Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm
Point out to whom? Only those willing to discuss my points and refute them will have the chance to weigh them. You already said you are not one of them.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 amWhy can't you point out the limits and gaps of your own assumptions while you wait?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am OK, you can pass. I'll wait for anyone else that does want and does think they can refute my claims.
No, no need to guess. I took it from your own post, in which such views were explicit.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 amYou have no idea what my idea of science and philosophy are about - you are guessing.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am No, your idea that science and philosophy are mere personal, subjective enterprises, is completely misguided. Science and philosophy are social practices, disciplines that build common knowledge on dialogue and interaction with others. The personal burden is to add one's own insights to a a systematic body of principles on which you can ground truths that are once universal and necessary. That's where refutations take place.
Scientists do that in the process of doing their work as scientists or in the process of becoming scientists, none of which is the case of this forum where one already arrives with ideas to propose and be challenged. Implicit to those ideas are their philosophical foundations, but you have said out loud that there are no foundations and refused to refute any points. It's a game, anything goes, remember? And of course, all that talk about some foundational "burdens", "models", and "intellectual integrity" are to be understood as part of the farce. We're just having fun.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am I am simply pointing out that any scientist who values their own intellectual integrity burdens themselves with volunteering the limits of their own assumptions, gaps in understanding and likely scenarios in which their model/understanding does not apply.
You don't want to volunteer your short-commings. You want others to find them for you.
In my coherent, make-sense world, intellectual honestly can actually be measured and valued. In the absurd, incoherent, nonsensical world that you advocate, it is a joke.
No, that was not my claim, I was restating your own claim and what it entails, I mean, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that you follow the logic of your own words. Your statements can only entail illusion as a possible case, not as the actual case, they lead to not having reliable assurance of what is the case (for you), and leaves open that it is the case that the world is not illusory, therefore not refuting my claim.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 amYou are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say you can't refute any philosophy.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am Which would confirm that you can only say that illusion is a possibility, as much as reality of the thing in itself is a possibility. So you cannot refute realism, you can only advocate for a sort of agnosticism: no one knows and anything goes.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "experiment", but I've chosen the only reliable philosophical path: that of realism and materialism.
On the other hand you are claiming that only your philosophy is "reliable". How did you refute the reliability of the philosophies you reject?
The sentences "this sentence does not exist" and "the sentence is still there" contradict each other. Their concurrence becomes absurd. They self-defeat.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 amIt doesn't self-defeat - it self-affirms. You are interpreting it incorrectly.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am No, that's only you advocating for absurdity as foundational. But it self-defeats.
This sentence does not exist. That's not self defeat. The sentence is still there.
Q.E.D your interpretation is wrong.
This response is the confirmation of the hypothesis I put to test after my previous observation. Invocation of "dubious assumptions" and "testing methodology" must say something about someone who made a lot of noise about "anything goes" and "no foundations", doesn't it?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 amI don't believe any such test exists. Nobody has yet been able to test whether I "embrace" anything without having some dubious assumptions in their testing methodology.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am What you really mean is how one chooses to avoid epistemological nihilism and embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as the foundation of all? Well, there are several testing methods you can try on epistemological nihilists to see if they really embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as foundation of all. The only problem is, the only ones that seem to deal with the issue, choose to die.
In this ball, I expect some to wear them and others not. It's easy to identify who's posing.
Oh, come on!! Computer science, really? Pfff...please don't get me started.