, FINALLY KNOW HOW to end up living in peace and harmony together, forever more, while being able to teach each new generation of children what is ACTUALLY, accepted and agreed upon by ALL, True and Right in 'Life'.
So you don't know how to show us?
I KNOW EXACTLY HOW to SHOW 'you'.

I just have NOT YET worked out the RIGHT words to use to get 'you', adult human beings, to become MORE OPEN and Honest AGAIN, as you ALL, ONCE WERE, so that you can SEE what 'it' IS that I want to SHOW you.

Considering that what I want to SHOW is FOR, and in the BEST INTEREST of, YOUR OWN CHILDREN one would think there would be a FLURRY of CURIOSITY. But NOT A 'ONE'.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am I think, and hope, through 'logically reasoned' story telling that this WILL BE achieved. I just NEED to learn how to communicate better, (with 'you', human beings).
So far it's not working though.
It is, but at a rate that we might as well say, "It is NOT working".
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 am At what point do you switch tracks?
When I KNOW what to switch to.

If you KNEW some 'thing', which was IRREFUTABLY True, and you would like to SHARE that knowledge with some "others", but NO one would LISTEN nor LOOK AT what you had to SAY and SHOW them, then what would you do, or suggest?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am BECAUSE it WORKS.
Obviously it doesn't!

The world is still broken and you've failed to fix it using your method.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am I KNOW EXACTLY HOW to SHOW 'you'.
So if you know how and if it works, then why isn't it working?
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am I just have NOT YET worked out the RIGHT words to use to get 'you', adult human beings, to become MORE OPEN and Honest AGAIN, as you ALL, ONCE WERE, so that you can SEE what 'it' IS that I want to SHOW you.
So you don't know how. Weird. because you said you do.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am Considering that what I want to SHOW is FOR, and in the BEST INTEREST of, YOUR OWN CHILDREN one would think there would be a FLURRY of CURIOSITY. But NOT A 'ONE'.
Right! You are saying it's "for the children" and you STILL can't sell it!

I guess your marketing strategy doesn't work.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am It is, but at a rate that we might as well say, "It is NOT working".
Yeah. Seems you can't even decide if your way works or not.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am If you KNEW some 'thing', which was IRREFUTABLY True, and you would like to SHARE that knowledge with some "others", but NO one would LISTEN nor LOOK AT what you had to SAY and SHOW them, then what would you do, or suggest?
Has it every crossed your mind that they already discovered your irrefutable truth? And it turned out that it doesn't work?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:59 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am BECAUSE it WORKS.
Obviously it doesn't!

The world is still broken and you've failed to fix it using your method.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am I KNOW EXACTLY HOW to SHOW 'you'.
So if you know how and if it works, then why isn't it working?
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am I just have NOT YET worked out the RIGHT words to use to get 'you', adult human beings, to become MORE OPEN and Honest AGAIN, as you ALL, ONCE WERE, so that you can SEE what 'it' IS that I want to SHOW you.
So you don't know how. Weird. because you said you do.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am Considering that what I want to SHOW is FOR, and in the BEST INTEREST of, YOUR OWN CHILDREN one would think there would be a FLURRY of CURIOSITY. But NOT A 'ONE'.
Right! You are saying it's "for the children" and you STILL can't sell it!

I guess your marketing strategy doesn't work.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am It is, but at a rate that we might as well say, "It is NOT working".
Yeah. Seems you can't even decide if your way works or not.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:50 am If you KNEW some 'thing', which was IRREFUTABLY True, and you would like to SHARE that knowledge with some "others", but NO one would LISTEN nor LOOK AT what you had to SAY and SHOW them, then what would you do, or suggest?
Has it every crossed your mind that they already discovered your irrefutable truth? And it turned out that it doesn't work?
You, ONCE AGAIN, have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Which is; What I want to SHOW 'you', human beings, WORKS. But because of the way 'you', adult human beings, have become SO CLOSED, DEAF, and BLIND 'you' are NOT even able to HEAR and SEE what 'it' IS, which I want to SHOW. As 'you', "skepdick", have so EASILY PROVEN here, ONCE MORE, by your EXTREMELY CLOSED ATTITUDE and VIEWS.

I have ALREADY CONSIDERED IF 'you', human beings, had ALREADY discovered what I want to SHOW you. The answer is only MOST of it, but NOT ALL of it, has ALREADY been discovered, but ONLY in FRAGMENTED parts, and only by DIFFERENT individuals.

It also only WORKS when ALL of it is SEEN UNIFIED together as ONE, which it as NOT been SEEN like this YET. This is because I have NOT YET worked out HOW to OPEN 'you', adult human beings, up AGAIN, like you ONCE WERE. Surely, this is NOT that to hard for even 'you' to UNDERSTAND, correct?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:50 pm You, ONCE AGAIN, have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Which is; What I want to SHOW 'you', human beings, WORKS. But because of the way 'you', adult human beings, have become SO CLOSED, DEAF, and BLIND 'you' are NOT even able to HEAR and SEE what 'it' IS, which I want to SHOW. As 'you', "skepdick", have so EASILY PROVEN here, ONCE MORE, by your EXTREMELY CLOSED ATTITUDE and VIEWS.
Yep, chastising people is a good way to get them to listen you. Not.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:50 pm It also only WORKS when ALL of it is SEEN UNIFIED together as ONE, which it as NOT been SEEN like this YET. This is because I have NOT YET worked out HOW to OPEN 'you', adult human beings, up AGAIN, like you ONCE WERE. Surely, this is NOT that to hard for even 'you' to UNDERSTAND, correct?
So you haven't figured out why your method of persuasion doesn't work...

Interesting.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:50 pm You, ONCE AGAIN, have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Which is; What I want to SHOW 'you', human beings, WORKS. But because of the way 'you', adult human beings, have become SO CLOSED, DEAF, and BLIND 'you' are NOT even able to HEAR and SEE what 'it' IS, which I want to SHOW. As 'you', "skepdick", have so EASILY PROVEN here, ONCE MORE, by your EXTREMELY CLOSED ATTITUDE and VIEWS.
Yep, chastising people is a good way to get them to listen you. Not.
Who is chastising people? I am certainly not.

I am just expressing and showing a truth. That is all.

You can take it, or leave it, ANYWAY you like. But your perception could, obviously, be COMPLETELY WRONG.

The Truth intention behind what is said/written is ONLY KNOWN through CLARIFICATION, and NOT ASSUMPTION. As I have been CLEARLY POINTING OUT, but which you have been MISSING.

And, I am PROVING this absolutely True, through and by your responses here.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:50 pm It also only WORKS when ALL of it is SEEN UNIFIED together as ONE, which it as NOT been SEEN like this YET. This is because I have NOT YET worked out HOW to OPEN 'you', adult human beings, up AGAIN, like you ONCE WERE. Surely, this is NOT that to hard for even 'you' to UNDERSTAND, correct?
So you haven't figured out why your method of persuasion doesn't work...

Interesting.
It is NOT a "method of persuasion". To ASSUME this is laughable in the HIGHEST DEGREE.

I will AGAIN suggest to NOT assume ANY thing, BEFORE you have CLARIFIED.

What I want to express and show is just HOW 'you', human beings, can FIND, SEE, and KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

What I have NOT YET worked out is just how to OPEN UP 'you', adult human beings, AGAIN, like you ALL once were so that you could SEE and LEARN this

Once 'you', adults, become Truly OPEN again, then you WILL SEE what 'it' is that I have been SHOWING and REVEALING here, but which you keep MISSING. Once Truly OPEN you will also even FULLY REALIZE WHY you had been MISSING it.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN with my discussions with 'you', "skepdick", is that each time you have ASSUMED some 'thing', then this is WHY 'you' are MISSING what I have been actually CLEARLY SAYING, and MEANING. This will also be PROVEN True.

Also, once you become Truly OPEN, then you will RECOGNIZE, SEE, and REALIZE that what I have been saying, and meaning, can NOT be REFUTED as absolutely True.

I just wait, patiently.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am I assert that you cannot argue without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people.
Okay GREAT.

First, when 'you' say 'argue' here, how EXACTLY are you using that word?
Definition of 'argue' from Google:
Definition from Oxford Languages (Google search) wrote: argue

1.
(to) give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of
persuading others to share one's view.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am Also, I need to CLARIFY what you mean EXACTLY by 'assumptions' here?
An "assumption" in logic, philosophy, law, and most areas are ...
Definition from Oxford Languages (Google Search) wrote: 1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
In particular with respect to formal arguments, all proven things have to be based INITIALLY on something that is NOT 'proven'. This is unavoidable. To get an example, think of any dictionary entry's means to define things. Each definition uses words to define other words. But if you were to take all the terms within a defintion and try to define each of them, at some point you will either come across terms that are either circular or undefined. This is unavoidable. In arguments in particular, we think of 'circular' arguments as begging or lacking foundation, even though technically they are not necessarily wrong. For example, take this definition of circular argument: "A circular argument is an argument that is circular." This uses the very terms "circular" and "argument" when this begs the meaning without adding anything new. It is 'true' as a statement and what the law of identity means when they say, "X = X", but where this occurs, X here has to be something SENSED by some subject.

However, while we can trust this if we are only arguing to ourselves in our heads, when speaking with others, since we cannot witness exactly what the other person witnesses through THEIR senses, we have to agree from the start which particular statements, like X, are to be accepted between those arguing or we cannot 'prove' anything. If I am blind, for instance, I cannot 'assume' that others see HOW I lack seeing. Thus I would require pretending whichever they claim to 'see' even though it is not possibly 'provable' to me.

In logic (like some particular computer language), the SYSTEM of arguing has to be 'assumed' just as the particular rules of a game you play with others has to be agreed to be 'pretended' true for the sake of playing the game. Logic system rules are called, postulates or axioms, and also include any definitions. But once set up, the 'assumptions' within particular arguments in this system are the INITIAL input statements that are 'assumed' true for the sake of argument.

So, by 'assumptions', these are meant to be the agreed rules, definitions, or facts based upon the senses that the participants in the game of reasoning that is required BEFORE anything could possibly be 'proven' among those arguing.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am If YOU sense something with your eyes, that may be something that YOU may believe is not assumed; but how are those you are arguing with 'know' what YOU sense?
1. I would NEVER 'believe' ANY such thing.

2. What is sensed with and by these eyes is NEITHER assumed or 'not' assumed.

3. For ANY other to 'know' what was sensed by this body, then by this body I just INFORM them of 'that'.
I was saying, just as I just explained above, that since I cannot actually KNOW what you SENSE, I can only 'agree' to things that I SHARE in some way. That means that we would have to 'assume' that we actually DO see the same, even where we may be just 'pretending' on purpose (and is what we mean when we may disagree but want to show HOW something is or is not reasonable IF what we pretended were true were in fact true. That is where "for the sake of argument" as a phrase comes from.

Your (1) is thus not relevant and actually not true. You automatically 'believe' what you yourself see but cannot KNOW what I see. So you misinterpreted me as accusing you of 'assuming' what YOU see when I'm saying that it is I who has to assume what you see....and vice versa.

For your (2), what you KNOW is 'assumed' and why I used 'belief' to explain in kind.

All you "know" is believed by you automatically; But what you ONLY "believe" is not necessarily something you know.

So, in kind,

All you "know" is assumable automatically; But what you ONLY "assume" is not necessarily something you know.

For (3), you cannot force others to AGREE to what you claim, whether it is absolultely true or not. One can 'agree' potentially to some argument you make as valid IF your assumptions were true but not sound if the other cannot actually agree to them. If you are blind, you may gamble in someone's claim about something they see; but the blind person may not be able to 'agree' to the argument as sound if they cannot believe what you see for not being able to see.

Thus, these are the reasons we require 'assumptions'.

Note my concern elsewhere to argue from Absolute Nothing was an attempt to try to 'prove' something about physics that you and others cannot accept by trying to start with NO assumptions. Since no one is willing to 'assume' it, not even for the sake of argument, I cannot argue further without that initial premise agreed to. Instead, I DID try to argue from allowing for 'something' to be assumed given this is more universally agreed. Some (maybe you?) also agreed that "Something AND Nothing" together can be true. So I thought that I would use THAT as an agreed 'assumption' to start from.

Yet the contention about the term, "Absolute", was disagreed as an extention: That "Absolutely Something AND Absolutely Nothing" exists. Although this could be just about communication issues on my part and/or others, the fact that others could not agree to the same assumptions as I claimed them, the argument cannot even go further because ALL input assumptions have to be agreed to before it can act as a 'proof'.

Note too that science opts to favor 'induction' to determine these input statements. As such, what matters is whether the majority agree to going in. For instance, Global Warming Solutions are contested by the conservatives (in act, not necessarily in mind) because they refuse to accept THAT global warming occurs in the first place. So no amount of argument matters until those of that side of the political spectra AGREE to the input assumptions. In actuality, the arguments there are more complex but nevertheless this is an example of those who may be able to reason well but refuse to accept the same initial assumptions. Observations are also contested here because of competing interpretations, not necessarily about climate concerns at all. For instance, those who are religious may believe that God would come in and save the Earth or bring about the end-of-times to which many religous people may WANT.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am In principle, you cannot argue among OTHERS without ANY assumptions as a starting point.
LOOK, I ALREADY KNOW that this is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE. So, you do NOT 'need' to inform me of this AGAIN, okay?
You miss that this point is not about what I only believe uniquely. You believe this too by necessity and why you complained about others 'assuming'. You were meaning that you cannot ACCEPT to what you are accusing others of assuming. You are also adding a hidden additional meaning to 'assumption' as that which is NOT true. Note that the defintion above does not ADD that what is assumed is not true. Rather it says, a thing that is accepted as true. Also the last part that says, "without proof" which means that it cannot be proven in principle. Because 'proofs' are just the collection of arguments one gives for some conclusion(s) between people and each of us cannot KNOW what the other senses DIRECTLY, we are forced to find agreement to the foundational things without proof.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am If you have no assumptions, you can NEVER win (nor lose) any argument
To 'me' 'arguing' is NEVER about winning NOR losing ANYWAY.
I was referring to the fact that we COMPETE between differing views, not about whether one is rewarded or penalized for it but whether one succeeds at getting their argument accepted and agreed to or not. A 'win' would be where the participants in the argument actually accept the same conclusion as valid and/or, preferably, also sound. [This does not mean that if others appear to accept your conclusion, that they agree BY the same logic. Placate another by thinking it more important to accept the conclusion regardless of shared reasoning is not a 'win' by argument, by the way. Many, often the more emotionally, tend to think that this is MORE important when one could have a 'wrong' kind of reasoning to get to the shared conclusions.]
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am To 'me', 'arguing' is just 'logically reasoning' with "others". And, an 'argument' is either sound AND valid, and thus is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct, or in other words, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', or it is neither sound nor valid, or both, and therefore not an argument even worth repeating.
We agree in part. As for my last point, I cannot placate your shared 'conclusion' here because you disagreed that assumptions were necessary when they are. An argument is between people, not between ANY two objects in the Universe. The 'objects', ...their physics..., are what is the "ACTUAL" truth by their 'agreement' of existence.

But when arguing between people, we are limited to 'prove' things by literally accepting the initial premises at the root of arguments because we are NOT able to observe directly FROM anywhere else but our own consciousness. Nature doesn't need to 'prove' itself even though we do because we are trying to get agreement for social/political reasons which do not themselves HAVE shared direct goals. If one of the participants, like in the global warming example, were to DENY 'agreeing', even if they DO, this is a condition where nature CAN still operate on its own regardless of our existence.

So the very FACT that people are emotional beings with different relative goals, we have a greater difficulty agreeing in actual cases. So again, this means we have to get to some agreement that in practice is still hard to get. It is why many of us here have a hard time actually agreeing....our social, political, or personal psychology gets in the way. Many of us are here because we were denied actual social acceptance in some way. As such, many of us are a bit too wound up in our own heads because we were forced to think deeper than the average person. And while we may be in shared company, our particular backgrounds place our own experience as distrusting of the reasoning of others in some way. It makes it harder to trust each other's sincerity in the same way even where we actually might agree.
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am because it is non-negotiable and likely chaotic. You would just be soundboarding, like Twitter fans stating what they believe as matter of fact without wanting anyone to question it.
You appear to have the EXACT OPPOSITE view of 'me' here.
Maybe. But I told you my issue with you most particularly was with how each post 'explodes' by questioning nearly every word I (or others) say rather than taking it in smaller steps. I prefer long indepth disussions but not the breakup into many parts that make it hard to keep track of what was said and where. Also, as mentioned, many questions are 'pivotal' such that many of the other questions are no longer valid if one answers these. I give the example of someone who might begin trying to prove their religion true by quoting lots of biblical texts. If you don't trust the authority of the Bible as being 'true', you cannot argue how it is true by using it. The 'pivotal' question there would be about whether the religious book itself could prove itself. If I cannot get that point answered, all the other questions are irrelevant UNTIL that gets answered. Often, you end up beginning to answer something within its context and get PRESUMED that you DO agree to the Bible after all. So the best way to respond without exploding is to take one (or a few) issues at a time and stick with the depth of your own thoughts all at once. If you can't get past some point, why waste your time asking more questions before you can get SOME agreement?

And at this point, I'll stop here.

[And note that another reason for not breaking up these into multiple questions in long posts is the difficulty of trying to edit when making stupid trivial mistakes. They are difficult to find in the plain text editor here.]
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:51 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am Is there any possible 'fact' that can be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from?
Yes. State our intentions and the fact our desires.

Why do want to engage in argument?
What are you trying to achieve?

e.g I want to defend position X (even though I am not committed to it) because I want to explore it to its full depths and understand its shortcomings.

or... I want to argue with you because I know you are wrong; I am proselytizing and I don't give a shit about free will: I intend to change your mind at any cost.

or... I see you are making a sub-optimal choice about X. I think Y is a better decision, but I want to understand why you are committed to X anyway.
I want to SHOW how it is POSSIBLE to find thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth of 'things'.

I want to do this BEFORE this body stops pumping blood and breathing, for the greedy and selfish purpose, that 'i' can SEE that 'you', adult human beings, FINALLY KNOW HOW to end up living in peace and harmony together, forever more, while being able to teach each new generation of children what is ACTUALLY, accepted and agreed upon by ALL, True and Right in 'Life'.

I think, and hope, through 'logically reasoned' story telling that this WILL BE achieved. I just NEED to learn how to communicate better, (with 'you', human beings).
Not meaning to but in, but while I understand this point myself, note that IF I get COVID, I'm not likely going to survive. I already have serious cronic breathing issues now and my immunity is down. So you are not unique here regarding your intentions. Others here are also thinking the same thing. We've also lost some people on this site due to other similar health or regular old-age issues. It may be just another reason it is hard to get agreement. If people feel they are rushed into expressing something they believe would be helpful to others, the stress itself can only help shorten ones' life that much quicker.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:51 am I assert that you cannot argue without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people.
Okay GREAT.

First, when 'you' say 'argue' here, how EXACTLY are you using that word?
Definition of 'argue' from Google:
Definition from Oxford Languages (Google search) wrote: argue

1.
(to) give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of
persuading others to share one's view.
Okay. But I have absolutely NO aim AT ALL to 'persuade' ANY one of ANY thing.

If what I say is NOT True, NOT Right, and/or NOT Correct, then just inform me of this. I CERTAINLY do NOT want to have a view, which is False, Wrong, nor Incorrect.

I want, through 'logical reasoning', to FIND what 'it' IS that we can ALL agree upon AND accept, as it is this knowledge that will UNIFY 'us' to what is ACTUALLY True and Right in Life. The word 'argue' can actually also be defined as just 'logical reasoning', itself.

So, you said and claimed that I "cannot 'argue' without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people", and now that you have provided how you are EXACTLY defining the word 'argue' here, we will have to wait to SEE if I can or cannot 'give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory of mine, correct? Or, do you still want to stand by your CLAIM that I 'cannot'?

See, without you SEEING ALL, of each and every one of the times that I will give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea I have, then you REALLY you can NOT make the CLAIM that you have here ACCURATELY. Unless, of course, you give reasons or cite evidence in support of your idea and CLAIM here, which, by the way, would HAVE TO BE 'irrefutably True' and 'forever more' as well.

Are you REALLY this NOT OPEN AT ALL to the 'fact' that I might just be able to give reasons and cite evidence without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am Also, I need to CLARIFY what you mean EXACTLY by 'assumptions' here?
An "assumption" in logic, philosophy, law, and most areas are ...
But it does NOT matter what the word 'assumption' means by ANY other means. I just asked you;

What 'you' mean EXACTLY by the word 'assumptions' here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Definition from Oxford Languages (Google Search) wrote: 1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
So, ANY 'thing' that is accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF, is an 'assumption' here, correct?

If yes, then I say, if given a chance, I might be able to give reasons or cite evidence for an idea I have, without some initial thing that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF.

In fact, I KNOW I can 'argue', give reasons or cite evidence for an idea, I have, without some initial 'assumption', that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, without proof. To add to this I have ALREADY CLAIMED that I can ACTUALLY give the reasons and cite evidence, for an idea I have, which will be accepted as true and/or accepted as certain to happen, WITH ACTUAL PROOF.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am In particular with respect to formal arguments, all proven things have to be based INITIALLY on something that is NOT 'proven'. This is unavoidable.
Can you give the reason/s or cite the evidence for this idea of yours? Or is this just ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which is WITHOUT PROOF?

If it is the former, then great. Can you and will you give the reason/s or cite the evidence for this CLAIM here now?

But, if it is the latter, then WITHOUT PROOF, it OBVIOUSLY could be COMPLETELY or PARTLY False and/or Wrong anyway.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am To get an example, think of any dictionary entry's means to define things. Each definition uses words to define other words. But if you were to take all the terms within a defintion and try to define each of them, at some point you will either come across terms that are either circular or undefined. This is unavoidable.
I REALLY WISH you would just STOP with the; "This is unavoidable", CLAIMS. Have you ever considered just WAITING to SEE if this IS 'avoidable' or NOT? Or, do you just Truly BELIEVE that "this is unavoidable"?

If it is the latter, then we can NOT proceed ANY further.

However, if you WANT to consider just WAITING to SEE if this is 'avoidable' or NOT, then just let me KNOW, and then I will SEE if I can SHOW you just HOW this is 'avoidable'.

The BEAUTY of what you just said here, when and if LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED FULLY will be a SIGHT to be SEEN and BEHOLD.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am In arguments in particular, we think of 'circular' arguments as begging or lacking foundation, even though technically they are not necessarily wrong. For example, take this definition of circular argument: "A circular argument is an argument that is circular." This uses the very terms "circular" and "argument" when this begs the meaning without adding anything new. It is 'true' as a statement and what the law of identity means when they say, "X = X", but where this occurs, X here has to be something SENSED by some subject.

However, while we can trust this if we are only arguing to ourselves in our heads, when speaking with others, since we cannot witness exactly what the other person witnesses through THEIR senses, we have to agree from the start which particular statements, like X, are to be accepted between those arguing or we cannot 'prove' anything.
But we do NOT just HAVE TO agree from the start which particular statements, like X are to be accepted between those arguing or we cannot 'prove' anything, AT ALL.

There is something else that 'we' CAN DO. Which, by the way, like the other "unavoidables" to you, CAN BE DONE so easily and so simply. HOWEVER, if you want to BELIEVE that there is NO 'other way', then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I CAN DO to override YOUR BELIEFS above here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am If I am blind, for instance, I cannot 'assume' that others see HOW I lack seeing.
So, WHY ASSUME?

WHY ASSUME that you HAVE TO ASSUME?

WHY ASSUME that you can NOT 'argue' WITHOUT ASSUMING?

Thus I would require pretending whichever they claim to 'see' even though it is not possibly 'provable' to me. [/quote]

But WHY PRETEND?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Where is all of this COMPLETELY and UNNECESSARY PRETENDING and ASSUMING coming from, EXACTLY?
LOOK, you have made a CLAIM, and have 'tried to' give reasons for YOUR idea or theory. But without ACTUAL sufficient reasons and/or proof, then what you are saying is just YOUR BELIEFS ONLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am In logic (like some particular computer language), the SYSTEM of arguing has to be 'assumed' just as the particular rules of a game you play with others has to be agreed to be 'pretended' true for the sake of playing the game.
You are here just saying and just 'trying' absolutely ANY thing, which you are hoping will back up and support your idea and claim here. You are NOT persuading 'me' of ANY thing here.

If what happens within 'computer logic or language' is ASSUMPTIONS, then so be it. Human beings do NOT 'have to' ASSUME ANY thing AT ALL.

Although the brain within the species, human being, works just like it is a computer, there is ANOTHER PART that can be accessed and utilized.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Logic system rules are called, postulates or axioms, and also include any definitions. But once set up, the 'assumptions' within particular arguments in this system are the INITIAL input statements that are 'assumed' true for the sake of argument.
Which does NOT necessarily 'have to' NOR 'need' to be done. But, granted, which is done by MOST of 'you', adult human beings, quite a great deal of the time.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am So, by 'assumptions', these are meant to be the agreed rules, definitions, or facts based upon the senses that the participants in the game of reasoning that is required BEFORE anything could possibly be 'proven' among those arguing.
If this is what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is True, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I can do to SHOW you otherwise.

Although I could PROVE you ABSOLUTELY Wrong, while you maintain the BELIEF that you have here I could NOT PROVE this to you.

However, if you would like to STOP 'trying to' back up and support your currently held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS here, and would like to give me the opportunity to WATCH me provide what you say I can NOT do, then I will. If, and when, you find FAULT in what I present, then please feel FREE to put this forward for 'us' to LOOK AT it, and then DISCUSS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am

1. I would NEVER 'believe' ANY such thing.

2. What is sensed with and by these eyes is NEITHER assumed or 'not' assumed.

3. For ANY other to 'know' what was sensed by this body, then by this body I just INFORM them of 'that'.
I was saying, just as I just explained above, that since I cannot actually KNOW what you SENSE, I can only 'agree' to things that I SHARE in some way.
Well I have been saying, and SUGGESTING, for a while now, STOP ASSUMING and START CLARIFYING, which MEANS STOP 'agreeing' with things that you SHARE in some way. You do NOT know if you do SHARE those 'things'. You are ONLY ASSUMING you do. And, to find out if you ACTUALLY DO or NOT, then just a CLARIFYING question. Then you will ACTUALLY KNOW, for sure, without ANY doubt, what I ACTUALLY SENSE.

SEE, it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to KNOW what "others" SENSE, when they are ASKED. Your CLAIM that you can ONLY 'agree' is based on YOUR ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEVE that this is ONLY what you can do.

There is some thing ELSE that you CAN DO, and which I ACTUAL DO "myself".
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am That means that we would have to 'assume' that we actually DO see the same, even where we may be just 'pretending' on purpose (and is what we mean when we may disagree but want to show HOW something is or is not reasonable IF what we pretended were true were in fact true. That is where "for the sake of argument" as a phrase comes from.
Has it EVER OCCURRED to JUST ASK the "other" what they ACTUALLY DO SEE and/or SENSE, BEFORE absolutely ANY 'assuming' AT ALL takes place?

Or has this REALLY NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN CONSIDERED, BEFORE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Your (1) is thus not relevant and actually not true. You automatically 'believe' what you yourself see but cannot KNOW what I see.
I am getting TIRED of OTHER 'people' TELLING 'me' what THOUGHTS and THINKING is OCCURRING in this body and head here.

Now, if this is what you WANT TO BELIEVE IS True, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with 'me'. But you ARE just PLAIN OLD Wrong. Of which, ONLY I have the ACTUAL PROOF and which you could NEVER REFUTE.

I NEVER, lol, 'automatically' 'believe' what I, "myself, see. And, I CAN KNOW what 'you' see, if and when you TELL and INFORM 'me' of what you see. Surely, this is NOT to hard to understand, and SEE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am So you misinterpreted me as accusing you of 'assuming' what YOU see when I'm saying that it is I who has to assume what you see....and vice versa.
Do 'you' ACCUSE 'me' of 'assuming' what I see?

If yes, then I did NOT misinterpret 'you'.

But, if you do NOT 'accuse' me of assuming what I see, then GREAT.

ALSO, 'you' do NOT 'have to' 'assume' what I see, when you COULD just ASK 'me', INSTEAD.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am For your (2), what you KNOW is 'assumed' and why I used 'belief' to explain in kind.
PLEASE REFRAIN from TELLING 'me' what I do. But PLEASE FEEL FREE to TELL 'me' what YOU do.

What I KNOW is NOT 'assumed'. As you SO WRONGLY CLAIMED HERE.

What I KNOW is what I KNOW. Just like;

What I THINK is what I THINK. Which is like;

What I ASSUME is what I ASSUME.

But NEVER mix up the ASSUMPTIONS, with the KNOWING, nor with the THINKING. These are three distinctly DIFFERENT 'things'.

What you have, so called, "explained" here is WRONG, from my perspective. And what makes YOUR EXPLANATION MORE WRONG is that you are 'trying to' ACCUSE 'me' of doing what I KNOW I do NOT DO.

If what you are ACCUSING 'me' of doing, you do "yourself", then this is all perfectly fine and good. But 'you' are NOT 'me', understood?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am All you "know" is believed by you automatically; But what you ONLY "believe" is not necessarily something you know.

So, in kind,

All you "know" is assumable automatically; But what you ONLY "assume" is not necessarily something you know.
This is SO WRONG that this has become ABSOLUTELY JUST LAUGHABLE NOW.

AGAIN, if this is what YOU say YOUR DO, then I will AGREE with that and ACCEPT that that IS what YOU DO.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am For (3), you cannot force others to AGREE to what you claim, whether it is absolultely true or not.
WHY would you ASSUME, and use the, 'force' word here?

WHERE is this ASSUMPTION about 'force' coming from, EXACTLY?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I have said that would even lead 'you' to ASSUME such a thing. I, once again, you CLARIFY, BEFORE you ASSUME, ANY thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am One can 'agree' potentially to some argument you make as valid IF your assumptions were true but not sound if the other cannot actually agree to them. If you are blind, you may gamble in someone's claim about something they see; but the blind person may not be able to 'agree' to the argument as sound if they cannot believe what you see for not being able to see.
I WAS talking about and referring to just what the 'body had just SENSED', which is what you are REPLYING to. So, WHY you have gone down this tangent I am NOT SURE, and NOT REALLY interested either.

Whatever this body has sensed I can INFORM "others" of. If they accept that, then that is of NO concern. It is NOT some thing I could, nor would, even consider 'arguing' about, from the definition you gave above.

If some one does NOT want to accept what I say this body had SENSED, then so be it. They are FREE to BELIEVE whatever they WANT TO BELIEVE. I NEVER CERTAINLY want to persuade ANY one of ANY thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Thus, these are the reasons we require 'assumptions'.
LOOK, you BELIEVE this is WHOLEHEARTEDLY and IRREFUTABLY True, correct?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY write like you do? WHY NOT just SHOW that you are OPEN to the FACT that it may NOT be true AT ALL?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Note my concern elsewhere to argue from Absolute Nothing was an attempt to try to 'prove' something about physics that you and others cannot accept by trying to start with NO assumptions.
Maybe if you provide some examples, then I might be able to SHOW when they are WRONG.

I am still waiting to provide some examples 'myself". I have just had to WAIT to SEE what definitions you would provide. And now I have to go through ALL of this "other stuff". Which, from reading, appears that you are NOT OPEN AT ALL to me PROVIDING EXAMPLES of WHERE I might just be able to 'argue' WITHOUT ANY 'assumptions' AT ALL.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Since no one is willing to 'assume' it, not even for the sake of argument, I cannot argue further without that initial premise agreed to.
I WILL INSTANTLY 'assume' 'it', for the sake of YOUR argument. This is absolutely "NO skin off my back", as some say?

If you want to 'argue' from Absolute Nothing in an attempt to 'try to' 'prove' some 'thing' about physics, that 'I' and "others" SUPPOSEDLY 'cannot' accept. Then go right ahead. Now, what EXACTLY is 'it' you want to SHOW here. For the sake of YOUR 'argument' I will ASSUME absolutely ANY thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Instead, I DID try to argue from allowing for 'something' to be assumed given this is more universally agreed. Some (maybe you?) also agreed that "Something AND Nothing" together can be true. So I thought that I would use THAT as an agreed 'assumption' to start from.
But WHY 'assume' 'something and nothing together can be true'? This is just an IRREFUTABLE FACT anyway. Like EVERY thing else in the Universe this all just depends on the definitions one uses.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Yet the contention about the term, "Absolute", was disagreed as an extention: That "Absolutely Something AND Absolutely Nothing" exists.
I NEVER disagreed with this. As, in fact, this is what I say HAS TO EXIST.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Although this could be just about communication issues on my part and/or others, the fact that others could not agree to the same assumptions as I claimed them, the argument cannot even go further because ALL input assumptions have to be agreed to before it can act as a 'proof'.
Some, like 'me', just much prefer to SEE the 'proof' of some thing BEFORE we ASSUME that it is true. But as I said I will ASSUME absolutely ANY thing here for the sake of, SEEING, your "argument/s" put forward.

Also, if you can NOT get "others" to 'agree' to the same 'assumption', then just maybe YOUR 'assumption/s' are wrong in some way. Furthermore, the point of putting an 'argument' forward is to PROVE some 'thing'. So, if you can NOT prove that your 'assumptions' are true, right, and/or correct, then maybe you need to go back, and SEE WHY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Note too that science opts to favor 'induction' to determine these input statements. As such, what matters is whether the majority agree to going in.
WHY ONLY the 'majority'?

Also, the people who do "science" do NOT LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY True. They ONLY LOOK AT what is ASSUMED or GUESSED to be true.

And, to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I MUCH PREFER to ONLY LOOK AT and SEE what is ACTUALLY True, and NOT what 'you', people, ONLY think and ASSUME is True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am For instance, Global Warming Solutions are contested by the conservatives (in act, not necessarily in mind) because they refuse to accept THAT global warming occurs in the first place. So no amount of argument matters until those of that side of the political spectra AGREE to the input assumptions. In actuality, the arguments there are more complex but nevertheless this is an example of those who may be able to reason well but refuse to accept the same initial assumptions.
You appear to BELIEVE that "others" HAVE TO and MUST accept YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, but if ANY one accepts ASSUMPTIONS that you do NOT accept, then they are doing the WRONG, whereas you are NOT.

Also, you only want "others" to agree to YOUR ASSUMPTIONS because this is the ONLY WAY your "arguments" work.

Arguments I find work MUCH BETTER when the premises are irrefutably True and NOT just ASSUMED to be true.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Observations are also contested here because of competing interpretations, not necessarily about climate concerns at all. For instance, those who are religious may believe that God would come in and save the Earth or bring about the end-of-times to which many religous people may WANT.
This is all dragging a bit now.

Would you like to go back to the beginning and if you will NOT provide ANY examples for what you CLAIM I can NOT DO, then would you like me to provide some examples that I can do what you CLAIM I can NOT do here?

After all, we do have YOUR definitions for some of the words in YOUR CLAIM, and because I do NOT like to be accused of being biased we can use YOUR DEFINITIONS ALONE here, and then just SEE what arises.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am

LOOK, I ALREADY KNOW that this is what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE. So, you do NOT 'need' to inform me of this AGAIN, okay?
You miss that this point is not about what I only believe uniquely.
Well you OBVIOUSLY can NOT 'prove' this True. So, this has to be based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, alone AND uniquely. Even by YOUR OWN REASONING it would HAVE TO BE based on YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS, at least.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am You believe this too by necessity and why you complained about others 'assuming'.
If "others" ASSUME, then that is just what they do. I just suggest that if they CLARIFY, BEFORE they ASSUME, then they would NOT be as WRONG as they ARE as often as they ARE.

Also, I will INFORM you of this ONCE MORE. I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely ANY 'thing'. So, if you keep ACCUSING me of BELIEVING ANY thing, I will keep POINTING OUT how absolutely WRONG 'you' ARE here, "scott mayers".

If you can NOT or will NOT LISTEN and HEAR what I am saying, then REALLY what point is there in 'trying to' TALK with 'you'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am You were meaning that you cannot ACCEPT to what you are accusing others of assuming.
I am NOT meaning absolutely ANY thing like this. NOR have I EVER meant ANY thing like this. I will AGAIN suggest asking for CLARIFICATION, BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and especially BEFORE making the Truly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, Wrong AND False ASSUMPTIONS like this one is HERE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am You are also adding a hidden additional meaning to 'assumption' as that which is NOT true.
I have NEVER added ANY such thing AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN True.

I have ONLY EVER SAID, and MEANT, that ANY ASSUMPTION is, essentially, ONLY a GUESS of what MIGHT BE true or false. So, because of this NON hidden FACT, then ANY and EVERY ASSUMPTION COULD be true or NOT true. Which, can OBVIOUSLY be SEEN, is NOT what you have CLAIMED here I have said or done.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Note that the defintion above does not ADD that what is assumed is not true.
LOL This is getting BEYOND a JOKE NOW.

I NEVER added ANY such thing as you CLAIMED here. And, as far I am AWARE, NO one has either. I have NEVER thought that what is ASSUMED is NOT true. To me, to even think such a thing would be an ABSURDITY in and of itself.

From what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN true here now is that 'this' has been an ASSUMPTION of YOURS ONLY, and which is CLEARLY Wrong and False.

Besides all of this, the definition above is the one YOU have provided, BECAUSE I asked you to CLARIFY what the word 'assume' means to YOU, here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Rather it says, a thing that is accepted as true. Also the last part that says, "without proof" which means that it cannot be proven in principle.
Therefore, we get back to MY POINT. It is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME ANY thing. Especially considering the FACT that just what is ACTUALLY True ONLY can be LOOKED AT, SEEN, and DISCUSSED, INSTEAD.

Think about this, IF you can NOT prove your ASSUMPTIONS, in principle, then EVERY assumption you make and use as 'premises', could ALWAYS be Wrong, False, or Incorrect, which would mean that YOUR 'arguments' could NEVER be sound AND valid. And, to me, if an argument is NOT sound AND valid, then it is is NOT EVEN WORTH, repeating.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Because 'proofs' are just the collection of arguments one gives for some conclusion(s) between people and each of us cannot KNOW what the other senses DIRECTLY, we are forced to find agreement to the foundational things without proof.
This is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, which you OBVIOUSLY could NEVER prove is True, from your OWN "reasoning" and "conclusion".

What you said here is NOT from MY PERSPECTIVE. To 'me' 'proofs' are NOT necessarily just the collection of arguments one gives for some conclusion/s.

Conclusions are found in or from 'arguments'. Proofs are NEEDED to be SEEN within arguments to make arguments sound AND valid. And, conclusions are formed from arguments. If arguments are sound AND valid, then the conclusion IS IRREFUTABLE, ANYWAY. Which, by the way, MEANS that that conclusion could be used to start ANOTHER 'argument', which would be a conclusion that is NOT an ASSUMPTION.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED to you HOW "others" can KNOW what "another" senses, DIRECTLY. In case you have FORGOTTEN, then this is by JUST INFORMING them.

As for you FEELING 'forced' to find agreement to the foundational things without proof, then that is ON YOU ALONE.

This is CERTAINLY NOT the case FOR ME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am

To 'me' 'arguing' is NEVER about winning NOR losing ANYWAY.
I was referring to the fact that we COMPETE between differing views, not about whether one is rewarded or penalized for it but whether one succeeds at getting their argument accepted and agreed to or not.
LOL I NEVER, so call, "COMPETE between differing views". To even 'try' would be a COMPLETELY useless exercise.

Within EVERY human being there are DIFFERENT VIEWS. This is just a FACT, which is IRREFUTABLE. End of story.

When WHY EVERY human being has DIFFERENT VIEWS has be LEARNED, then there is NEVER ANY thing to COMPLETE about or against here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am A 'win' would be where the participants in the argument actually accept the same conclusion as valid and/or, preferably, also sound. [This does not mean that if others appear to accept your conclusion, that they agree BY the same logic. Placate another by thinking it more important to accept the conclusion regardless of shared reasoning is not a 'win' by argument, by the way. Many, often the more emotionally, tend to think that this is MORE important when one could have a 'wrong' kind of reasoning to get to the shared conclusions.]
All of this is NOT important to me.

LOOK, when I 'argue' I am just 'logically reasoning' WITH "another". ONLY when we are BOTH OPEN we come to a CONCLUSION, which we BOTH just naturally and voluntarily ACCEPT and AGREE WITH.

No one's OWN VIEW is NEEDS to be accepted and agreed upon by "another". Only when discussions are taking place Openly, Honestly, and Peacefully is when what is True and Right in Life comes to be SEEN and KNOWN, TOGETHER.

I only express MY VIEWS so that I can be INFORMED of WHERE and WHY they are Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect. I NEVER express MY VIEWS so that "another" would agree with nor accept them. If ANY of MY VIEWS are Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect, then I WANT and LOVE to be TOLD and INFORMED WHEREABOUTS and WHY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am To 'me', 'arguing' is just 'logically reasoning' with "others". And, an 'argument' is either sound AND valid, and thus is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct, or in other words, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', or it is neither sound nor valid, or both, and therefore not an argument even worth repeating.
We agree in part. As for my last point, I cannot placate your shared 'conclusion' here because you disagreed that assumptions were necessary when they are.
WHEN and IF you EVER provide ACTUAL PROOF that ASSUMPTIONS ARE NECESSARY, then I WILL AGREE and ACCEPT that they ARE. Until then I will REMAIN OPEN to maybe they ARE and maybe that are NOT. From what I have OBSERVED SO FAR there is NOTHING that I have SEEN that has SHOWN 'me' that ASSUMPTIONS ARE NECESSARY.

Also, what does the word 'placate' even mean and/or refer to, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am An argument is between people, not between ANY two objects in the Universe.
The first part here goes WITHOUT SAYING. As for the second part an argument is between THE two objects in the Universe known as human beings.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am The 'objects', ...their physics..., are what is the "ACTUAL" truth by their 'agreement' of existence.
SO, I suggest, once more, just LOOKING AT 'them', and DISCUSSING 'them' INSTEAD of MAKING UP ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL. That way one COULD NEVER BE WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am But when arguing between people, we are limited to 'prove' things by literally accepting the initial premises at the root of arguments because we are NOT able to observe directly FROM anywhere else but our own consciousness.
IF and WHEN 'you', adult human beings, START being Truly Honest, and thus Truly OPEN, with one another, then the current 'limitation to prove' things, (in the days of when this is being written), which you are CLAIMING here will "ALL fall to the wayside", as some say.

I do NOT 'accept' the 'initial premises', unless, OF COURSE, they have BEEN PROVEN True ALREADY.

Also, I am ABLE to OBSERVE directly FROM ANY where. But this is BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW 'who' AND 'what' 'I" Truly AM.

SEE, 'shared experiences' HELPS in this regard.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Nature doesn't need to 'prove' itself even though we do because we are trying to get agreement for social/political reasons which do not themselves HAVE shared direct goals. If one of the participants, like in the global warming example, were to DENY 'agreeing', even if they DO, this is a condition where nature CAN still operate on its own regardless of our existence.

So the very FACT that people are emotional beings with different relative goals, we have a greater difficulty agreeing in actual cases. So again, this means we have to get to some agreement that in practice is still hard to get. It is why many of us here have a hard time actually agreeing....our social, political, or personal psychology gets in the way.
All one has to say and do is just TELL thee ACTUAL Truth, and then there is NO one who could refute 'it'.

This is Truly HOW SIMPLE and EASY life and living Truly IS.

YET, 'you', adult human beings, are NOT ABLE, in the days of when this is being written, to SEE and UNDERSTAND this FACT, YET. Partly because of the reasons that 'you' said 'you', human beings, DO.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Many of us are here because we were denied actual social acceptance in some way. As such, many of us are a bit too wound up in our own heads because we were forced to think deeper than the average person. And while we may be in shared company, our particular backgrounds place our own experience as distrusting of the reasoning of others in some way. It makes it harder to trust each other's sincerity in the same way even where we actually might agree.
The MAIN reason 'you', human beings, do NOT trust each other is just because you LIE to and DECEIVE each other. WHEN 'you' STOP doing this, then you will START trusting each other, ONCE AGAIN.

Life and living Truly IS JUST this SIMPLE and this EASY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am

You appear to have the EXACT OPPOSITE view of 'me' here.
Maybe. But I told you my issue with you most particularly was with how each post 'explodes' by questioning nearly every word I (or others) say rather than taking it in smaller steps.
You write a post of this length and then QUESTION 'me' in regards to taking "smaller steps", correct?

Also, WHY did you use the 'explodes' word here?

By the way, the reason WHY I question 'you', human beings, about the words that you each use IS because if you ANSWERED my questions Honestly, then what would be SEEN and RECOGNIZED by 'you' is that you ACTUALLY do NOT YET KNOW FULLY what you are talking about. As hard as this is to hear for EACH of 'you', this IS thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and something that I want to POINT OUT and SHOW.

The reason WHY I want to make this CLEARLY KNOWN is because the words that 'you' EACH use and say to "yourselves" has FAR MORE IMPORTANCE that is Truly RECOGNIZED YET, in the days when this is being written.

Also, what can be NOTICED and SEEN is that posts by 'you' posters here is mostly about 'you' getting YOUR VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and/or BELIEFS across ONLY. Whereas, my posts are about QUESTIONING your posts so that I can gain a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of what 'it' is EXACTLY that you want to EXPRESS and GET ACROSS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am I prefer long indepth disussions but not the breakup into many parts that make it hard to keep track of what was said and where.
But what you even prefer more is when "others" AGREE WITH and ACCEPT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, correct?

That way 'you' could NEVER be WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Also, as mentioned, many questions are 'pivotal' such that many of the other questions are no longer valid if one answers these. I give the example of someone who might begin trying to prove their religion true by quoting lots of biblical texts. If you don't trust the authority of the Bible as being 'true', you cannot argue how it is true by using it. The 'pivotal' question there would be about whether the religious book itself could prove itself. If I cannot get that point answered, all the other questions are irrelevant UNTIL that gets answered.
Does what you say here NOT REFUTE what you CLAIM here about getting "others" to just ACCEPT one's ASSUMPTION/S, so that they then could argue for whatever they want to argue for.

You have suggested, after all, that ASSUMPTIONS are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and IF the ASSUMPTIONS are NOT agreed with and/or accepted, then this will get NOWHERE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am Often, you end up beginning to answer something within its context and get PRESUMED that you DO agree to the Bible after all.
That is WHY I suggest that it is ALWAYS BETTER to CLARIFY, BEFORE one EVER ASSUMES, which OBVIOUSLY includes PRESUMES.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am So the best way to respond without exploding is to take one (or a few) issues at a time and stick with the depth of your own thoughts all at once.
WHY did you use the EXPLODING word here? A you just 'trying to' make a FALSE ACCUSATION, are you PRESUMING something here? WHY are you using the 'explodes' and 'exploding' words here?

Is it because I use some letters in capitalization? Or, because I ask MORE clarifying questions than "others" do? Or, is it for some other reason?

If it is for the latter, then WILL you tell and inform us WHY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am If you can't get past some point, why waste your time asking more questions before you can get SOME agreement?
But I CAN get past ANY point.

Whenever a CLAIM is made, however, I just like to question 'it'. And, the more a CLAIM is made, which appears to be coming from an ASSUMPTION or even more so a BELIEF, then the MORE I like to question 'it'.

Also, ASKING QUESTIONS, for CLARITY, is to FIND OUT what 'it' IS that we ACTUALLY AGREE UPON.

For example, you could use the 'argue' word in a sentence, and BEFORE 'I' could get SOME agreement with 'you', I would NEED to KNOW YOUR definition for that word in the context that you are using it.

See, you could be saying that you want to;

Just provide your views in a format to persuade me of some 'thing'. Or,

Just discuss with me in a 'logical reasoning' way to see if we find some new or further knowledge that we both agree to. (You know like in the sense that philosophical discussion ONCE USED TO BE.) Or,

Just fight and bicker over some thing or other.

So, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, BEFORE I could ACCURATELY come to SOME REAL agreement with you, 'I' NEED to KNOW what the word is REALLY referring to.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am And at this point, I'll stop here.

[And note that another reason for not breaking up these into multiple questions in long posts is the difficulty of trying to edit when making stupid trivial mistakes. They are difficult to find in the plain text editor here.]
Okay.

Maybe if you shorten YOUR REPLIES and had just concentrated on my TWO clarifying questions POSED in the beginning, then I could have ALREADY PROVIDED MY EXAMPLES of what you CLAIM I can NOT do. This would made all of this MUCH EASIER and MUCH SIMPLER, for you, correct?
Post Reply