The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:07 am

The fallacy of factual argument.

All arguments depending upon facts require an effective connection of those facts to necessitate a truth statement. Because the facts require further facts the argument is never really complete and is strictly a localization of certain phenomenon counter to others. The connection of one fact to another necessitates a strict separation from other facts and as such all factual arguments by default are not factual.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:07 am
The fallacy of factual argument.

All arguments depending upon facts require an effective connection of those facts to necessitate a truth statement. Because the facts require further facts the argument is never really complete and is strictly a localization of certain phenomenon counter to others. The connection of one fact to another necessitates a strict separation from other facts and as such all factual arguments by default are not factual.
Congratulations. You are no longer a prisoner of social dogma ;) Now you get to CHOOSE how to think, as opposed to being told WHAT to think.

Another way to reach this conclusion is to start with the use-mention distinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80 ... istinction

Given any linguistic statement X by the law of excluded middle:
Either "X is a fact" is true or "X is not a fact" is true.

This produces a decision problem. Is X a fact?

Dictionary definition:

Facts are accurate descriptions of reality.

Is X an accurate description of reality? Decision problem. Turtles all the way down!

Until you encounter a question whose truth you pre-suppose/agree with.

So if we haven't got any "true" statements to start with, where do we begin deducing anything about anything?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:07 am
The fallacy of factual argument.

All arguments depending upon facts require an effective connection of those facts to necessitate a truth statement. Because the facts require further facts the argument is never really complete and is strictly a localization of certain phenomenon counter to others. The connection of one fact to another necessitates a strict separation from other facts and as such all factual arguments by default are not factual.
Congratulations. You are no longer a prisoner of social dogma ;) Now you get to CHOOSE how to think, as opposed to being told WHAT to think.

Another way to reach this conclusion is to start with the use-mention distinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80 ... istinction

Given any linguistic statement X by the law of excluded middle:
Either "X is a fact" is true or "X is not a fact" is true.

This produces a decision problem. Is X a fact?

Dictionary definition:

Facts are accurate descriptions of reality.

Is X an accurate description of reality? Decision problem. Turtles all the way down!

Until you encounter a question whose truth you pre-suppose/agree with.

So if we haven't got any "true" statements to start with, where do we begin deducing anything about anything?
I think I will just burn it all down then. I barely understand my own choices and yet know all of them.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of fact that does not subjugate itself to the Munchhausen trillema, and the nature of "choice" itself as a prime axiom of "truth" is subject to this nature.

But this is subject to the trillema, unless I "choose" to invert this trillema and we are left with a form of recursion in the trillema, the actually point, line, circular nature recursively existing, and this dualism between the Munchhausen Trillema and the (what I call) the "Prime Triad" recursively alternating.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 pm
I think I will just burn it all down then.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of fact that does not subjugate itself to the Munchhausen trillema, and the nature of "choice" itself as a prime axiom of "truth" is subject to this nature.

But this is subject to the trillema, unless I "choose" to invert this trillema and we are left with a form of recursion in the trillema, the actually point, line, circular nature recursively existing, and this dualism between the Munchhausen Trillema and the (what I call) the "Prime Triad" recursively alternating.
Recursion is computation...

There are a handful of useful Platonic models/patterns/algorithms. They predict rather well - even when applied to humans.

Fundamentally - the accuracy of predictive utility is about the only form of "justification". Does it work?

In this universe - deductive reasoning is useless...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:06 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:47 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 pm
I think I will just burn it all down then.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of fact that does not subjugate itself to the Munchhausen trillema, and the nature of "choice" itself as a prime axiom of "truth" is subject to this nature.

But this is subject to the trillema, unless I "choose" to invert this trillema and we are left with a form of recursion in the trillema, the actually point, line, circular nature recursively existing, and this dualism between the Munchhausen Trillema and the (what I call) the "Prime Triad" recursively alternating.
Recursion is computation...

There are a handful of useful Platonic models/patterns/algorithms. They predict rather well - even when applied to humans.

Fundamentally - the accuracy of predictive utility is about the only form of "justification". Does it work?

In this universe - deductive reasoning is useless...
Deductive reasoning cancels itself out into Induction and Abduction under its own nature and we are left with a trifold cycling...I addressed somewhere on these forums.

Prediction because of its statistical nature...even when .99999 percent accurate, always leaves us with a dark spot, similar to what we observe in the Yin/Yang of Taoism where the predictions effectively can invert into something completely different than what we expected...or rather "defined".

The nature of recursion as "computation", necessitates computation itself, as a self-evident focal point of "truth", to be subject to the same nature.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:06 pm
Prediction because of its statistical nature...even when .99999 percent accurate, always leaves us with a dark spot, similar to what we observe in the Yin/Yang of Taoism where the predictions effectively can invert into something completely different than what we expected...or rather "defined".
Yip. Bertrand Russel's turkey. A million datapoints can confirm your theory and only 1 can disprove it.

Sadly this is the realm of counter-factual (what-if) reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:06 pm
The nature of recursion as "computation", necessitates computation itself, as a self-evident focal point of "truth", to be subject to the same nature.
The dirty secret of computation is that it's not "self-evident". It's descriptive.
Alan Turing sat and watched people called "Computers" do their work for months until he could finally define the mechanics of the process.

I am practically convinced that all logic/mathematics is externalising/expressing the structures of our minds.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:06 pm
Prediction because of its statistical nature...even when .99999 percent accurate, always leaves us with a dark spot, similar to what we observe in the Yin/Yang of Taoism where the predictions effectively can invert into something completely different than what we expected...or rather "defined".
Yip. Bertrand Russel's turkey. A million datapoints can confirm your theory and only 1 can disprove it.

Sadly this is the realm of counter-factual (what-if) reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:06 pm
The nature of recursion as "computation", necessitates computation itself, as a self-evident focal point of "truth", to be subject to the same nature.
The dirty secret of computation is that it's not "self-evident". It's descriptive.
Alan Turing sat and watched people called "Computers" do their work for months until he could finally define the mechanics of the process.

I am practically convinced that all logic/mathematics is externalising/expressing the structures of our minds.
Logic/Math is just cutting and forming reality through abstractions, in accords to our wills. The problem is that this "cutting out and forming reality" in turn forms us and we are left with a form of recursion, again (I am starting to hate how many times I used that word in the past couple months...even that is becoming recursive), as some law we exist through and practice but do not entirely "own".

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Fallacy of Factual Argumentation.

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:17 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:14 pm
Logic/Math is just cutting and forming reality through abstractions, in accords to our wills. The problem is that this "cutting out and forming reality" in turn forms us and we are left with a form of recursion, again (I am starting to hate how many times I used that word in the past couple months...even that is becoming recursive), as some law we exist through and practice but do not entirely "own".
You can always use logic/math for the wire-frame model. The structure for the tree of knowledge. You still get to texture, decorate and colour it as you will.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests