It's not a shot. It's a sign of well-deserved exasperation.HexHammer wrote:If that's u'r best shot, then that is a "rainbow chaser" attempt at best.the Hessian wrote:Look at the post directly above where you posted this. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could.
I will try (yet) again. It's up to you whether you make an effort to actually try to understand what I am saying before you react. You don't have to agree. But if you disagree, it would be great if you were disagreeing with something I actually said.HexHammer wrote:Would it show any faults in a calculation, if engineers used the wrong kind of concrete so that the bridge will crumble in 50 years instead of 200 years?
Would it show if the surgeon has done a 100% flawless job? ..no?
Would it show if person A or person B killed the victim? ..no?
..will it infact show anything? ..no?
1. "Will it *show* anything?" - This question doesn't make any sense to me. The truth is not a thing. It can't "show" something. It is a quality of a proposition about a particular state of affairs in the real. If the proposition describes an actual state of affairs, it can be said to be true. If it describes a possible, but not actual, state of affairs, it can be said to be false. If it attempts to describe an impossible state of affairs, it is nonsense. For example:
- The keyboard is on the table. True.
- The keyboard is under the table. False.
- The keyboard is wrong. Nonsense.
- Person A killed the victim. False.
- Person B killed the victim. True.
- The surgeon did a 100% flawless job. Nonsense.
I don't think any of this is anything terribly original. There is a lot of philosophy about this kind of logic. I'm sure there are others more here more versed in it than I who think I am not being rigorous enough in my examples, but I'm just trying to make it easy.
Honesty, Hex, I don't see the problem you have with this, or why you seem to react so strongly against it.