@Kingpin

I've cringed everytime I've seen that comment made, can't stand it anymore, lol.  Proven and provable are distinct terms.  You have altered the conjugation of the word in order to stick him with a claim he has not actually made, implying that his definition of terms is somehow self refuting or inconsistent when, in fact...you're engaging in sophistry.  

It would be as if I'd said.  "A ball is a round object" and you asked me for proof.  I could only restate that my -definition- for a ball was "a round object".  You may think that the term ball encompasses more than just round objects...as you might think that legitimate knowledge encompasses more than just what is provable, but you would not be disagreeing over a point of fact, nor would you be discussing a logical misstep.  

You could, instead, accept that this is his definition for legitimate knowledge and mention all of the ways that -whatever- you feel is excluded is -provable-....and you would not need to prove whatever that is in order to do so (and amusingly this is all that needs to be done to show that the statement "all legitimate knowledge is provable"...is provable. Show what one considers to be legitimate knowledge, and show that it is at least provable).   You could, conversely, accept that whatever it is you feel is excluded is simply not legitimate knowledge by his definition. Failure to do either, or in this case, some nonsense about proving his statement can yield nothing -other- than confusion..you two could discuss "legitimate knowledge" all day long and you would not be discussing the same thing.

Aquinas was able to allow for more than one type of knowledge, I think you can manage as well. To that end:

"All intellectual knowledge is either speculative, or practical". Aquinas, ofc, Summa Theologica.


  

(January 12, 2016 at 1:03 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Boom chicka bow wow?

"It is clear," said he," that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end. Observe: noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. . . . " Professor Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide

(January 12, 2016 at 1:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Kingpin

I've cringed everytime I've seen that comment made, can't stand it anymore, lol.  Proven and provable are distinct terms.  You have altered the conjugation of the word in order to stick him with a claim he has not actually made, implying that his definition of terms is somehow self refuting or inconsistent when, in fact...you're engaging in sophistry.  

It would be as if I'd said.  "A ball is a round object" and you asked me for proof.  I could only restate that my -definition- for a ball was "a round object".  You may think that the term ball encompasses more than just round objects...as you might think that legitimate knowledge encompasses more than just what is provable, but you would not be disagreeing over a point of fact, nor would you be discussing a logical misstep.  

You could, instead, accept that this is his definition for legitimate knowledge and mention all of the ways that -whatever- you feel is excluded is -provable-....and you would not need to prove whatever that is in order to do so (and amusingly this is all that needs to be done to show that the statement "all legitimate knowledge is provable"...is provable.  Show what one considers to be legitimate knowledge, and show that it is at least provable).   You could, conversely, accept that whatever it is you feel is excluded is simply not legitimate knowledge by his definition.  Failure to do either, or in this case, some nonsense about proving his statement can yield nothing -other- than confusion..you two could discuss "legitimate knowledge" all day long and you would not be discussing the same thing.  

Aquinas was able to allow for more than one type of knowledge, I think you can manage as well.  To that end:

"All intellectual knowledge is either speculative, or practical".  Aquinas, ofc, Summa Theologica.


  

I was more pointing out that the phrase itself is self-defeating.  "All legitimate knowledge must be provable".  If that statement itself is legitimate knowledge then it must be provable.  If it is NOT legitimate knowledge then its pointless.  It's akin to saying "all truth is relative".  The statement either includes itself or excludes itself.  If it includes itself, then that statement is also relative and not always true.  If it excludes itself then not all truth is relative because it would be making an absolute statement while denying their existence.

(January 12, 2016 at 11:02 am)Kingpin Wrote:

(January 12, 2016 at 1:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Kingpin

I've cringed everytime I've seen that comment made, can't stand it anymore, lol.  Proven and provable are distinct terms.  You have altered the conjugation of the word in order to stick him with a claim he has not actually made, implying that his definition of terms is somehow self refuting or inconsistent when, in fact...you're engaging in sophistry.  

It would be as if I'd said.  "A ball is a round object" and you asked me for proof.  I could only restate that my -definition- for a ball was "a round object".  You may think that the term ball encompasses more than just round objects...as you might think that legitimate knowledge encompasses more than just what is provable, but you would not be disagreeing over a point of fact, nor would you be discussing a logical misstep.  

You could, instead, accept that this is his definition for legitimate knowledge and mention all of the ways that -whatever- you feel is excluded is -provable-....and you would not need to prove whatever that is in order to do so (and amusingly this is all that needs to be done to show that the statement "all legitimate knowledge is provable"...is provable.  Show what one considers to be legitimate knowledge, and show that it is at least provable).   You could, conversely, accept that whatever it is you feel is excluded is simply not legitimate knowledge by his definition.  Failure to do either, or in this case, some nonsense about proving his statement can yield nothing -other- than confusion..you two could discuss "legitimate knowledge" all day long and you would not be discussing the same thing.  

Aquinas was able to allow for more than one type of knowledge, I think you can manage as well.  To that end:

"All intellectual knowledge is either speculative, or practical".  Aquinas, ofc, Summa Theologica.


  

I was more pointing out that the phrase itself is self-defeating.  "All legitimate knowledge must be provable".  If that statement itself is legitimate knowledge then it must be provable.  If it is NOT legitimate knowledge then its pointless.  It's akin to saying "all truth is relative".  The statement either includes itself or excludes itself.  If it includes itself, then that statement is also relative and not always true.  If it excludes itself then not all truth is relative because it would be making an absolute statement while denying their existence.

Aw dammit, now I need to find a new signature.       Thanks guys!        (sigh . . . )

(January 11, 2016 at 6:56 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 12:28 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Man staring at the stars needs new ceiling.
-Confucius

Interesting, what does this mean, exactly?

Just a joke. Though here's one for you, something of a riddle, I have no idea what it means:

The water is wettest when it rains.

(January 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 6:56 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Interesting, what does this mean, exactly?

Just a joke. Though here's one for you, something of a riddle, I have no idea what it means:

The water is wettest when it rains.

Maybe it means obvious things are obvious.

And I did.