RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 17, 2017 at 7:18 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2017 at 7:22 pm by bennyboy.)
(January 17, 2017 at 10:00 am)Khemikal Wrote: No, I wouldn't...because my use of the term truth isn't as malleable as your own, like I keep telling you, over and over again. I don;t have to wonder whether or not there are a great many ways that creatures can experience. That much is well evidenced just in the small set of creatures here, on earth. Truth, however, is the product of a well defined system, so unless your bats and worms and possible beings are manufacturing logical statements..............I've looked through many pages of this text, and while I've found you oft quibbling about my use of the word, I can't find where you clearly defined it. I do have some selective learning disabilities, though, so maybe to spare me the pain of rereading the whole thread several times, you would be so kind as to define "truth" in say 50 words or less?
It seems to me that all the "equivocations" you claim I've made come down to the use of conditional statement or axioms. If I say "Where X, Y, and where not X, (possibly) not Y," is this illogical? Can truth as you define it not be expressed in this way?
(January 17, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Propositions are generated by thinking up whatever the hell we like. Sound propositions are generated by a search for and assessment of evidence. One is useful in determining truth, the other is not.
It's like you WANT the semantics to keep spinning into the void forever and ever. Let me guess, "evidence" is "that which allows us to reach sound propositions," amirite? At some point, could we please talk about some claims about the real world, some real evidence, and arrive at the point where you take a clear position on something?
