Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RyanDeBENNETT
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:11 am
Contact:

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by RyanDeBENNETT » Fri May 15, 2020 2:01 am

“Lies” presupposes malevolence...perhaps semantically try “belief”, it’s more neutral

Eodnhoj7 terms it “assertion” in viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29281. It’s a handy read

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Skepdick » Fri May 15, 2020 10:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
False, one can both know and not know truth.
The notion of "Falsity" too is a subject to Meno's paradox.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As assumed truth is evident as is.
So is falsity apparently.

So if "truth" and "falsity" are both evident as-is, and yet they are different to each other then you should have no problem telling us what that difference is.

And you should be able to determine whether what I am saying is true or false.

If what I am saying is both true AND false, then there can be no material difference between truth and falsity.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As regressive not all truth is evident as subject to regress.
Is falsity exempt from this regress?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As circular truth is repetitive even through new forms.
And falsity isn't?

If you want dualism - you will get dualism. It's self-fulfilling.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8376
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Dontaskme » Fri May 15, 2020 10:59 am

Dr. Spock wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 4:26 pm


And so the inner 'clock-work' of the human mind automatically lies to us; forces us to lie to ourselves so pathetically. The difference between you and me is that you call your lies 'sacred', call them 'God', call them 'physics', I call them lies.

-


Call conceptual beliefs anything you like. The eye of the camera,this immediate auspicious ( seeing/knowing) PRESENCE can NEVER lie.

Truth or Lie calling is like a two way mirror reflecting upon itself and can only show a representation of itself.

Real reality is this immediate true presentation representing itself as a lie.

.

Dr. Spock
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:23 pm

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Dr. Spock » Fri May 15, 2020 3:50 pm

Historically speaking, the 'will to power' under the feminine guise of 'the will to truth' has unmasked the gods of identity who had sheltered us i.e. lied to us, told us that there was real meaning behind reality, told us of the thing-in-itself, trained us in the superstition of individuality, etc.

Everything is catastrophically changing (right now, as ever); this is the emergency of Becoming, flux, the fire...in this emergency we are forced to posit false identities, forced to lie. That flux is more basic than human concepts can be interpreted as a 'mortally intolerable truth'.

God summons His Servant:
"The threshold shook and a cloud filled
the temple. Then I said: 'Woe to me,
I am Nothing."

(Isaiah 6:5)

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri May 15, 2020 4:49 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 10:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
False, one can both know and not know truth.
The notion of "Falsity" too is a subject to Meno's paradox.

"The argument known as “Meno's Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible."

Inquiry is the progression towards what one is looking for, as if a person is looking for something by default they do not have it. Inquiry is necessary in these respects. Dually if one does not know what they are looking for inquiry is a means to achieving a direction. Inquiry is both a means to knowing and a means to unknowing.




Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As assumed truth is evident as is.
So is falsity apparently.

So if "truth" and "falsity" are both evident as-is, and yet they are different to each other then you should have no problem telling us what that difference is.

Truth is completion as the repetition, therefore consistency, of a phenomenon.
Falsity is the absence of completion as the absence of repetition.

What repeats is consistent, what is consistent has form, what has form has symmetry, what has symmetry has order, what has order exists.


And you should be able to determine whether what I am saying is true or false.

It has truth in one context, falsity in another.

If what I am saying is both true AND false, then there can be no material difference between truth and falsity.

The difference between truth and falsity is the degree of repitition. For example we know a line is true due to it being composed of further lines. We know a circle is true because of the repetition of the same lines. We know a number exists due to the repetition of what is being counted.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As regressive not all truth is evident as subject to regress.
Is falsity exempt from this regress?

Falsity contains subsets of truth therefore as regressive truth exists even within falsity.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 12:10 am
As circular truth is repetitive even through new forms.
And falsity isn't?

If you want dualism - you will get dualism. It's self-fulfilling.

Its triadic as there is always a middle term.

What is true occurs through repetition.
What is false through absence of repetition.
What is true and false as having elements which do repeat and elements which do not.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Skepdick » Sat May 16, 2020 12:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:49 pm
Its triadic as there is always a middle term.
What's the middle term between Truth and Falsity?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:49 pm
Its triadic as there is always a middle term.
What's the middle term between Truth and Falsity?
Neutrality as both true and false.

For example the proposition "Unicorns exist" is true under the context of "dream" and false under the context "empirical". It is both true and false.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Skepdick » Sat May 16, 2020 12:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am
Neutrality as both true and false.
And what about the 4th possibility? neither true nor false.

commonsense
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by commonsense » Sat May 16, 2020 12:27 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:49 pm
Its triadic as there is always a middle term.
What's the middle term between Truth and Falsity?
Neutrality as both true and false.

For example the proposition "Unicorns exist" is true under the context of "dream" and false under the context "empirical". It is both true and false.
To exist always carries the implied context of reality. To operate in any other context, such as dreams, explicit reference is required.

Neutrality is neither true nor false—that’s what makes it neutral. True, false and neutral is a false trichotomy.

commonsense
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by commonsense » Sat May 16, 2020 12:30 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am
Neutrality as both true and false.
And what about the 4th possibility? neither true nor false.
True and false are all-inclusive and mutually exclusive.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Skepdick » Sat May 16, 2020 12:31 am

commonsense wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:30 am
True and false are all-inclusive and mutually exclusive.
No, they aren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat May 16, 2020 12:42 am

commonsense wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:27 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am
Skepdick wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:01 am

What's the middle term between Truth and Falsity?
Neutrality as both true and false.

For example the proposition "Unicorns exist" is true under the context of "dream" and false under the context "empirical". It is both true and false.
To exist always carries the implied context of reality. To operate in any other context, such as dreams, explicit reference is required.


Neutrality is neither true nor false—that’s what makes it neutral. True, false and neutral is a false trichotomy.
1. Existence is dependent upon context. Something may exist in one context but not another.

2. Neutrality is that "having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features." As such both features are evident. An example is the color gray as being both black and white, but neither feature is prominent.

commonsense
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by commonsense » Sat May 16, 2020 12:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:42 am
commonsense wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:27 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am


Neutrality as both true and false.

For example the proposition "Unicorns exist" is true under the context of "dream" and false under the context "empirical". It is both true and false.
To exist always carries the implied context of reality. To operate in any other context, such as dreams, explicit reference is required.


Neutrality is neither true nor false—that’s what makes it neutral. True, false and neutral is a false trichotomy.
1. Existence is dependent upon context. Something may exist in one context but not another.

2. Neutrality is that "having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features." As such both features are evident. An example is the color gray as being both black and white, but neither feature is prominent.
I yield on neutrality.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Skepdick » Sat May 16, 2020 12:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:42 am
1. Existence is dependent upon context. Something may exist in one context but not another.
In the universal ontological context, if something exists - then it exists.

If there is a context in which ontological entities cease to exist, the context is bullshit.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Science Is All Lies: Prove me wrong

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat May 16, 2020 12:51 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 12:04 am
Neutrality as both true and false.
And what about the 4th possibility? neither true nor false.
1. True
2. False
3. True and False
4. Neither True or False
5. Neutrality as both "positive" and "negative", positive as "both/and", negative as "neither/nor" still necessitates a third state of "neutral neutral" as "just is" where truth value is evident by existence alone.


So neutrality is the center point between true and false, and neutrality has a center point within itself as well.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests