Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:00 pm
And I don't think it's very interesting that someone holds contradictory beliefs. It's uninteresting enough to make that person not worth bothering conversing with in my opinion. <shrugs>
That's wee-bit hypocritical from a person who keeps looking for a needle they don't believe exists!
In my opinion you are simply discriminating against people who find paraconsistent, or inconsistent (dialectical or dialetheistic) logics perfectly useful and practically applicable.
If all you care about is consistency, then go ahead and state your religion.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) --Walt Whitman
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:00 pm
And I don't think it's very interesting that someone holds contradictory beliefs. It's uninteresting enough to make that person not worth bothering conversing with in my opinion. <shrugs>
That's wee-bit hypocritical from a person who keeps looking for a needle they don't believe exists!
In my opinion you are simply discriminating against people who find paraconsistent, or inconsistent (dialectical or dialetheistic) logics perfectly useful and practically applicable.
If all you care about is consistency, then go ahead and state your religion.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) --Walt Whitman
Re the haystack thing, you can't understand that because you're conflating belief and action.
Paraconsistent logic doesn't amount to just asserting or believing any arbitrary contradiction.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:19 pm
Re the haystack thing, you can't understand that because you're conflating belief and action.
No such conflation is taking place. I am simply pointing out that if there's no causal relationship between what one believes and how one acts,
then one's beliefs are inconsequential and of no practical import.
At the very least. It's possible to believe that genocide is morally despicable, while committing it.
And so the entire house of cards that is Philosophy need a new pampers.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:19 pm
Paraconsistent logic doesn't amount to just asserting or believing any arbitrary contradiction.
Paraconsistent logic amounts to choosing which contradictions to ignore.
Dialetheistic logic amounts to accepting contradictions.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:19 pm
Re the haystack thing, you can't understand that because you're conflating belief and action.
No such conflation is taking place. I am simply pointing out that if there's no causal relationship between beliefs and actions,
then one's beliefs are inconsequential and of no import.
At the very least. It's possible to believe that genocide is morally despicable, while committing it.
And so the entire house of cards that is Philosophy need a new pampers.
Then how are we to explain that you can't make sense of believing that P but still considering/exploring that not-P?
Paraconsistent logic amounts to choosing which contradictions to ignore.
Dialetheistic logic amounts to accepting contradictions.
"Paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:59 pm
Then how are we to explain that you can't make sense of believing that P but still considering/exploring that not-P?
No explanation is required because your framing is bogus.
You need to explain what causes action if there's lack of belief.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:59 pm
"Paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:09 pm
If P is necessary, then P is also possible, but not-P is not possible.
Why are you saying "if"?
I'm not talking about needles there. I'm saying in general.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:09 pm
That P is possible, and if P obtains, there should be some sort of evidence of it.
But not-P is also possible. And if not-P obtains (once you are done searching through the haystack) then there will be evidence of not-P.
For something non-necessary, sure, if P is possible then not-P is possible, too. The question is why one would continue to explore P (or not-P, it doesn't matter which we use for the example) if one believes that not-P (or P).
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
I'm not talking about needles there. I'm saying in general.
No, you aren't. You are talking about a needle in a haystack. And you are looking for it.
You are obscuring the discussion to generalities because you shit the pants in the particulars.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
For something non-necessary
So the needle is non-necessary?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
, sure, if P is possible then not-P is possible, too.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
The question is why one would continue to explore P (or not-P, it doesn't matter which we use for the example) if one believes that not-P (or P).
No. The question is "What implies S?"
Where S is "I should continue searching for the needle"
Unless you are insisting that (P or not-P) => S
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
I'm not talking about needles there. I'm saying in general.
No, you aren't. You are talking about a needle in a haystack. And you are looking for it.
You are obscuring the discussion to generalities because you shit the pants in the particulars.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
For something non-necessary
So the needle is not necessary?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
, sure, if P is possible then not-P is possible, too.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:14 pm
The question is why one would continue to explore P (or not-P, it doesn't matter which we use for the example) if one believes that not-P (or P).
No. The question is "What implies S?"
Where S is "I should continue searching for the needle"
Again, you're not explaining why "because the option that I do not believe is still possible and if it's the case there should be evidence for it" doesn't answer the question for you.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:19 pm
Again, you're not explaining why "because the option that I do not believe is still possible and if it's the case there should be evidence for it" doesn't answer the question for you.
Because you are searching for a needle. And you haven't told me why.
SOMETHING => S
SOMETHING is not your belief that P, and it's not your belief that not-P.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:19 pm
Again, you're not explaining why "because the option that I do not believe is still possible and if it's the case there should be evidence for it" doesn't answer the question for you.
Or to explain it to you like a retard.
What evidence do you have that there will be evidence for a needle?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:21 pm
What evidence do you have that there will be evidence for a needle?
That's not what you were asking, by the way. Obviously I have a belief that if something exists there's going to be evidence for it.
As with the needle, is it possible that that's not the case? Yes. But possibility isn't sufficient for belief in my opinion. There need to be reasons that I feel are good reasons to believe something beyond possibility.
