Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Excuse me? I only endeavoured to show you a non-contradictory position because you said there was no such thing! This position is necessarily
subjective.
So you claim that you have shown a non-contradictory position. Lets put aside the contradiction or non-contradiction aspect for now and focus on the claim that you have "shown a position".
Have you? Maybe you have - maybe you have not.
How about you allow us to decide for ourselves by being transparent with what you deem to be valid inclusionary AND exclusionary criteria for what entails a "position".
Is this statement a position: Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen?
How about this one: Waggedy shmoog poof.
Once we have established what is and is not a "position" then we can determine whether any particular claim is contradictory or non-contradictory.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
There is no truth-value in this claim but if you've accepted your position is wrong then I shan't beat a dead horse.
Don't pat yourself on the back just yet
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
No, I have no idea what you did here.
What's more interesting to me than you accepting my position on cheese as non-contradictory is that you accepted it as an accept of recursive language. I could have just said "Cheese is good" because, in your mind, that's recursive since all language is recursive but I didn't. Why not? Because "Cheese is good" is not recursive and any idiot can see that.
Ad hominem.
Perhaps any idiot can see that it is not recursive.
Perhaps only a genius can see that it is.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
I fail to see the irony here, have I not already offered you the general criteria for unsoundness and have I not already proven that your argument is unsound? You aren't even disputing my demonstration merely asking me to repeat myself.
I never asked you for a general criterion. I asked you for a procedure so that I can (for myself) decide what is a "sound" and an "unsound" argument.
I am asking you to teach me the process by which you have come to decide that my argument is "unsound".
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You continually use the term "objective criteria" but what exactly do you think that means in the context of philosophy?
I don't know what you consider to be "in" and "out of" context for philosophy. To demonstrate. If you claim that some things are "in" and some things are "out of" the context of philosophy, then you should be able to explain
to me the procedure by which you decided which is which.
Go ahead. I am waiting.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You ask for truth-value to be determined in a position on how tasty cheese is and you accuse me of logical fallacy for an opinion on who is worth spending my time on despite the fact it's not playing a role in my arguments, I'm still spending my time on you despite what I said right?
Allow us to determine if you were right. Let us know what procedure you used to reach that conclusion.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
An argument is unsound if it is invalid or the premises are untrue - there is a general consensus on this. If you wish to argue against this then do so but I shan't continually entertain stupid questions. You can offer an alternative if you want to discuss this further.
You are not helping your case here, sport.
Now that you have drawn distinctions between "sound" and "unsound" arguments without providing a procedure to tell them apart,
You have now drawn more distinctions between "valid" and "invalid premises". Can you give us a procedure to distinguish such premises from each other?
You have also drawn a distinction between true and untrue premises. Can you give us a procedure to distinguish those from each other?
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You're asking for objective criteria for proof and disproof?
I am asking for a procedure for drawing the distinctions that you have drawn. Is that too much to ask?
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Earlier you were asking for my subjective criteria and that's fine but now I don't see what you want. The scientific community has their standards, I have my standards, you've got yours (well maybe you don't) but you get the idea. Don't ask for unreasonable things.
Would you be so kind as to provide a procedure for distinguishing "reasonable" from "unreasonable" asks?
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
Can't say I've heard anything about the theories you've mentioned but all they're saying is that the truth can't be proven right?
No. Tarski says that truth cannot be defined. Godel says that truth is a higher notion than proof. There are things which are true that cannot be proven to be true.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
The only way that one can argue that the truth cannot be proven is by discounting the observation of causation and intersubjectively verified observable truths.
You mean the only way that you know of. If your knowledge is limited, then you could be wrong?
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
You've been asking me stupid questions, making stupid statements and I have no idea what you're even lecturing me about anymore. You've got a problem with me failing to establish my own criteria for good arguments and now you're complaining that my position on cheese is not assertable or verifiable as a claim (its an opinion).
By what criteria for "smart" vs "stupid" questions?
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
So I give you my positions on what is a good argument and what is a flawed argument and you literally come back and tell me that it's not good enough, I need some objective criteria. Then you proceed to tell me the truth cannot be proven, what ramifications that has for "objective criteria" for you I can only guess.
So far all I have heard from you is "I trust my own senses" and "I am the arbiter of what's a good argument".
Because you have sure failed to state your criteria.
Judaka wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 am
I'll once again refer to my main point that you're completely derailing this thread with this line of conversation. This would happen in every thread you decided to bring up this line of conversation. Hence, why should I press people to give me this kind of information as you're requesting when it undermines the conversation at hand as opposed to making it better?
By what criteria for "on-point" vs "derailment" ?
I hope that by now you see the general trend emerging here. Any dualism, any binary distinction requires a mind.
Since the crux of the matter is that we have no objective standards, there seems to be this unsolvable problem at hand. Who decides?
And so I would like to draw your attention to the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge.
Ironically and recursively. Making distinctions between procedural and declarative knowledge is procedural not declarative knowledge.
Morality is just a special case. A boolean distinction between right/wrong.
Is it procedural or declarative? Philosophy has been trying to turn it into declarative knowledge for centuries.