Person B is blind / Person C is colour blind / Person D can see any colour other than greenLogic wrote:
Person A says The sky is green
Question : what is the colour of the sky that they all objectively agree on ? Answer : none
Person B is blind / Person C is colour blind / Person D can see any colour other than greenLogic wrote:
Person A says The sky is green
Great!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:14 am Person B is blind / Person C is colour blind / Person D can see any colour other than green
Question : what is the colour of the sky that they all objectively agree on ? Answer : none
Because scientific knowledge is incomplete so logically / empirically there are things that it will not knowLogic wrote:
How do you know they exist if you have no empirical ( EXPERIENCE ) evidence for them
You respond to "sophistry" with "language is recursive" and "all positions are contradictory", Logik you are too funny LMAO.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:26 amYes, you parodied the argument I use against all sophistry: Justify your value-system.
Since all disagreements seem to boil down to that one point, I see your parody as an attempt at deflection rather than tackling the issue.
On this side of the is-ought gap logic and "reason" are not in your toolbox. It's all bartering and battle of wills.
Yes. Things.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:23 am Because scientific knowledge is incomplete so logically / empirically there are things that it will not know
You already know this so the question you are asking is rhetorical and it doesnt actually falsify my position
The sky has no colour we can that agree on because all sense experience is ultimately subjectiveLogic wrote:
Does that mean that the sky has no color or does that mean it has no color we can agree on
Yes, I do. Do you value the law of non-contradiction or do you subscribe to para-consistent logic?
Unless you are mistaken and I can separate them. So you mistake my episteme for my ego.
Indeed. My condescension is caused by your idiocy and your blind ignorance of your circular reasoning.
1. Observe that you have a biased sample. You are judging me based on my behaviour on this forum, having no insight as to my behaviour outside of this context. I imagine you are filling in a lot of blanks all by yourself.Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:24 am You claim to be pragmatic... so surely you don't believe we're all really "in this world together" and you're here on this nearly empty forum to educate the masses and help change the world? You certainly aren't here to learn or to have your ideas questioned or challenged, you aren't here to improve your ability to argue - you're not even interested in what others have to say, that's clear in all the debates I've read between you and other forum members/myself.
Yes. I am a sanctimonious p****. That doesn't mean I am wrong. It means you don't like engaging me.
I have more self-awareness than you can imagine. My lack of humility is what's tripping your hissy fits.
But it has a color... and it's the same color as Y. But a different color from X.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:32 am The sky has no colour we can that agree on because all sense experience is ultimately subjective
Even the inter subjective experiences of every scientist using the scientific method are subjective
The method is deliberately designed to be as rigorous as possible but it can never be truly objective
Never mind the Universe because there are places here on Earth where no human has ever beenLogic wrote:
Some arbitrary non specific abstract notions
You cant tell me anything about those things
Your knowledge of those places is non-specific. You are saying nothing whatsoever about them except that they exist.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:41 am Never mind the Universe because there are places here on Earth where no human has ever been
They are real and actually exist and are most definitely not arbitrary or abstract or non specific
No. You can't. Godel's incompleteness theorems...surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:41 am One can use simple deduction to know whether or not everything about a system is actually known
Not every single point of the land surface of the Earth has been mapped then logically no knowledge of them existsLogic wrote:
Your knowledge of those places is non specific
Well it depends.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:57 am However the total lack of knowledge of those particular points is actual evidence that they have not been explored
Do you think every single point of the land surface has been mapped and if not do those points not exist objectively
Yes I am though once again I have to remind you that we are discussing objectivity and not utilityLogic wrote:
You are communicating zero useful information
Unless "objectivity" is a useful concept.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am Yes I am though once again I have to remind you that we are discussing objectivity and not utility
What is the utility of the concept of "objectivity" if it does not require or convey any useful information?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:02 am Because for something to objectively exist does not require any useful information about it at all
The Earth exists so it would be absence of evidence is evidence of absence but no belief is required only logical deductionLogic wrote:
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence
Is absence of evidence not evidence of absence
Which ever one you choose determines how you interpret the absence of evidence and therefore what you believe
Which choice would you say is better and why