Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 12:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 7:09 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am
The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
Do you even understand what is induction and how Science leverage on induction in producing scientific knowledge which has contributed to humanity greatly?
Yes I do, but you do not.
It is not the same as deduction. You do not get to impose your generalities on the data. With inductive thinking the generalisms are suggested by the data.
When you bang on about
objective morality your are simply trying to impose your views deductively upon the morality of others. You are deducting FROM your FSK (BS)
Induction is all about starting with EVIDENCE. That would mean examining human morals and seeing if anything general occurs.
You have it all backwards.
Everyone on the FOrum knows this, but you are failing to.
You are obviously projecting from ignorance.
Obvious induction is not deduction but deduction is ultimately grounded on induction, i.e. the first premise of a deduction related to reality is always based on evidence and experience - currently or adapted via evolution.
Where did I deduce my conclusion re moral realities based on deduction? Re morality, I have always argued my approach is based on evidence and experience, i.e. induction. Note 99% of the almost 8 billion of people on Earth [..I presume you included as well] do not display any eager impulse to kill humans.
Everyone?? you are blatantly lying.
What is critical is not ad populum but rather whether one's arguments are grounded and solid or not.