On assumptions...

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:22 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:51 am
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.
Supposedly, the second oldest living human being, in these days at when this is being written, got covid. And at about about age 116 they still survived, so I would NOT be so sure of "yourself", just yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am 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.
There is absolutely NO worry of this AT ALL.

Also, and to get to the other point, NO one here is thinking the same as 'me'. As I am NOT wanting to express MY VIEWS and have them agreed with and accepted, like EVERY one else IS here.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:32 pm 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'?
You cut out the beginning of the statement. But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone. It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: . That means, no, I'm not speaking about YOU particularly but anyone who uses logic. At least this is the way every logic system has ever existed. Without them would be likened to playing a game called, "Chess", but providing no rules. The rules of the game are 'presumed' (= assumed 'true') for the sake of agreeing how to play by the inventor. You don't HAVE to follow the rules....but ONLY if both of you agree and if the rules ARE the same. A 'postulate' is the term used for the rules of a system, like logic, prior to using the particular language with any limitations expressed ahead of time. [or 'axiom', as another term (from Greek?)].
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?
Correct. You cannot because it would be like I just said above about playing Chess without anyone knowing the rules. You seem to be presuming that you are a mere passive participant when this is not the case. If you WERE merelly measuring only other people's claims, then you would still have to measure it by some system of logic rules. Those rules are 'assumed'. Then, when you are measuring a particular argument USING that system, it is one that requires 'assumptions' in the same way that the players of chess have to have a proposed MOVE to make. The move has 'variable' possibilities. To begin play, the player in a sense, 'posts' his move just as we do here in posts. They are unpredictable and do not HAVE to be true. But when one does so, we ASSUME the person (or bot) is posting something they too assume is true. It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.

You assert in the above quote that you 'might be able to give reasons and cite evidence' as though these are not 'assumed'. They ARE because no two or more people share the same identical eyes, ears, or other senses. So it is impossible to 'know' for certain what they witness, even if you also agree to it, is identical to how you see it. You simply 'agree' to the assumption.

Did you not get, overlook, or just disagree with the way I asserted that we use "assumptions" to refer to things both certain as well as pretended for the sake of argument? This is the same as saying what you KNOW is what you BELIEVE but what you BELIEVE is not necessarily what you KNOW, remember? If you disagree then state it. Saying what you just said pivots on this point. So if you still think that you CAN argue without assumptions, you are likely limiting the meaning of 'assuming' to pretenses ONLY. The problem with that is that there would be no need for many terms. Why would 'assumption' be required if 'pretense' sufficed? One or the other would not NEED to be in one's vocabulary if they meant identically the same thing. So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true. All that matters is THAT they CAN be true or false in reality to be 'valid'. ONLY where it happens to be both valid AND certainly true does it become 'sound'.
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.
You are definitely not a bot here because a bot would have LOGICALLY recognized that whatever I assert is MY statement. You are reading something OUT OF CONTEXT. It is obvious that I gave you the definition that I agree to. If you disagree, propose what YOU disagree to about the definition given or offer up your own so that I can determine what the issue is.
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.
Okay, I don't get this statement. It is illogical. If a premise is stated that is not accepted true or is uncertain, it is 'false' or uncertain. "Uncertain" permits it to be either, but if your claim is in fact 'false' by itself, then no 'true' conclusion can be drawn as it would be 'invalid'. All arguments have to consist of true statements IF the conclusion is true. If a premise is indeterminate, then this defaults back to what I said: that the premises are assumed but may be true or false. But IF all premises for an argument is 'true' its conclusion have to be true.

Now if you are thus merely stating that you can make a 'valid' argument but NOT assure it is 'sound', then this means we could not determine any actual truth ABOUT reality but only about the conditional validity. Then the premises would still require being 'assumed'.
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.
That which is BASED on a prior 'proof' is a theorem (an assumption of a latter argument that uses the conclusion from an earlier argument.) You miss the point that you have to BEGIN with something to argue with. And the ONLY way that you can start without a prior 'proof' of something true is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ....my argument from elsewhere to which I know you disagreed with before. Have you changed your mind?

An argument takes one from at least two ASSUMED 'true' statements, even if they may not be in fact, to a conclusion that has to be true based on those assumptions. You cannot claim a stated premise as true without entering 'absolutes' and to which the only ones we can SHARE with certainty in a way that cannot even be disagreed to in principle. If I or anyone merely asserted that they disagree with your premise, you either have to force the other to agree or ask them to 'assume' it as POSSIBLY 'true'.

Anyone can simply lie but you have no means to assure this. So arguments are necessary gambles that those participating 'agree' to at least 'pretend' have truth value.

[Had to break for not being able to type. But a quick glance through the rest of your prior quote demonstrates something odd. Do you speak English or are you using translation software? It would make sense given you don't get certain normal English-language cues, like when I used the word, "you" in CONTEXT to mean "all of us". If so, please take note that you are missing cultural ways of speaking that goes beyond normal translation software (at this point). If I know, this may help me and others to communicate with you better.]

I'll leave this as is for now. I need to determine if you translate the above correctly. Otherwise I'm again only going to waste more time without a hope of moving forward. I hope you respect this and DON'T take offense whether this is true or not. Thanks.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
Age wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:32 pm 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'?
You cut out the beginning of the statement.
Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone.
Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: .
But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm That means, no, I'm not speaking about YOU particularly but anyone who uses logic.
And I NEVER said you were. In fact I NEVER even suggested that you were. This is because I NEVER thought this ALONE.

You made the CLAIM by implying that 'you', ANY one, could NOT do some 'thing'. Now, either 'I' am a part of that ANY one or 'I' am NOT. So, which one are 'you', "scott mayers", are going to say and CLAIM 'I' am?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm At least this is the way every logic system has ever existed. Without them would be likened to playing a game called, "Chess", but providing no rules. The rules of the game are 'presumed' (= assumed 'true') for the sake of agreeing how to play by the inventor. You don't HAVE to follow the rules....but ONLY if both of you agree and if the rules ARE the same. A 'postulate' is the term used for the rules of a system, like logic, prior to using the particular language with any limitations expressed ahead of time. [or 'axiom', as another term (from Greek?)].
ALL just MORE DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
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?
Correct.
Okay. If you are REALLY NOT OPEN AT ALL, then there REALLY is NO use in talking and discussing AT ALL.

You BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that you are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct, and therefore there is NOTHING MORE that needs saying.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You cannot because it would be like I just said above about playing Chess without anyone knowing the rules. You seem to be presuming that you are a mere passive participant when this is not the case.
This is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If you WERE merelly measuring only other people's claims, then you would still have to measure it by some system of logic rules.
You make ALL of these CLAIMS but NEVER back it up with ANY actual PROOF, NOR EXAMPLES.

If you PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES, then I could and would PROVE 'you' WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Those rules are 'assumed'.
LOL

You are just defining words in a way to make your OWN BELIEFS appear true, right, and correct. Unfortunately, for you though, doing this only separates YOUR BELIEFS from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Then, when you are measuring a particular argument USING that system, it is one that requires 'assumptions' in the same way that the players of chess have to have a proposed MOVE to make.
PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE. Otherwise what you are saying is just hearsay, and worth absolutely NOTHING.

You are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT proving ANY thing here. Other than you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm The move has 'variable' possibilities. To begin play, the player in a sense, 'posts' his move just as we do here in posts. They are unpredictable and do not HAVE to be true. But when one does so, we ASSUME the person (or bot) is posting something they too assume is true.
If 'you', "scott mayers", ASSUME that bots ASSUME some things to be true, then this might explain WHY you think and SEE 'things' the way you do here.

Also, PLEASE REFRAIN from using the 'we' word like you have some OVERRIDING ABILITY to speak for EVERY one of 'us'.

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT have this ability and have OBVIOUSLY been WRONG before in regards to 'us'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.
But, according to you, you, yourself, do NOT have to, NOR DO follow, this "logic". Because, to you, you NEVER say ANY thing is True because, to you, you can NOT even begin with ANY other than just an ASSUMPTION, and as 'we' ALL KNOW, ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS could be COMPLETELY or PARTLY Wrong and False, from the outset.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You assert in the above quote that you 'might be able to give reasons and cite evidence' as though these are not 'assumed'.
I NEVER 'asserted' this. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm They ARE because no two or more people share the same identical eyes, ears, or other senses.
So what?

Do two or more people SHARE EXPERIENCES?

Do two or more people SHARE THOUGHTS?

Can two or more people have the same SHARED KNOWLEDGE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So it is impossible to 'know' for certain what they witness, even if you also agree to it, is identical to how you see it.
This, to me, has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING AT ALL on 'arguing' with or without ASSUMPTIONS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You simply 'agree' to the assumption.
SERIOUSLY, STOP TELLING 'me' what I do, or do NOT do.

You go on and on about it is IMPOSSIBLE for 'you' to KNOW for certain what ANOTHER 'sees', YET you continually go on and on ALSO CLAIMING to KNOW what I see and do. This is so HYPOCRITICAL, to the EXTREME', I will add.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Did you not get, overlook, or just disagree with the way I asserted that we use "assumptions" to refer to things both certain as well as pretended for the sake of argument?
What I get is that 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY than 'I' do. Can you NOT get this?

From 'you' continually TELLING 'me' of what I, SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, see and do, then this suggests VERY STRONGLY that you can NOT YET fathom NOR comprehend and understand this FACT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm This is the same as saying what you KNOW is what you BELIEVE but what you BELIEVE is not necessarily what you KNOW, remember? I
But this is just what you CLAIM. And I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND and AGREE that that IS what 'you' do DO.

You just can NOT seem to UNDERSTAND that I do NOT do that EVER.

SERIOUSLY, WHEN will you LEARN to SPEAK for 'you', and 'you' ALONE?

Tell us for as long as you can what 'you' DO. This is PERFECTLY FINE with 'me'. But EACH and EVERY time 'you' 'try to' speak for 'us' and you are WRONG, then if and when I choose to, then I will INFORM 'you' and the readers of WHEN you are WRONG and WHY you are WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm f you disagree then state it.
I DISAGREE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Saying what you just said pivots on this point. So if you still think that you CAN argue without assumptions, you are likely limiting the meaning of 'assuming' to pretenses ONLY.
LOL. ONCE AGAIN here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who will 'try' and say ANY thing, which they either hope or BELIEVE with back up and support their currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS.

I KNOW I can argue without assumptions. That is either with the words 'argue' and/or 'assumptions' being defined the way you WANT TO DEFINE them, or with the OTHER DEFINITIONS in existence, at the times of these writings.

Either way this is of NO concern to me whatsoever. And, I even prefer to use YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITIONS so as then I am NOT being SEEN as being BIASED nor MANIPULATIVE (in the negative connotation) in ANY way.

By the way, I am NOT doing what you ARE PRESUMING here. Again, I suggest 'you' CLARIFY, BEFORE 'you' ASSUME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm The problem with that is that there would be no need for many terms. Why would 'assumption' be required if 'pretense' sufficed?
You, ONCE AGAIN, have gone SO FAR OFF tangent that this has been just Truly LUDICROUS now.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm One or the other would not NEED to be in one's vocabulary if they meant identically the same thing.
You are just saying what I have ALREADY SAID.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true.
Does it?

Can this be found in ANY dictionary ANYWHERE, in the times when this is being written?

If yes, then will you provide the name of that dictionary?

Also, this is a question for the posters in this forum, Do ANY of you accept and agree that the word 'assumption' MEANS what IS in fact true?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm All that matters is THAT they CAN be true or false in reality to be 'valid'. ONLY where it happens to be both valid AND certainly true does it become 'sound'.
What are you talking about here now, 'assumptions' or 'arguments'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm


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.
You are definitely not a bot here because a bot would have LOGICALLY recognized that whatever I assert is MY statement.
GREAT. Well then that just saying what the word 'assumption' means to you is ALL that you NEEDED to say, without ALL of this OTHER STUFF.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You are reading something OUT OF CONTEXT.
AM I?

And what IS 'that', EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is obvious that I gave you the definition that I agree to.
I KNOW. That is WHY I FINISHED at that point or moment.

However, because you have carried on (and on) some might say, I just responded.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If you disagree, propose what YOU disagree to about the definition given or offer up your own so that I can determine what the issue is.
I do NOT disagree with YOUR definition, and I would NEVER disagree with YOUR definition for ANY word, EVER.

If that is HOW you SEE a word, then that is just HOW you SEE it.

I just wanted to KNOW YOUR definition so that I could move on to providing AN EXAMPLE of WHEN and HOW I can 'argue' without 'assumptions'.

And, when you SHOW some sign that you are OPEN to the possibility that I might actually be able to do this, then I WILL. But so far you have FLATLY REFUSED the POSSIBILITY that ANY one could even possibly do this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm


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.
Okay, I don't get this statement. It is illogical. If a premise is stated that is not accepted true or is uncertain, it is 'false' or uncertain.
Because you are ASSUMING this COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, RIDICULOUS and LUDICROUS notion, then this is WHY you do NOT get this statement and WHY it is 'illogical', to YOU.

ONCE AGAIN, I suggest ASKING for CLARITY, BEFORE making these TRULY ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm "Uncertain" permits it to be either, but if your claim is in fact 'false' by itself, then no 'true' conclusion can be drawn as it would be 'invalid'.
See, what has HAPPENED HERE is this poster because ASSUMED some ILLOGICAL 'thing' actually took place, then they WANDER OFF and DRIFT into some other ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL tangents, and topics.

IF they HAD just CLARIFIED FIRST, then ALL of this OTHER STUFF would NEVER had ARISEN.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm All arguments have to consist of true statements
LOL
LOL
LOL

YOU have just got through telling us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT at ALL that NO one can EVER argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS, which by ALL definitions I know of, except YOURS of course "scott mayers", the word 'assumption' refers to 'that' what is NOT necessarily a 'true statement' AT ALL.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET, "scott mayers" that it was YOU who just wrote up above;

It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.

Now, you have said that NO one can argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.

I then asked you to define what the word 'assumption' means, to 'you'. To which you used a dictionary definition and previously replied;

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

BUT, you then CHANGED and said;

So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true.

Which can be CLEARLY SEEN to COMPLETELY CONTRADICT what you PREVIOUSLY WROTE and SAID.

I suggest you just pick One definition and REMAIN with that One ONLY. Especially considering that it is YOU CLAIMING that I can NOT do some 'thing' in regards to ASSUMPTIONS, themselves.

If you are going to keep CHANGING the definitions, then I will NEVER be given the opportunity to do what you STILL CLAIM that I could even possibly do.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm IF the conclusion is true. If a premise is indeterminate, then this defaults back to what I said: that the premises are assumed but may be true or false. But IF all premises for an argument is 'true' its conclusion have to be true.
BUT how would ANY one in the Universe KNOW if ALL or ANY 'premise' is true if supposedly ALL premises are just ASSUMPTIONS, and thus NOT necessarily true AT ALL, anyway?

Which definition of the words 'assumptions' are you using here now and want to use here now?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Now if you are thus merely stating that you can make a 'valid' argument but NOT assure it is 'sound', then this means we could not determine any actual truth ABOUT reality but only about the conditional validity. Then the premises would still require being 'assumed'.
LOL I have NEVER STATED ANY such thing, let alone EVER SAID ANY such thing, let alone EVER SUGGESTED ANY such thing, NOR, let alone, EVEN EVER THOUGHT ANY such thing.

YOUR ASSUMING appears to be NEVER ENDING.

Maybe this is WHY you ASSUME AND BELIEVE that NO one could EVER argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.

Because all you appear to be ABLE to do is to just ASSUME, then maybe you ALSO ASSUME that this is ALL ANY one else can do as well.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
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.
That which is BASED on a prior 'proof' is a theorem (an assumption of a latter argument that uses the conclusion from an earlier argument.)
Is this an ABSOLUTE, IRREFUTABLE FACT? Or just what you ASSUME is true?

If it is the former, then that in and of itself REFUTES and thus DEFEATS your own ASSUMPTION, and ARGUMENT here.

But, if it is the latter, then it OBVIOUSLY could just be plain old COMPLETELY, or partly, Wrong and/or False ANYWAY.

SEE, ABSOLUTELY EVERY time ANY one says something can NOT be done, they REFUTE and DEFEAT this CLAIM by the VERY WORDS they are EXPRESSING the CLAIM with and by.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You miss the point that you have to BEGIN with something to argue with.
Did I?

If you CAN 'argue' WITHOUT BEGINNING with some 'thing', then HOW, EXACTLY can you do this?

Provide an example of this type of way to 'argue'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm And the ONLY way that you can start without a prior 'proof' of something true is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ....my argument from elsewhere to which I know you disagreed with before. Have you changed your mind?
NO.

Your continual making of ASSUMPTIONS, which by the way some are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY Wrong and False, like this one here, is leading you astray to IMAGINE things, which REALLY are NOT here AT ALL.

Also, what you say here appears to TOTALLY CONTRADICT what you have been going on about in this thread of YOURS here.

Which is you can NOT 'argue' WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS, yet here you seem to be saying that the ONLY way that you can start to 'argue', without a prior 'proof' of something true, is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Now, OBVIOUSLY an 'assumption', according to your FIRST DEFINITION of the word 'assumption', is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

So, can you SEE the COMPLETE CONTRADICTION here?

If no, then I WILL SHOW you.

But, if you can see this, then are you able to explain this contradiction away?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm An argument takes one from at least two ASSUMED 'true' statements, even if they may not be in fact, to a conclusion that has to be true based on those assumptions.
This is what you say and CLAIM, which I TOTALLY AGREE with, in regards to SOME arguments. You, however, BELIEVE and CLAIM this to be the case for EACH and EVERY argument, correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You cannot claim a stated premise as true without entering 'absolutes' and to which the only ones we can SHARE with certainty in a way that cannot even be disagreed to in principle.
Well great. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about and referencing to when I use the words 'thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If I or anyone merely asserted that they disagree with your premise, you either have to force the other to agree or ask them to 'assume' it as POSSIBLY 'true'.
But I can do MANY OTHER THINGS, besides just this what you claim here that I 'have to' do.

If ANY one disagrees with what I write, then I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CARE, and most likely probably ALWAYS WILL NOT CARE.

If what I have said is NOT TRUE, then just prove it. How much more simple and easy can this be.

By the way, if what I say is NOT TRUE, and this is SHOWN and PROVEN to be True, then I would be EXTREMELY THANKFUL and APPRECIATIVE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Anyone can simply lie but you have no means to assure this.
WHY would I even want to have the means to assure that another simply lies?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So arguments are necessary gambles that those participating 'agree' to at least 'pretend' have truth value.
But this is either an IRREFUTABLE and ABSOLUTE Truth, or just another on of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?

So, which one is it?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm [Had to break for not being able to type. But a quick glance through the rest of your prior quote demonstrates something odd. Do you speak English or are you using translation software? It would make sense given you don't get certain normal English-language cues, like when I used the word, "you" in CONTEXT to mean "all of us".
But is this another actually absolute and irrefutable fact, or this just another assumption of yours?

If it is the former, then what PROOF are you basing this on, EXACTLY.

If, however, it is the latter, then it OBVIOUSLY could be COMPLETELY, or partly, False and/or Wrong.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If so, please take note that you are missing cultural ways of speaking that goes beyond normal translation software (at this point). If I know, this may help me and others to communicate with you better.]
I would be FAR MORE concerned about 'me' being able to communicate with 'you', human beings, better.

Oh, and by the way, you might have NOT YET NOTICED the subtlety here in YOUR OWN use of words, through either "your" 'english language,' or through "your" 'translation software' (the brain within that body).

See, 'you', "scott mayers", just got through explaining to 'us' (and take that anyway you like), that 'I' do NOT get certain, laughable, "normal" english-language cues, like when you used the word 'you' in CONTEXT to mean "all of us". YET it was 'you', "scott mayers", who could NOT decipher the FACT that 'I" was using the letter 'I' in relation to One of ' ALL of 'us' '.

Also, because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I do NOT get certain cues in, once again laughable, "normal" english-language, then maybe 'you', "scott mayers", would like to do what 'I' do, and that is EXPLAIN and MAKE CLEAR who the 'you' ACTUALLY IS that 'I' am referring to when 'I" speak to 'you', "scott mayers", and to 'you', human beings, as well?

Furthermore, when 'you', "scott mayers", used the 'you' word when 'you' said, " 'you' don't get certain normal English-language cues," then who were 'you' referring to exactly when 'you' said that 'you' word.

You did say before that I do NOT get certain normal english-langue cues so it would stand to reason that I still, supposedly, do NOT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm I'll leave this as is for now. I need to determine if you translate the above correctly. Otherwise I'm again only going to waste more time without a hope of moving forward. I hope you respect this and DON'T take offense whether this is true or not. Thanks.
LOL

I was just waiting for you to define the two words of 'assumption' and 'argue' ONLY, so then I could and would move on to SEEING if I could ACTUALLY PROVE YOUR CLAIM RIGHT or WRONG here.

When 'you' STOP writing ALL of this OTHER STUFF, then we could BOTH just focus on the one main issue here for me, which is: YOUR CLAIM that NO one could EVER 'argue' WITHOUT 'assumptions'.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

The assumption, where assumption being a proposition that is considered to be true, is necessary if you want to develop an argument.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
Age wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:32 pm 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'?
You cut out the beginning of the statement.
Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
You are lying here AND cut out what I DID answer to you in the very last response to this quote. Why are you requoting the false quote but not the quote that I just expanded IN CLARITY with respect to the missing term, "you", as in meaning ANYONE. I doubt that you speak English or are being deceptive. You cannot interpret normal context of colloquial expressions that suggest you are translating back and forth from some other language or have some mental or social illness preventing you from knowing 'context'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone.
Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
And here you are cancelling OUT the question of your last above by NOW adding context. Yet you are still falsely missing context of my explanation with appropriate charity.

The way I expressed the context was clear. Here is the same with clarity that should translate into your language: "No one can begin any logical argument WITHOUT assumptions."
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: .
But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Why are you not quoting the whole content PRIOR to interpreting anything? You are wasting my time exploding again without necessity.

Your use of "you humans" is annoying and implies that you are NOT.

ARE YOU HUMAN? IF NOT WHAT ARE YOU?

If you think that I should respond to YOU, then you require answering this question. If you think that you are superior, then there is no need to argue with you at all. You believe that you have all the answers and nothing I can say will matter. I have no interest in debating with bots, aliens, or non-humans.

I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses. I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write. I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.

Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am
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?
I find it curious that you'd see your goal as providing "proofs" in the first place. We're not going to arrive at certainty about (almost) anything, and we're very unlikely to change other folks' minds about anything.

Re your final question, I don't believe there is any fact that will be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from, no. We can only hope that we can understand the other person, their assumptions, their context, their reasoning, etc. well enough to be able to enter into a productive dialogue with them, but often enough we cannot.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
You cut out the beginning of the statement.
Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
You are lying here AND cut out what I DID answer to you in the very last response to this quote. Why are you requoting the false quote but not the quote that I just expanded IN CLARITY with respect to the missing term, "you", as in meaning ANYONE. I doubt that you speak English or are being deceptive. You cannot interpret normal context of colloquial expressions that suggest you are translating back and forth from some other language or have some mental or social illness preventing you from knowing 'context'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone.
Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
And here you are cancelling OUT the question of your last above by NOW adding context. Yet you are still falsely missing context of my explanation with appropriate charity.

The way I expressed the context was clear. Here is the same with clarity that should translate into your language: "No one can begin any logical argument WITHOUT assumptions."
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: .
But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Why are you not quoting the whole content PRIOR to interpreting anything? You are wasting my time exploding again without necessity.

Your use of "you humans" is annoying and implies that you are NOT.

ARE YOU HUMAN? IF NOT WHAT ARE YOU?

If you think that I should respond to YOU, then you require answering this question. If you think that you are superior, then there is no need to argue with you at all. You believe that you have all the answers and nothing I can say will matter. I have no interest in debating with bots, aliens, or non-humans.

I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses. I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write. I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.

Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
If you didn't already realize this, you're never going to get anywhere with Age (aka evolution aka creation in other boards). His whole shtick is to not let anyone get anywhere, combined with murky allusions to some sort of absolute and/or esoteric truth that only he has access to but that he'll never explicitly share. This sort of thing is caused by someone historically sharing their view but having it ridiculed, and in Age's case, it's exacerbated by being an Aspie and being very defensive about it, combined with what seem to be bipolar tendencies.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am
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?
I find it curious that you'd see your goal as providing "proofs" in the first place. We're not going to arrive at certainty about (almost) anything, and we're very unlikely to change other folks' minds about anything.

Re your final question, I don't believe there is any fact that will be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from, no. We can only hope that we can understand the other person, their assumptions, their context, their reasoning, etc. well enough to be able to enter into a productive dialogue with them, but often enough we cannot.
I'm not a fan of sounding boards and why I go only to forums that I hoped to find a means to debate using logic as a foundation. Philosophy, for me specifically, is a means to USE logical dialect to compete with differing ideas and is the foundation for ALL other areas of intellectual pursuit.

I DO notice that many do not necessarily change when debating others. Often though, this can be just due to the fact that where people 'agree', they have no further concern to discuss. Also, some CAN change but cannot be expected to overtly admit such because it can take time for one to absorb it in light of their own prior thinking. Furthermore, we tend to give credit to ourselves for our internalized thought process. So the actual changes that occur do not necessarily APPEAR in forums even where they may.

Assumptions, though, are essential factors for any analysis as a starting point, often unspoken and hidden. The only 'facts' we can begin on are based upon our own independent experiences but are relative 'assumptions' to others, even where we might agree to the specific claims.

I'm not sure that anyone CAN convince anyone of anything based on mere argument as I once thought. This is because emotions also get in the way and it reduces everything to 'politics' (which I interpret as any social engagments that affect us between two or more people/beings). I'm also coming less often to any debate forums online or even in person because I don't have that apparent satisfaction of appeal based upon mere emotional factors. I thought I might have had some effectiveness either for others or for myself. But whether I do or not is clearly uncertain and more likely than not, it may undermine my intents.

I'm not likely going to stick around as often or as regular as I used to be now. I can do other things that while less satisfactory before, have moved up to my priority standards lately. Age's responses, while perhaps 'extreme', are somewhat exemplary of the problems that occur with everyone online.

But if you recognize the means of debate as futile, why are you still here?

??...
Billy Joel wrote: ...
And the piano it sounds like a carnival
And the microphone smells like a beer
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
And say man what are you doin' here?...

Piano Man
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
You cut out the beginning of the statement.
Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
You are lying here AND cut out what I DID answer to you in the very last response to this quote. Why are you requoting the false quote but not the quote that I just expanded IN CLARITY with respect to the missing term, "you", as in meaning ANYONE. I doubt that you speak English or are being deceptive. You cannot interpret normal context of colloquial expressions that suggest you are translating back and forth from some other language or have some mental or social illness preventing you from knowing 'context'.
I have NOT said absolutely ANY thing here, which I could have possibly lied about.

All I did here was just ask you four VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, so what exactly could lead you to the ASSUMPTION that I was lying here?

The rest of what you wrote here was then based on that ASSUMPTION of YOURS that I was lying.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone.
Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
And here you are cancelling OUT the question of your last above by NOW adding context. Yet you are still falsely missing context of my explanation with appropriate charity.
If I am 'missing' some thing, then it is NOT "falsely" missing some thing. Unless, of course, you can show HOW someone "falsely" misses some thing, and then relate that to 'me' somehow here.

If I have missed context of your explanation with appropriate charity, then I apologize. I am sure it is NOT my first time and will NOT be my last time I miss context in what 'you', human beings, write and say.

Would you prefer I just ASSUMED what you are meaning here instead of just CLARIFYING with you first about what you are meaning?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am The way I expressed the context was clear. Here is the same with clarity that should translate into your language: "No one can begin any logical argument WITHOUT assumptions."
But I have UNDERSTOOD this.

Have you missed that I am stating: 'It is possible to begin a logical argument WITHOUT assumptions'.

In fact, 'I' can do this.

So, logically, either 'I' can do this, or, 'I' am NOT 'one' of those 'ones' who, supposedly, can NOT begin a logical argument WITHOUT assumptions.

Have you NOT YET understood this?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: .
But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Why are you not quoting the whole content PRIOR to interpreting anything?
But I do NOT even know where nor what 'it' is. I even made this completely and utterly CLEAR when I asked you the four CLARIFYING QUESTIONS:

Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?


The context of the question in the way they were written speak for themselves.

Are you missing the context of my questioning?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am You are wasting my time exploding again without necessity.
WHY do 'you', human beings, keep ASSUMING and jumping the CONCLUSION, that I am "exploding"?

WHERE is this coming from?

WHAT is making 'you', people, ASSUME such a thing?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am Your use of "you humans" is annoying and implies that you are NOT.
WHY would you ASSUME that that implies what you ASSUMED?

Also, I have NEVER used "you humans" ONCE.

I REALLY wish 'you', human beings, would read the ACTUAL words that I write, and in the ACTUAL context that I use them.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am ARE YOU HUMAN? IF NOT WHAT ARE YOU?
The word 'you', from my perspective refers to and means the 'person', within the human body, as well as a pointer to some other 'thing' than thee 'I'.

To gain a FULL understanding of where 'I' am coming from 'one' would have to first KNOW how 'I' define the words;

'you', and in what context.
'I'.
'me'.
'human'.
'being'.
'human being'. And,
'person'.

And, ONLY those who have a True CURIOSITY and INTEREST in learning more and anew, in this forum, will spend the time and effort to find out from 'me'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am If you think that I should respond to YOU, then you require answering this question.
But I would NEVER think that you 'should' respond to Me.

You are absolutely FREE to do whatever you so please.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am If you think that you are superior, then there is no need to argue with you at all.
But I would NEVER think that I am superior.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am You believe that you have all the answers and nothing I can say will matter.
What could have ever given you that idea?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I have no interest in debating with bots, aliens, or non-humans.
I have absolutely NO interest AT ALL in 'debating' ANY thing AT ALL, and obviously this means with ANY 'one'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses.
WHAT do you mean by "explosive tactics" here?

All that is in front of you are words on a screen, so WHERE is this "explosive tactic in response" observation and view coming from, EXACTLY?

Is it possible that you are ASSUMING some 'thing', and so SEEING some 'thing', which really might NOT be there AT ALL?

Or, is this just NOT possible, from your perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write.
Then just do not do it. SIMPLE, REALLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.
You, supposedly and allegedly, gave me "charity" in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
Not necessarily.

That would be like asking; If one is 'not thinking anything', then are they still 'thinking (of) nothing'?

See, I can be looking and observing without assuming absolutely any 'thing', which means I am also NOT assuming no thing either.

Let us look at this another way, one can, obviously, assume (or believe) some 'thing' is true but one does NOT 'have to'. Now, if one is NOT assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true, then this does NOT necessarily mean that they are assuming (nor believing) that 'thing' is false.

One can, instead, just remain OPEN, always. Neither assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true nor false.

Or, how about this way. One can either be 'not thinking (of) anything', or, 'thinking (of) nothing'. Does this help in thinking and seeing things differently, from another perspective? Although they both might appear to mean or be the same 'thing', they nevertheless are two completely very different 'things'.

One leads to PURE 'meditation', while the other leads to helping in recognizing just how much is being thought about.

There is even an exercise that can be done, which illustrates this further. This exercise is about the third step, if I recall correctly, in the nine steps to heaven program guide.

By the way, understanding all of this FULLY, leads to understanding HOW thee ACTUAL Truth can be, and is, KNOWN. Which, by they way also, when and if KNOWN, then NO assumptions AT ALL are 'needed'.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm But if you recognize the means of debate as futile, why are you still here?
Good points above this, by the way.

Re why I'm still here, since I'm not in an academic environment any longer, and I don't have many friends or family members with much of an interest in philosophy (which is a bit of an understatement, maybe--some are even openly antagonistic about it and the vast majority are completely indifferent), I normally have little chance to keep up my interactive philosophy chops. Frequenting boards or chat rooms enables me to "stay in practice" a little bit. Unfortunately, places that tend to be more heavily moderated tend to have higher quality discussion, but they also tend to ban me, because I'm rather iconoclastic in many ways--including that I think that a majority of well-respected philosophers were horrible thinkers and even worse authors. Plus I don't at all get along well with control freak personalities, and those are the sorts persons who tend to be most attracted to being a moderator.

While the sorts of egos that boards on any sort of academic topic seem to attract exacerbate everyone digging in and "refusing to budge," I still think it's possible to have worthwhile discussions where people are interested in mutually exploring--comparing, contrasting, etc.--different positions because they're honestly interested in understanding for its own sake, and in the midst of that, it's possible to pose challenges back and forth that help each party develop their own views better. I think that's a very worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen as often as I'd like, and it's not the easiest thing to do on a message board at length, but it's happened often enough over the years that it's worth continuing to try . . . of course, I tend to be an "irrational optimist"--that is, I tend to be optimistic about stuff like this even when it's not particularly rational to expect good outcomes, but I can't help that. It's a disposition I have that I can't change.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:36 pm The assumption, where assumption being a proposition that is considered to be true, is necessary if you want to develop an argument.
But WHY can you NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True? WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true?

WHY do some of you here BELIEVE that you cannot develop/start an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?

WHY do the same ones INSIST that you have to develop/start an argument from only what MAY BE Wrong?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am
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?
I find it curious that you'd see your goal as providing "proofs" in the first place. We're not going to arrive at certainty about (almost) anything, and we're very unlikely to change other folks' minds about anything.
Folks do NOT "have minds". And, if they did, then this has NO bearing on the matter in question here.

The REASON WHY you find it curious that another would see a goal of providing 'proofs' is because you BELIEVE that doing this is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

If you BELIEVE that 'we' are NOT going to arrive at certainty about (almost) anything, then either you are OPEN to there being something that we could arrive at with certainty, which then counters your curiosity here, or, you REALLY BELIEVE that we are NOT going to arrive at certainty about ANY thing, and you just used the (almost) word to appear and/or pretend that you are somewhat OPEN.

Now, if you REALLY want to be SEEN as being Truly OPEN and Honest, then you WILL start writing, and answering, that way.

Do you think or believe that 'proofs' exist?
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am Re your final question, I don't believe there is any fact that will be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from, no.
But who cares what 'you' BELIEVE. Obviously without 'proof' what you BELIEVE could be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Also, and LOL there is NO human being who could disagree with nor refute a 'fact' anyway. Therefore, ALL 'facts' HAVE TO BE logically accepted and agreed with, anyway, from which an argument could be developed and/or reasoning initiated from.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am We can only hope that we can understand the other person, their assumptions, their context, their reasoning, etc.
'you', "terrapin station", may only be able to do this, but for the rest of 'us' we CERTAINLY DO NOT have to do this. And, if thee Truth be KNOW I CERTAINLY DO NOT do this.

Have you NEVER heard of the word 'CLARIFYING'?

Maybe if you looked this word up, and find its definitions, and then do that some time, through OPEN questioning, then you might SEE that ACTUALLY you can do far more than just only hope to understand "another".
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am well enough to be able to enter into a productive dialogue with them, but often enough we cannot.
This view or belief of yours here partly explains WHY 'you' have FAILED to have a productive dialogue with 'me'.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:58 pm

Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
You are lying here AND cut out what I DID answer to you in the very last response to this quote. Why are you requoting the false quote but not the quote that I just expanded IN CLARITY with respect to the missing term, "you", as in meaning ANYONE. I doubt that you speak English or are being deceptive. You cannot interpret normal context of colloquial expressions that suggest you are translating back and forth from some other language or have some mental or social illness preventing you from knowing 'context'.


Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
And here you are cancelling OUT the question of your last above by NOW adding context. Yet you are still falsely missing context of my explanation with appropriate charity.

The way I expressed the context was clear. Here is the same with clarity that should translate into your language: "No one can begin any logical argument WITHOUT assumptions."


But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Why are you not quoting the whole content PRIOR to interpreting anything? You are wasting my time exploding again without necessity.

Your use of "you humans" is annoying and implies that you are NOT.

ARE YOU HUMAN? IF NOT WHAT ARE YOU?

If you think that I should respond to YOU, then you require answering this question. If you think that you are superior, then there is no need to argue with you at all. You believe that you have all the answers and nothing I can say will matter. I have no interest in debating with bots, aliens, or non-humans.

I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses. I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write. I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.

Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
If you didn't already realize this, you're never going to get anywhere with Age (aka evolution aka creation in other boards).
ONCE AGAIN, 'you', "terrapin station", are 'trying to' speak, ABOUT 'me', as though I do NOT exist, or 'behind my back', as though I cannot hear. This, by the way, is a typical, VERY ignorant and arrogant, adult human behavior when 'trying to' talk ABOUT 'children', within 'earshot', as though they cannot hear.

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am His whole shtick is to not let anyone get anywhere,
LOL ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS, which is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

I ask MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS than ANY other here. Therefore, I am PROVIDING more means, for those 'ones' that I ask, to get FAR FURTHER. Which is complete contradiction to YOUR CLAIM here that I do NOT let ANY one get ANY where.

'you', "terrapin station", could not be FURTHER from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here, ONCE AGAIN.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am combined with murky allusions to some sort of absolute and/or esoteric truth that only he has access to but that he'll never explicitly share.
You are Right and Wrong here.

I do allude to thee absolute and ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

I have NEVER, however, even thought that only I have access to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE is True. As is PROVEN by my ACTUAL words throughout this and other forums. I say, to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process in fact, which is available to EVERY one. I have even EXPLAINED how EVERY one can FIND and SEE, thus KNOW, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Which PROVES your CLAIM here Wrong, ONCE MORE.

What do you mean by "he'll NEVER explicitly share"?

I HAVE explicitly EXPLAINED HOW to obtain thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', which, by the way, I have also EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED, even directly to 'you', "terrapin station", is the 'shared knowledge', itself.

I am NOT sure how many times I have to repeat that if you just want to KNOW something, then just CLARIFY. In other words, if you want me to explicitly share ANY thing, then just ask a specific clarifying question. It could NOT get anymore SIMPLER than this.

You, ONCE AGAIN, appear to be MISSING just about EVERY thing I have been saying and explaining. But this is NOT unexpected at all considering that you BELIEVE that you can do nothing much more than just ASSUME and GUESS what 'it' is that I am saying, and meaning.

Once again I will say, 'CLARIFY, BEFORE you ASSUME'.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am This sort of thing is caused by someone historically sharing their view but having it ridiculed,
BUT I have NOT 'historically shared' all of my views. I have even explicitly explained that my views WILL BE shared one day. But, you, ONCE AGAIN, have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD this.

Are you able to PROVIDE ANY example of WHERE I have, supposedly, "shared a view" and had 'it' ridiculed?

If YOUR CLAIM was TRUE, then you are able to. So, please feel FREE to PROVE your claim here TRUE.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am and in Age's case, it's exacerbated by being an Aspie and being very defensive about it, combined with what seem to be bipolar tendencies.
LOL

WHAT EXACTLY are you now CLAIMING I am being, so called, "defensive about"?

This statement is an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth.

I ask you that clarifying question because if you are Truly OPEN and Honest and answer it that way, then I have what I need to PROVE WHY your statement is in ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION to thee ACTUAL Truth here.

But if you do NOT answer that question, OPENLY and Honestly, then I am NOT going to ASSUME what you are referring to.

Also, I would LOVE for you to bring ANY statement of mine, which you BELIEVE is being "very defensive", so that we can LOOK AT 'it' and DISCUSS 'it'. But KNOWING 'you', "terrapin station", you will NEVER do this. And, the REASON you do NOT do this is because of the FEAR you have.

And, more LOL about 'your' "bipolar tendencies" diagnosis. Will you provide ANY evidence that backs up and supports this CLAIM of YOURS here? Or, are you to AFRAID of providing this AS WELL.

Also, the amount of time you spend LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT the "person", 'me', and 'trying to' ridicule and put 'me' down to and in front of "others", instead of just trying to converse with 'me', I find Truly humorous and enlightening also.

For the amount of CLAIMS you make, especially in regards to 'me', rather than to my words, but will NOT even 'try to' defend even one of YOUR CLAIMS, SHOWS and REVEALS far MORE about 'you' than it does the 'me' AT ALL.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:36 pm The assumption, where assumption being a proposition that is considered to be true, is necessary if you want to develop an argument.
But WHY can you NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
Because people don't know and are disagree with what the truth is. You have to start from somewhere to show that your whole world view as a whole is correct and coherent.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true?
Well, if you know that then that is great since you at the end, when your whole world view is complete, has to prove everything that you assumed.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do some of you here BELIEVE that you cannot develop/start an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
That is possible if you know that your premise is correct. But you have to prove your premise.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do the same ones INSIST that you have to develop/start an argument from only what MAY BE Wrong?
Wrong assumption normally leads to wrong conclusion. So the opposite must be true.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:36 am
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?
I find it curious that you'd see your goal as providing "proofs" in the first place. We're not going to arrive at certainty about (almost) anything, and we're very unlikely to change other folks' minds about anything.

Re your final question, I don't believe there is any fact that will be universally assumed to which all arguments initiate reasoning from, no. We can only hope that we can understand the other person, their assumptions, their context, their reasoning, etc. well enough to be able to enter into a productive dialogue with them, but often enough we cannot.
I'm not a fan of sounding boards and why I go only to forums that I hoped to find a means to debate using logic as a foundation.
I came to philosophy forums for the very EXACT OPPOSITE reason.

To me, 'debating' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'philosophy' is.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm Philosophy, for me specifically, is a means to USE logical dialect to compete with differing ideas and is the foundation for ALL other areas of intellectual pursuit.
WHY do 'you', human beings', have this 'love of competing' for?

To me, either an 'idea' is True, Right, and/or Correct or not, and/or is possible or not.

So, I just LOOK AT 'ideas' this way. I NEVER even 'try to' 'compete one idea against another. To do so would just be futile.

'Philosophy', for me specifically, is just having the 'love of wisdom', with 'wisdom' being obtained just through having a True 'love of learning'. Learning is obtained by just being OPEN, and in fact if one is Truly OPEN then they cannot NOT learn.

To me, specifically, if ANY one wants to obtain, say, for example, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then they just need to remain Truly OPEN, Honest, wanting to CHANGE for the better, while just be CURIOUS. Then, through Truly logically reasoned, peaceful, discussions with "others" thee ACTUAL Truth just comes to light, and almost immediately if Truly OPEN.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm I DO notice that many do not necessarily change when debating others.
The REASON this is, is because by definition when one is 'debating' they are NOT meant to 'change'. When one is taught, through the "education" system, to 'debate' they are taught to 'pick a side' and fight, "to the death", for that side. This wrong way to view 'things' is then continued into adulthood when 'you', adult human beings, have, or choose, a "side", and then only fight/argue for that "side", and 'try to' almost anything for that "side".

And this is WHY I do NOT do 'debate' AT ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm Often though, this can be just due to the fact that where people 'agree', they have no further concern to discuss. Also, some CAN change but cannot be expected to overtly admit such because it can take time for one to absorb it in light of their own prior thinking. Furthermore, we tend to give credit to ourselves for our internalized thought process. So the actual changes that occur do not necessarily APPEAR in forums even where they may.
This is true, to me.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm Assumptions, though, are essential factors for any analysis as a starting point, often unspoken and hidden.
But 'assumptions' are NOT, so called, "essential factors" for any analysis as a starting point. For example, what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct can be an analysis as a starting point.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm The only 'facts' we can begin on are based upon our own independent experiences but are relative 'assumptions' to others, even where we might agree to the specific claims.
WHY do you CLAIM this?

What happens if there are 'facts', which are based upon our shared independent experiences, then those 'facts' would NOT be relative 'assumptions' to "others", they would, actually, be 'facts', which, by definition, cannot be refuted anyway, correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm I'm not sure that anyone CAN convince anyone of anything based on mere argument as I once thought.
If, and when, one forms a sound and valid argument, then NO one could refute that argument.

This, however, does NOT mean that this argument will convince ANY one of ANY thing. This is just because if ANY one BELIEVES some 'thing', then there is NO 'thing' that could nor would SHOW them otherwise. But what can NOT be refuted is if an argument is sound AND valid, then that argument can NOT be 'refuted'. That argument however could be 'disputed'. But not 'disputed' because of ANY logical reason, but just because that argument does NOT fit in with what they just currently BELIEVE is true, and NOTHING ELSE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm This is because emotions also get in the way and it reduces everything to 'politics' (which I interpret as any social engagments that affect us between two or more people/beings).
But it is 'beliefs', and NOT 'emotions' alone, WHY people are NOT 'convinced' of ANY 'thing', even when that 'thing' is thee ACTUAL Truth.

Also, if one is 'trying to' CONVINCE another of some 'thing', then just maybe that 'thing' itself is false, wrong, incorrect, or faulty in someway, which has to be LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED first. But, again, if one BELIEVES what they are 'trying to' CONVINCE another of, then they are NOT OPEN to the FACT that what they BELIEVE might just be Wrong, False, et cetera also. These people are just like the ones who can NOT be CONVINCED of some thing. BOTH just BELIEVE what they do and thus are NOT OPEN to "others" and their 'ideas'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm I'm also coming less often to any debate forums online or even in person because I don't have that apparent satisfaction of appeal based upon mere emotional factors.
If ANY one wants to 'debate' ANY thing, then just form a sound and valid argument for their view/"side", and then there is NO one who could refute that view/"side" anyway.

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm I thought I might have had some effectiveness either for others or for myself. But whether I do or not is clearly uncertain and more likely than not, it may undermine my intents.

I'm not likely going to stick around as often or as regular as I used to be now. I can do other things that while less satisfactory before, have moved up to my priority standards lately. Age's responses, while perhaps 'extreme', are somewhat exemplary of the problems that occur with everyone online.
And, just MAYBE what I am doing is just SHOWING, by and through examples, a REFLECTION of what 'you', adult human beings, actually do here, while just providing a message of HOW to CHANGE, for the better?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm But if you recognize the means of debate as futile, why are you still here?

??...
Billy Joel wrote: ...
And the piano it sounds like a carnival
And the microphone smells like a beer
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
And say man what are you doin' here?...

Piano Man
Post Reply