Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

[Skepdick]

That you try and ignore what I meant, instead arguing with yourself, does not impress anyone that has any real degree of intelligence.

Rethink and try again!

I can't possibly know what you mean until you communicate it effectively.

I am unlikely to arrive at your intended meaning simply by the sheer power of thought either - I am not a mind reader.

[Skepdick]

Incorrect! Putting the cart before the horse! Sequence is everything, a posteriori. Your vagueness, generalizations, do not a point make, that you are not specifically accurate, to any high degree, allows you to believe such falsehoods!

Then let me spell it out for you.

Airplanes fly.

The theory (explanation? ontological model? sequence of events?) of WHY airplanes fly has changed 4-5 times since the Wright Brothers built the first airplane.
We used to think that airplanes fly because of the Bernoulli principle. Now we know that's not true.

The theory keeps changing. The fact that airplanes fly doesn't.

The sequence of this particular phenomenon (and many other human inventions) goes like this.

1. Discovery/invention.
2. Explanation of discovery/invention.

Practice (empiricism) first. Theory (language and concepts) second.

Applied (practical) competence, does not require (theoretical/linguistic/conceptual) comprehension. That's just the bullshit intellectuals preach to justify their own existence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That you try and ignore what I meant, instead arguing with yourself, does not impress anyone that has any real degree of intelligence.

Rethink and try again!

I can't possibly know what you mean until you communicate it effectively.

I am unlikely to arrive at your intended meaning simply by the sheer power of thought either - I am not a mind reader.

I give you people here more credit than my wife. And she always says that I repeat things far too much that she already knows. Well like I tell her, no one can know what another knows, it's impossible! Like you said no one can read minds. I give you people more credit and you don't deserve it, sorry. I've thought those that study philosophy are more informed.

[Skepdick]

I give you people here more credit than my wife. And she always says that I repeat things far too much that she already knows. Well like I tell her, no one can know what another knows, it's impossible! Like you said no one can read minds. I give you people more credit and you don't deserve it, sorry. I've thought those that study philosophy are more informed.

It's not about credit. It's about leeway. You give your wife more leeway than you give us.

You've figured out she's not a mind-reader. You are yet to figure out we are not mind-readers either.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Incorrect! Putting the cart before the horse! Sequence is everything, a posteriori. Your vagueness, generalizations, do not a point make, that you are not specifically accurate, to any high degree, allows you to believe such falsehoods!

Then let me spell it out for you.

Airplanes fly.

The theory (explanation? ontological model? sequence of events?) of WHY airplanes fly has changed 4-5 times since the Wright Brothers built the first airplane.
We used to think that airplanes fly because of the Bernoulli principle. Now we know that's not true.

The theory keeps changing. The fact that airplanes fly doesn't.

The sequence of this particular phenomenon (and many other human inventions) goes like this.

1. Discovery/invention.
2. Explanation of discovery/invention.

Practice (empiricism) first. Theory (language and concepts) second.

Applied (practical) competence, does not require (theoretical/linguistic/conceptual) comprehension. That's just the bullshit intellectuals preach to justify their own existence.

That's funny because I've always known that it's about air pressure, but then I was a flyer, an aircrewman in the USN. And in fact it is about air pressure, or should I say air pressure differential.

But that has nothing to do with the tea in china.

The fact is VALID premises, lead to necessarily true conclusions.

So stop proposing that INVALID premises are the same as those that are VALID.

What you're actually saying is that many times in our history we have done as you are now doing. Think my friend, think!

[Skepdick]

That's funny because I've always known that it's about air pressure, but then I was a flyer, an aircrewman in the USN. And in fact it is about air pressure, or should I say air pressure differential.

That's the Bernoulli explanation! Nobody in aircraft engineering uses that theory anymore!

But that has nothing to do with the tea in china.

It has everything to do with the "Tea in China" - you are just too daft to join the dots.

The fact is VALID premises, lead to necessarily true conclusions.

So stop proposing that INVALID premises are the same as those that are VALID.

Idiot.

The conclusion was, is and always will be "airplanes fly". The conclusion is true.
The PREMISES for WHY airplanes fly keep changing.

Why do we keep changing "valid" premises ?

The premises KEEP CHANGING.
The conclusions REMAINS THE SAME.

Airplanes fly.

What you're actually saying is that many times in our history we have done as you are now doing. Think my friend, think!

I am thinking. I am trying to get you do to the same!

[attofishpi]

HOLY CRAP things are getting ALL COLOURFUL !! (making things less comprehensible)

Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology.

Like you could ever really talk over my head fish boy! Do you see anything in the pretty colors, like maybe gods or something, huh?

Now then commit yourself as a fool.

Don't attempt to sit with me beneath the Tree Of Wisdom.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That's funny because I've always known that it's about air pressure, but then I was a flyer, an aircrewman in the USN. And in fact it is about air pressure, or should I say air pressure differential.

That's the Bernoulli explanation! Nobody in aircraft engineering uses that theory anymore!

But that has nothing to do with the tea in china.

It has everything to do with the "Tea in China" - you are just too daft to join the dots.

The fact is VALID premises, lead to necessarily true conclusions.

So stop proposing that INVALID premises are the same as those that are VALID.

Idiot.

The conclusion was, is and always will be "airplanes fly". The conclusion is true.
The PREMISES for WHY airplanes fly keep changing.

Why do we keep changing "valid" premises ?

The premises KEEP CHANGING.
The conclusions REMAINS THE SAME.

Airplanes fly.

What you're actually saying is that many times in our history we have done as you are now doing. Think my friend, think!

I am thinking. I am trying to get you do to the same!

Wrong! Does your dumbass know how may failures of flight ensued before success? Originally they had no valid premises, it was just trial & error and bird mimicry, such that your entire line of bullshit is just that! The conclusion has always been based upon observation. They could see that the airplane flew, but even that's not entirely true according to your bullshit, because birds and airplanes "fly" utilizing totally different dynamics, such that one of them shouldn't be said to be flying.

Again you're speaking of invalid premises, you're just far too brain dead to know it!

You do realize that someone can create a model, test it, have success, and be incorrect as to why they were successful. It's called coincidence or sometimes luck. We're talking about invalid premises here.

And so I'll say it again, valid premises always result in true conclusions, That your inferior mind has a huge problem with the word VALID is your problem not mine!

So shut up with your idiotic bull shit, I grow increasingly tired of such ignorance!

[SpheresOfBalance]

HOLY CRAP things are getting ALL COLOURFUL !! (making things less comprehensible)

Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology.

Like you could ever really talk over my head fish boy! Do you see anything in the pretty colors, like maybe gods or something, huh?

Now then commit yourself as a fool.

Don't attempt to sit with me beneath the Tree Of Wisdom.

Son, you see signs of god in the most mundane coincidences, you're delusional!

[Skepdick]

Wrong! Does your dumbass know how may failures of flight ensued before success? Originally they had no valid premises, it was just trial & error and bird mimicry, such that your entire line of bullshit is just that! The conclusion has always been based upon observation. They could see that the airplane flew, but even that's not entirely true according to your bullshit, because birds and airplanes "fly" utilizing totally different dynamics, such that one of them shouldn't be said to be flying.

*sigh* idiot.


No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay In The Air