Principles vs Pragmatism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:14 am

Logic wrote:
Person A says The sky is green
Person B is blind / Person C is colour blind / Person D can see any colour other than green
Question : what is the colour of the sky that they all objectively agree on ? Answer : none

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:18 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:14 am
Person B is blind / Person C is colour blind / Person D can see any colour other than green
Question : what is the colour of the sky that they all objectively agree on ? Answer : none
Great!

Does that mean that the sky has no color, or does that mean it has no color we can agree on?

Would it be a true claim to say "The sky is colourless."

I can't be bothered with you indecisive motherfuckers. The sky is some color. X is a different color.
It doesn't matter what we call them, as long as we don't call them the same thing.

And if you can't see the difference in color that I can see - well, fuck off. I can. I am sorry that you are missing the necessary empirical equipment. Send your complaints to the office of Evolutionary errors.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:23 am

Logic wrote:
How do you know they exist if you have no empirical ( EXPERIENCE ) evidence for them
Because scientific knowledge is incomplete so logically / empirically there are things that it will not know
You already know this so the question you are asking is rhetorical and it doesnt actually falsify my position

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:26 am
Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:25 am
LMAO logik, that post was a parody of the arguments you've used against me. I can't believe you took it seriously, you're something special.
Yes, you parodied the argument I use against all sophistry: Justify your value-system.

Since all disagreements seem to boil down to that one point, I see your parody as an attempt at deflection rather than tackling the issue.

On this side of the is-ought gap logic and "reason" are not in your toolbox. It's all bartering and battle of wills.
You respond to "sophistry" with "language is recursive" and "all positions are contradictory", Logik you are too funny LMAO.

What you say about me has nothing to do with me, your ego and emotions think for you and you don't appreciate it at all. You can't separate your ego from your ideas and sadly, it corrupts any insights you might have. Your condescending attitude is present in every post you make, I can tell from your posts that you aren't a complete idiot, but maybe you let that fact get to your head? In my estimation, almost every post you make on this forum is trying to educate someone.

You claim to be pragmatic... so surely you don't believe we're all really "in this world together" and you're here on this nearly empty forum to educate the masses and help change the world? You certainly aren't here to learn or to have your ideas questioned or challenged, you aren't here to improve your ability to argue - you're not even interested in what others have to say, that's clear in all the debates I've read between you and other forum members/myself.

You ask for a convincing argument but you don't think it's possible for me to give one. So certain of yourself, so confident in your absolute no-grey area statements. Show me some self-awareness or acknowledgement that what you said was wrong and I'll consider talking to you again. I only really stay on this forum to talk with Nick_A and strangers, I've run out of hope for most of the regular posters here.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:26 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:23 am
Because scientific knowledge is incomplete so logically / empirically there are things that it will not know
You already know this so the question you are asking is rhetorical and it doesnt actually falsify my position
Yes. Things.

Some arbitrary, non-specific, abstract notions.

You can't tell me anything about those "things". What color will those things be?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:32 am

Logic wrote:
Does that mean that the sky has no color or does that mean it has no color we can agree on
The sky has no colour we can that agree on because all sense experience is ultimately subjective
Even the inter subjective experiences of every scientist using the scientific method are subjective
The method is deliberately designed to be as rigorous as possible but it can never be truly objective

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:33 am

Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
You respond to "sophistry" with "language is recursive" and "all positions are contradictory", Logik you are too funny LMAO.
Yes, I do. Do you value the law of non-contradiction or do you subscribe to para-consistent logic?

Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
What you say about me has nothing to do with me, your ego and emotions think for you and you don't appreciate it at all. You can't separate your ego from your ideas and sadly, it corrupts any insights you might have.
Unless you are mistaken and I can separate them. So you mistake my episteme for my ego.
Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
Your condescending attitude is present in every post you make, I can tell from your posts that you aren't a complete idiot, but maybe you let that fact get to your head? In my estimation, almost every post you make on this forum is trying to educate someone.
Indeed. My condescension is caused by your idiocy and your blind ignorance of your circular reasoning.
I am having a hard time hiding the fact that I don't think very highly of philosophers.

Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
You claim to be pragmatic... so surely you don't believe we're all really "in this world together" and you're here on this nearly empty forum to educate the masses and help change the world? You certainly aren't here to learn or to have your ideas questioned or challenged, you aren't here to improve your ability to argue - you're not even interested in what others have to say, that's clear in all the debates I've read between you and other forum members/myself.
1. Observe that you have a biased sample. You are judging me based on my behaviour on this forum, having no insight as to my behaviour outside of this context. I imagine you are filling in a lot of blanks all by yourself.
2. You have jumped to a conclusion. I am here to learn. I learn by being proven wrong.

Prove me wrong. Show me an error.

But I imagine we first have to come to some agreement on what an "error" is.
Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
You ask for a convincing argument but you don't think it's possible for me to give one. So certain of yourself, so confident in your absolute no-grey area statements.
Yes. I am a sanctimonious p****. That doesn't mean I am wrong. It means you don't like engaging me.

My mode of thinking is battle-tested and empirically verified. It's here to stay...
Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am
Show me some self-awareness or acknowledgement that what you said was wrong and I'll consider talking to you again. I only really stay on this forum to talk with Nick_A and strangers, I've run out of hope for most of the regular posters here.
I have more self-awareness than you can imagine. My lack of humility is what's tripping your hissy fits.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:33 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:32 am
The sky has no colour we can that agree on because all sense experience is ultimately subjective
Even the inter subjective experiences of every scientist using the scientific method are subjective
The method is deliberately designed to be as rigorous as possible but it can never be truly objective
But it has a color... and it's the same color as Y. But a different color from X.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:41 am

Logic wrote:
Some arbitrary non specific abstract notions

You cant tell me anything about those things
Never mind the Universe because there are places here on Earth where no human has ever been
They are real and actually exist and are most definitely not arbitrary or abstract or non specific
One can use simple deduction to know whether or not everything about a system is actually known

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:49 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:41 am
Never mind the Universe because there are places here on Earth where no human has ever been
They are real and actually exist and are most definitely not arbitrary or abstract or non specific
Your knowledge of those places is non-specific. You are saying nothing whatsoever about them except that they exist.

How big are they? How small are they? What's there? What lives there? Is it inhabitable? What dangers lurk for humans?

Will we find God there?

You are communicating zero useful information.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:41 am
One can use simple deduction to know whether or not everything about a system is actually known
No. You can't. Godel's incompleteness theorems...

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:57 am

Logic wrote:
Your knowledge of those places is non specific
Not every single point of the land surface of the Earth has been mapped then logically no knowledge of them exists
However the total lack of knowledge of those particular points is actual evidence that they have not been explored
Do you think every single point of the land surface has been mapped and if not do those points not exist objectively

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:59 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:57 am
However the total lack of knowledge of those particular points is actual evidence that they have not been explored
Do you think every single point of the land surface has been mapped and if not do those points not exist objectively
Well it depends.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence.
or
Is absence of evidence not evidence of absence.

Choose one. Which ever one you choose determines how you interpret the "absence of evidence" and therefore - what you believe.

Which choice would you say is "better" and why?
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am

Logic wrote:
You are communicating zero useful information
Yes I am though once again I have to remind you that we are discussing objectivity and not utility
Because for something to objectively exist does not require any useful information about it at all

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:03 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am
Yes I am though once again I have to remind you that we are discussing objectivity and not utility
Unless "objectivity" is a useful concept.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am
Because for something to objectively exist does not require any useful information about it at all
What is the utility of the concept of "objectivity" if it does not require or convey any useful information?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:08 am

Logic wrote:
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence

Is absence of evidence not evidence of absence

Which ever one you choose determines how you interpret the absence of evidence and therefore what you believe

Which choice would you say is better and why
The Earth exists so it would be absence of evidence is evidence of absence but no belief is required only logical deduction
We have absolutely no use for belief / believe because belief is an article of faith that doesnt require any evidence or logic

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests