Principles vs Pragmatism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:10 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:08 am
The Earth exists so it would be absence of evidence is evidence of absence but no belief is required only logical deduction
How have you "deduced" that Earth exists? What true premise did you start with?

The heuristic for "deduction" is from general -> particular.
If you are going from particular -> general you are necessarily doing induction.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:16 am

Logic wrote:
What is the utility of the concept of objectivity if it does not require or convey any useful information
Begging the question because no such requirement is actually needed as something can be objective and have no utility
Utility is a requirement only for that which is practical not for something which objectively exists which may be useless

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:17 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:16 am
Begging the question because no such requirement is actually needed as something can be objective and have no utility
Ditto.

Your definition of "objectivity" is axiomatic. You have no admission or exclusion criteria for it. You assume it to be the case.

How have you decided that the color of the sky NOT objective?

And if color is subjective how come most people understand how traffic lights work?
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:22 am

Logic wrote:
How have you deduced that Earth exists
Observation
Empiricism
Inter Subjectivity
Sense Experience

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:22 am
Logic wrote:
How have you deduced that Earth exists
Observation
Empiricism
Inter Subjectivity
Sense Experience
You are just throwing words around like you are playing the lotto.

The structure of a deductive argument is

P1. If A is true then B is true
P2. A is true
C. Therefore B is true

If A is true then Earth exists is true
A is true.
Therefore Earth exists is true

What is "A" ?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:27 am

Logic wrote:
How have you decided that the color of the sky NOT objective
The colour itself objectively exists but it can only be referenced as a subjective experience
For no pair of eyes sees or interprets phenomena in exactly the same as any other pair does

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:27 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:27 am
The colour itself objectively exists but it can only be referenced as a subjective experience
For no pair of eyes sees or interprets phenomena in exactly the same as any other pair does
Do you think any two scientists can experience the phenomena they are studying "the same"?

Through any of their senses?

Do you think we can even precisely and accurately express our experiences in language?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:33 am

Logic wrote:
You are just throwing words around like you are playing the lotto
These are requirements of the scientific method for investigating any observable phenomenon
And so they are exactly what would be used to scientifically determine the existence of Earth

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:39 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:33 am
Logic wrote:
You are just throwing words around like you are playing the lotto
These are requirements of the scientific method for investigating any observable phenomenon
And so they are exactly what would be used to scientifically determine the existence of Earth
You are appealing to authority.

Who imposed those “requirements” and why?

Why do you think we need to determine if the Earth exists?

Why do we need to determine if ANYTHING exists?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:44 am

Logic wrote:
Do you think any two scientists can experience the phenomena they are studying the same

Do you think we can even precisely and accurately express our experiences in language
Nothing in science is absolute but pushing it as far as is possible all of the time must be the objective
Because the more rigorous it is then the better the quality of the evidence is going to be [ obviously ]

This rigour does not just apply to the scientific method but equally so to the language of science
That is both mathematics and standard language which explain / clarify the findings of science

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:47 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:44 am
Logic wrote:
Do you think any two scientists can experience the phenomena they are studying the same

Do you think we can even precisely and accurately express our experiences in language
Nothing in science is absolute but pushing it as far as is possible all of the time must be the objective
Because the more rigorous it is then the better the quality of the evidence is going to be [ obviously ]

This rigour does not just apply to the scientific method but equally so to the language of science
That is both mathematics and standard language which explain / clarify the findings of science
Why do you need to be rigorous ?
Why do you need better evidence?

Why?

Do you have a better argument than “truth and knowledge for their own sake”?

Why is knowledge more valuable than ignorance?

Why is truth better than a false illusion?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:54 am

Logic wrote:
You are appealing to authority

Who imposed those requirements and why

Why do we need to determine if ANYTHING exists
I am appealing to authority which is a logical fallacy and therefore should be avoided since it is a flaw in reason
The scientific community imposed these requirements after the Enlightenment for reasons of clarity / precision
We do not need to determine anything at all but do so because we are naturally curious and also because we can

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:58 am

No Logik, it's pure ego.

You've said that I offer sophistry, circular logic and so on, but are you even referring to something specific? Do you even remember what you were replying to when you told me that all language is recursive and all positions are contradictory? Can you honestly say you wouldn't have to look back on the forum to check? You're just determined to believe that I'm inferior to you irrespective of anything real, it's ego. You became irritated that I didn't think much of your ideas and started telling me I ought to pay you to tutor me, that I'm an idiot who needs your help and telling me how vastly above me you are in knowledge and philosophy.

You say you've got "more self-awareness that I can imagine" don't you see how egotistical that statement is? It's not enough to say "i'm self-aware, you're wrong" you're telling me "oh I'm beyond self-aware, more self-aware than you can even imagine" LMAO, like it's a chest-beating competition for you.

Anyway, I'll stick by my word and refrain from talking to you in the future.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:01 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:54 am
Logic wrote:
You are appealing to authority

Who imposed those requirements and why

Why do we need to determine if ANYTHING exists
I am appealing to authority which is a logical fallacy and therefore should be avoided since it is a flaw in reason
The scientific community imposed these requirements after the Enlightenment for reasons of clarity / precision
We do not need to determine anything at all but do so because we are naturally curious and also because we can
So clarity and precision for their own sake?

Why is clarity and precision better than incoherence and imprecision ?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:02 pm

Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:58 am
No Logik, it's pure ego.

You've said that I offer sophistry, circular logic and so on, but are you even referring to something specific? Do you even remember what you were replying to when you told me that all language is recursive and all positions are contradictory? Can you honestly say you wouldn't have to look back on the forum to check? You're just determined to believe that I'm inferior to you irrespective of anything real, it's ego. You became irritated that I didn't think much of your ideas and started telling me I ought to pay you to tutor me, that I'm an idiot who needs your help and telling me how vastly above me you are in knowledge and philosophy.

You say you've got "more self-awareness that I can imagine" don't you see how egotistical that statement is? It's not enough to say "i'm self-aware, you're wrong" you're telling me "oh I'm beyond self-aware, more self-aware than you can even imagine" LMAO, like it's a chest-beating competition for you.

Anyway, I'll stick by my word and refrain from talking to you in the future.
It is either ego or episteme.

And you have absolutely no objective criteria to decide which is which. Except for the post-hoc subjective expectations of what a “self-aware” person is supposed to behave like and say.

Sorry to shit all over your stereotype.

So keep telling yourself the story you have put together to explain my behaviour to yourself.

Tackle the person because you can’t refute the argument.

All philosophical sophistry boils down to jusrifying one’s values. There is no “what?” without a “why?”
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests