P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:10 am If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......
I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
That depends on this thing other people have whereby mutually exclusive facts cannot both be true. But your theory is very much centered on mutually exclusive facts being both true, and then you make a number for how true one is compared to the other.

So you can't use such constructs as if Truth1 is true then Truth2 must be false.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
That depends on this thing other people have whereby mutually exclusive facts cannot both be true. But your theory is very much centered on mutually exclusive facts being both true, and then you make a number for how true one is compared to the other.

So you can't use such constructs as if Truth1 is true then Truth2 must be false.
My point above is;

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?

I have never make any absolute statement that whatever is seemingly mutually facts are being both true.
That is why context and the specific Framework and System of knowledge is so critical.

For example within the Physics FSK there are 3 sub-FSK, i.e.
1. Newtonian
2. Einsteinian
3. Quantum Physics

I just cannot simply proclaim 'an element can be both a particle or a wave' without any qualification to the specific sub-FSK concern, in this case, I must qualify I am referring to the Quantum Physics FSK.

In Physics, what is true in 1 may not be true in 2 or 3 and so on.

Thus what is fact to you cannot be absolute but has to be conditional to a specific FSK which I know is conditioned upon the linguistic, ordinary language FSK which is improvised from the condemned logical positivist FSK.
Do you deny that?
If not, what is your definition of fact conditioned upon, it cannot be an absolute claim so it has to be related or conditioned upon some framework.
So what is the framework you definition of fact is conditioned upon?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:46 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
That depends on this thing other people have whereby mutually exclusive facts cannot both be true. But your theory is very much centered on mutually exclusive facts being both true, and then you make a number for how true one is compared to the other.

So you can't use such constructs as if Truth1 is true then Truth2 must be false.
My point above is;

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?

I have never make any absolute statement that whatever is seemingly mutually facts are being both true.
That is why context and the specific Framework and System of knowledge is so critical.

For example within the Physics FSK there are 3 sub-FSK, i.e.
1. Newtonian
2. Einsteinian
3. Quantum Physics

I just cannot simply proclaim 'an element can be both a particle or a wave' without any qualification to the specific sub-FSK concern, in this case, I must qualify I am referring to the Quantum Physics FSK.

In Physics, what is true in 1 may not be true in 2 or 3 and so on.

Thus what is fact to you cannot be absolute but has to be conditional to a specific FSK which I know is conditioned upon the linguistic, ordinary language FSK which is improvised from the condemned logical positivist FSK.
Do you deny that?
If not, what is your definition of fact conditioned upon, it cannot be an absolute claim so it has to be related or conditioned upon some framework.
So what is the framework you definition of fact is conditioned upon?
You have no right to use the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.

This is the logical result of your obsession for analysing things only in terms of what they are made out of. You've created a definition of fact that isn't up to the job the concept is supposed to do.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:46 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:17 am
That depends on this thing other people have whereby mutually exclusive facts cannot both be true. But your theory is very much centered on mutually exclusive facts being both true, and then you make a number for how true one is compared to the other.

So you can't use such constructs as if Truth1 is true then Truth2 must be false.
My point above is;

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?

I have never make any absolute statement that whatever is seemingly mutually facts are being both true.
That is why context and the specific Framework and System of knowledge is so critical.

For example within the Physics FSK there are 3 sub-FSK, i.e.
1. Newtonian
2. Einsteinian
3. Quantum Physics

I just cannot simply proclaim 'an element can be both a particle or a wave' without any qualification to the specific sub-FSK concern, in this case, I must qualify I am referring to the Quantum Physics FSK.

In Physics, what is true in 1 may not be true in 2 or 3 and so on.

Thus what is fact to you cannot be absolute but has to be conditional to a specific FSK which I know is conditioned upon the linguistic, ordinary language FSK which is improvised from the condemned logical positivist FSK.
Do you deny that?
If not, what is your definition of fact conditioned upon, it cannot be an absolute claim so it has to be related or conditioned upon some framework.
So what is the framework you definition of fact is conditioned upon?
You have no right to use the logical construct that
if X says Y is false, and
if Y says X is false,
one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.

This is the logical result of your obsession for analysing things only in terms of what they are made out of. You've created a definition of fact that isn't up to the job the concept is supposed to do.
Your above is a strawman.
You are still ignoring context and the specific FSK.

Here is a more explicit example.
1. Context 1: Fact1 : We cannot see through this wooden wall -WW into the room- true
2. Context 2: Fact 2: We can see through this wooden wall - WW into the room - true.

Here we have contradictory [not logical] statements about the same wooden wall- WW.
But when we take into account the different contexts and FSK, both are true because in context 2 we are using x-ray or ultra sound.

Show if there is anything wrong with the above?

I say again, when you define what is fact, you are ignoring the contexts, conditions and FSK involved.
You have no right to insist your way [whatever that is] is absolute.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Peter Holmes »

I've shown that we use the word 'fact' to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case. Most dictionaries explain what a fact is in this way. And such a feature of reality is obviously not conditioned by or dependent on a descriptive context. That claim is false, and will remain false how ever often it's made.

I've also pointed out that we also use the word 'fact' in a completely different way, to mean a true description of a feature of reality that is or was the case; that we can and do describe features of reality in many different ways; that a description and its truth-claims are always contextual; so that the observation that what we call truth is contingent or dependent on a context is trivially true and so inconsequential.

So, I've never claimed that there's such a thing as absolute truth - but that's because the very expression 'absolute truth' is incoherent. I don't know what it could possibly be that's being denied. What could constitute an absolutely true description?

VA insists that what we call facts are only contextual, contingent descriptions - ignoring our primary use of the word 'fact'. Hence the intellectual block. And the irony is that VA appeals to the need for empirical evidence to establish the testable reliability of any kind of description - and that can only be evidence for the existence of the feature of reality that's independent from the description.

It's an intellectual hot dog's dinner mess.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:04 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:46 am
My point above is;

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?

I have never make any absolute statement that whatever is seemingly mutually facts are being both true.
That is why context and the specific Framework and System of knowledge is so critical.

For example within the Physics FSK there are 3 sub-FSK, i.e.
1. Newtonian
2. Einsteinian
3. Quantum Physics

I just cannot simply proclaim 'an element can be both a particle or a wave' without any qualification to the specific sub-FSK concern, in this case, I must qualify I am referring to the Quantum Physics FSK.

In Physics, what is true in 1 may not be true in 2 or 3 and so on.

Thus what is fact to you cannot be absolute but has to be conditional to a specific FSK which I know is conditioned upon the linguistic, ordinary language FSK which is improvised from the condemned logical positivist FSK.
Do you deny that?
If not, what is your definition of fact conditioned upon, it cannot be an absolute claim so it has to be related or conditioned upon some framework.
So what is the framework you definition of fact is conditioned upon?
You have no right to use the logical construct that
if X says Y is false, and
if Y says X is false,
one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.

This is the logical result of your obsession for analysing things only in terms of what they are made out of. You've created a definition of fact that isn't up to the job the concept is supposed to do.
Your above is a strawman.
You are still ignoring context and the specific FSK.

Here is a more explicit example.
1. Context 1: Fact1 : We cannot see through this wooden wall -WW into the room- true
2. Context 2: Fact 2: We can see through this wooden wall - WW into the room - true.

Here we have contradictory [not logical] statements about the same wooden wall- WW.
But when we take into account the different contexts and FSK, both are true because in context 2 we are using x-ray or ultra sound.

Show if there is anything wrong with the above?

I say again, when you define what is fact, you are ignoring the contexts, conditions and FSK involved.
You have no right to insist your way [whatever that is] is absolute.
Have you thought that response through and are you commited to it?
It contains a pretty bad mistake that you will regret.
Are you good enough at philosophy and logic to spot it before I take advantage?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 am You have no right to use...
Wait, what?!?! You are appealing to rights. Shall we put you and Henrietta in the same corner?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 am the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.
Which is precisely how truth works!

There is no such thing as context-free, universal truth. There is only truth within the context of a model.

Model A says that the statement "This color is red" is true
Model B says that the statement "This color is green" is true.

Indeed - they are both true in the internal language of the theory. But why does that need saying? It's a trivial implication of pragmatics.

There are no preferential descriptions.
red.png
red.png (9.27 KiB) Viewed 1616 times
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Fun. Let's see if VA is stupid enoug to try and hide behind Skepdick's skirts again on this one.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

Speaking of hiding...

Did anyone else notice how Flash Danger Dork side-stepped addressing the issues burried deep within his own critique?

Yeah. I noticed.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:04 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:22 am
You have no right to use the logical construct that
if X says Y is false, and
if Y says X is false,
one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.

This is the logical result of your obsession for analysing things only in terms of what they are made out of. You've created a definition of fact that isn't up to the job the concept is supposed to do.
Your above is a strawman.
You are still ignoring context and the specific FSK.

Here is a more explicit example.
1. Context 1: Fact1 : We cannot see through this wooden wall -WW into the room- true
2. Context 2: Fact 2: We can see through this wooden wall - WW into the room - true.

Here we have contradictory [not logical] statements about the same wooden wall- WW.
But when we take into account the different contexts and FSK, both are true because in context 2 we are using x-ray or ultra sound.

Show if there is anything wrong with the above?

I say again, when you define what is fact, you are ignoring the contexts, conditions and FSK involved.
You have no right to insist your way [whatever that is] is absolute.
Have you thought that response through and are you commited to it?
It contains a pretty bad mistake that you will regret.
Are you good enough at philosophy and logic to spot it before I take advantage?
Don't be that arrogant.
Whatever you counter to the above, it will only expose your ignorance and incompetence [as usual].
So far you have always been a step behind my views based on ignorance never in front!
Show me one case you've proven I am wrong which I had conceded.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:04 am
Your above is a strawman.
You are still ignoring context and the specific FSK.

Here is a more explicit example.
1. Context 1: Fact1 : We cannot see through this wooden wall -WW into the room- true
2. Context 2: Fact 2: We can see through this wooden wall - WW into the room - true.

Here we have contradictory [not logical] statements about the same wooden wall- WW.
But when we take into account the different contexts and FSK, both are true because in context 2 we are using x-ray or ultra sound.

Show if there is anything wrong with the above?

I say again, when you define what is fact, you are ignoring the contexts, conditions and FSK involved.
You have no right to insist your way [whatever that is] is absolute.
Have you thought that response through and are you commited to it?
It contains a pretty bad mistake that you will regret.
Are you good enough at philosophy and logic to spot it before I take advantage?
Don't be that arrogant.
Whatever you counter to the above, it will only expose your ignorance and incompetence [as usual].
So far you have always been a step behind my views based on ignorance never in front!
Show me one case you've proven I am wrong which I had conceded.
You fucked up though. And you acciendatlly showed that you know I am right.

With your wooden wall silliness, you resolved the contradiction because that was the only way for it to make any sense.
You didn't even notice because it's simply natural to the concept of a fact that If X and Y each say the other is false, then both cannot be true.
You added the x-ray context to resolve your example by breaking the contradiction.

You won't be able to make a real world example of two fact claims that entail each other to be false but are both true.
Every attempt you might make you will have to do something to break the contradictory status.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:44 am
Have you thought that response through and are you commited to it?
It contains a pretty bad mistake that you will regret.
Are you good enough at philosophy and logic to spot it before I take advantage?
Don't be that arrogant.
Whatever you counter to the above, it will only expose your ignorance and incompetence [as usual].
So far you have always been a step behind my views based on ignorance never in front!
Show me one case you've proven I am wrong which I had conceded.
You fucked up though. And you acciendatlly showed that you know I am right.

With your wooden wall silliness, you resolved the contradiction because that was the only way for it to make any sense.
You didn't even notice because it's simply natural to the concept of a fact that If X and Y each say the other is false, then both cannot be true.
You added the x-ray context to resolve your example by breaking the contradiction.

You won't be able to make a real world example of two fact claims that entail each other to be false but are both true.
Every attempt you might make you will have to do something to break the contradictory status.
Strawman again!

I am very well aware and agree totally with the Law of Non-Contradiction which is;
  • In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
What I have done is to project p = not-p but in different sense.
I have been doing that all the time.

Example, I could say a diamond gem is both hard and soft at the same time,
but the underlying condition is they are not in the same sense, i.e. in the ordinary sense, a diamond gem is one of the hardest thing but if one use an 'electron' gun then one can easily poke through the tightly bound diamond carbons.

Your problem is you are too stuck in one paradigm and unable to shift that is why you always see my points as contradictory.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:02 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:37 am
Don't be that arrogant.
Whatever you counter to the above, it will only expose your ignorance and incompetence [as usual].
So far you have always been a step behind my views based on ignorance never in front!
Show me one case you've proven I am wrong which I had conceded.
You fucked up though. And you acciendatlly showed that you know I am right.

With your wooden wall silliness, you resolved the contradiction because that was the only way for it to make any sense.
You didn't even notice because it's simply natural to the concept of a fact that If X and Y each say the other is false, then both cannot be true.
You added the x-ray context to resolve your example by breaking the contradiction.

You won't be able to make a real world example of two fact claims that entail each other to be false but are both true.
Every attempt you might make you will have to do something to break the contradictory status.
Strawman again!

I am very well aware and agree totally with the Law of Non-Contradiction which is;
  • In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
You aren't fooling anyone by arranging it so that X and Y don't entail each other's false status.
But again, the important thing here is that you knew you did need to resolve the contradiction for your example to make sense.
You agree with me because everyone in the world agrees with the point I have made here, because it is so basic and obvious.

What I have done is to project p = not-p but in different sense.
I have been doing that all the time.

Your problem is you are too stuck in one paradigm and unable to shift that is why you always see my points as contradictory.
No you haven't. You removed the entailment. To say we can see through walls with x-rays is not "not-p" when p was we can't see through walls with our eyes.

Remember the thing I wrote that you were supposed to be arguiong against was...
You have no right to use the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.


You didn't argue against that point. You created an example where X and Y say different things, but don't entail each other being untrue.

the problem with that approach is that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" are two statements that cannot be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:02 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:36 am
You fucked up though. And you acciendatlly showed that you know I am right.

With your wooden wall silliness, you resolved the contradiction because that was the only way for it to make any sense.
You didn't even notice because it's simply natural to the concept of a fact that If X and Y each say the other is false, then both cannot be true.
You added the x-ray context to resolve your example by breaking the contradiction.

You won't be able to make a real world example of two fact claims that entail each other to be false but are both true.
Every attempt you might make you will have to do something to break the contradictory status.
Strawman again!

I am very well aware and agree totally with the Law of Non-Contradiction which is;
  • In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
You aren't fooling anyone by arranging it so that X and Y don't entail each other's false status.
But again, the important thing here is that you knew you did need to resolve the contradiction for your example to make sense.
You agree with me because everyone in the world agrees with the point I have made here, because it is so basic and obvious.

What I have done is to project p = not-p but in different sense.
I have been doing that all the time.

Your problem is you are too stuck in one paradigm and unable to shift that is why you always see my points as contradictory.
No you haven't. You removed the entailment. To say we can see through walls with x-rays is not "not-p" when p was we can't see through walls with our eyes.

Remember the thing I wrote that you were supposed to be arguiong against was...
You have no right to use the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.


You didn't argue against that point. You created an example where X and Y say different things, but don't entail each other being untrue.

the problem with that approach is that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" are two statements that cannot be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
I am trying my best to get what is your point by translating them to empirical matters.
If I cannot get what you intended, that is not my fault but rather your communication.

If you want me to see your point, suggest you give me more real empirical examples instead of X, Y or Z symbols.
Post Reply