Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

[Skepdick]

You pretend you are a scientist. How much more wrong could you be?

Sounds like you've taken up the task of solving the demarcation problem.

Go for it! I'll grab coffee.

[tillingborn]

You pretend you are a scientist. How much more wrong could you be?

Sounds like you've taken up the task of solving the demarcation problem.

Go for it! I'll grab coffee.

Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.

[Skepdick]

Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.

Why do you think your set is authoritative?

[tillingborn]

Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.

Why do you think your set is authoritative?

Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative? You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some. The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context. So, what in your head makes you a scientist?

[Skepdick]

Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative?

Because you appointed yourself as an authority which gets to tell me whether my qualification has a place in your set.

I don't care about you taxonomy. Or structuralism in general.

You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some.

"On the other hand"? You have a category/set of "scientists" in your head. Surely you have some rule by which you place some people in and out of that category?

So now we are going to argue over stretching your definition whether to include or exclude me. Stupid exercise, I tell you.

The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context.

Do you think you can get your head around context? I know a thing or 1000 about context-free, context-sensitive and recursively enumerable languages.

Context. Semantics. Same science.

So, what in your head makes you a scientist?

The fact that I do science (amongst other things).

And if you are looking for a criterion. Here's one that's testable/falsifiable - albeit it might be wee bit too strict for your comfort.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do. --Donald Knuth

Or another... (quantum) probability theory/computation is the generalisation of epistemology.

[tillingborn]

Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative?

Because you appointed yourself as an authority which gets to tell me whether my qualification has a place in your set.

What is wrong with me being an authority of my own set?
What is wrong with you that you care about whether you fit my description of a scientist?

[Terrapin Station]

Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.

Why do you think your set is authoritative?

Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative? You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some. The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context. So, what in your head makes you a scientist?

He has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.

It's kind of like if someone were to say, "Is there a doctor in the house?" and I were to reply "Yes, I'm a doctor," just because I have a couple PhDs. That's the same sort of way that Skepdick is a "scientist"--because he either has a computer science or information science degree or at least he's worked in a computer science field.

And even if he wasn't explicit about the latter, which he has been, it would be clear, because he's a classic case of "when you have a hammer" ("everything looks like a nail"). He parses everything in computer science terms, more specifically in information science/programming theory terms, and because he must have had some praise and/or possibly a position of some authority employment-wise in that, he has a unique sort of ego-protecting, defiant arrogance in his "when you have a hammer" approach, where in his responses that demonstrate perpetual misunderstanding in novel ways, he'll routinely make completely hypocritical moves, and even outright endorse/forward contradictions in order to do this. His ego is that fragile.

[Skepdick]

What is wrong with me being an authority of my own set?
What is wrong with you that you care about whether you fit my description of a scientist?

Then categorize me as you see fit. What do you need me for?

[Terrapin Station]

Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.

Your views amount to solipsism, whether you explicitly argue for that, whether you like that, or not. It's the upshot of various things you claim. All idealism amounts to solipsism.

[tillingborn]

He has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.

Really? I just had him down as some incel with anger issues.

[Skepdick]

He has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.

It's kind of like if someone were to say, "Is there a doctor in the house?" and I were to reply "Yes, I'm a doctor," just because I have a couple PhDs. That's the same sort of way that Skepdick is a "scientist"--because he either has a computer science or information science degree or at least he's worked in a computer science field.

And even if he wasn't explicit about the latter, which he has been, it would be clear, because he's a classic case of "when you have a hammer" ("everything looks like a nail"). He parses everything in computer science terms, more specifically in information science/programming theory terms, and because he must have had some praise and/or possibly a position of some authority employment-wise in that, he has a unique sort of ego-protecting, defiant arrogance in his "when you have a hammer" approach, where in his responses that demonstrate perpetual misunderstanding in novel ways, he'll routinely make completely hypocritical moves, and even outright endorse/forward contradictions in order to do this. His ego is that fragile.

Idiot.

Computer Science deals with decidability.

Explicitly it deals with distinguishing the sort of questions which are decidable and the sort of questions which are not decidable through interaction for creatures with finite knowledge/understanding (humans).

It deals with the P vs NP problem. It deals with the fact that if I told you I have a Theory of Everything in Physics you verify that I posses the knowledge I claim to posses without me having to produce the actual theory. This is called a zero-knowledge proof.

[tillingborn]

His ego is that fragile.

I see what you mean:

What do you need me for?

[Skepdick]

His ego is that fragile.

I see what you mean:

What do you need me for?

And now there are two retarded armchair psychologists on the forum

It's precisely because I don't have an ego is why I can drag you right down to self-depreciation/self-degradation and not blink an eyelid.

But you keep going for the ad hominem, because that's all you know.

[tillingborn]

And now there are two retarded armchair psychologists on the forum

And you're both of them.

[Skepdick]

And you're both of them.

You seem to struggle with basic arithmetic....

I am me. There's only one of me.