Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
December 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm by Perhaps.)
(December 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A devotee of Ra may have offered the axiom that Ra is god, and that it is self evident as the sun in the sky....Axioms do change, they're often modified by the proponents of hardcore axiomatic reasoning (and very often in the service of apologetics) to fit an argument that fails them, but could work much better if a better axiom were offered. Look at all of the variations of the god axiom and how they have developed over time. See what I did here, I invoked something which can be demonstrated by evidence as a criticism of a concept, rather than responding with a concept.
As I mentioned in my post, the idea of an axiom is something that must be accepted or not in and of itself, and the definition of an axiom would state that these things do not change, but they clearly do, and have. And again, many things that were once defined as "axiomatic" have lost that status as more information has become available to us. This is a great example of "no one gives a shit what can be imagined". "Axioms" have been imagined, now lets put them to the test, let's see if they are anything more than ideas, and lets see if they even live up to the definition of the idea.
By definition, axioms cannot change. They are simply true. Everything is inferred by these axioms. You, right now, are following the axiom that reasoning is the source of all truth. You can't apply reason to that axiom, because it is assumed to be true.
Axioms have no value when analyzed against each other. They are simply imagined to be true. Which brings us back to the fact that we know nothing.
I will say, however, that some axioms are more necessary than others. Such as the axiom: I exist, and the axiom: reasoning is the source of all truth.
December 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 5:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
But reason may not be, and If I encounter a situation that makes this plainly clear I'll have to put some serious legwork into it. No axiom required, and I do not subscribe to such an axiom in the first place. It is again a falsifiable statement. We need only find a false positive that reason would strongly suggest. We've done so in the past btw, that's how the system was developed in the first place, trial and error. Obviously we trashed those lines of "reasoning" that we found were not valid, nonetheless, what remains merely remains under the header because it is a convenient title. To assume that "reason" is a complete system is to assume complete knowledge. I have no such illusions, obviously.
Speaking of reason and knowledge. One tiny mistake and "reason" can lead to some pretty innacurate "facts". Cue apologists. The mistake may not lie in the use of reason at all, but what is "generally accepted to be true" and used as an assertion. Many things that were wildly innacurate have been "generally accepted to be true". Again, to challenge them, or even to form them in the first place you have to add something into the system. Evidence works for that pretty well.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(December 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But reason may not be, and If I encounter a situation that makes this plainly clear I'll have to put some serious legwork into it.
Just look up some illogical-axioms in mathematics to demonstrate to yourself that reason does not determine truth.
(December 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No axiom required, and I do not subscribe to such an axiom in the first place. It is again a falsifiable statement. We need only find a false positive that reason would strongly suggest.
You're using the axiom right now, by saying those words, and assuming them true.
(December 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We've done so in the past btw, that's how the system was developed in the first place, trial and error. Obviously we trashed those lines of "reasoning" that we found were not valid, nonethel;ess, what remains merely remains under the header because it is a convenient title. To assume that "reason" is a complete system is to assume complete knowledge. I have no such illusions, obviously.
We trashed those lines of 'reasoning' by assuming that reasoning determined truth (using the axiom). But I do agree with you whole heartily on the last two sentences.
December 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Mathematics is a form of logic with it's own rules, it need not conform to the rules of outside systems (or other systems in the same overall family) except in cases where it is to be applied to those systems.
No, I'm not. False positives would be evidence. Reason and evidence have their own words and definitions for a reason..hehehe, zing.
We trashed many of those lines of reasoning by applying them to situations in which evidence could be leveraged. Whittling down a system on the basis of certain parts of the system not conforming to its own rules is fine. To say, "this is illogical because it does not conform to the rules of logic" is one thing. To say that "this is illogical because evidence we have found in the material world annihilates this or that assertion" is an entirely different thing. It's a difference that should be appreciated.
A fun example of this is the
"All swans are white"
"Dave is a swan"
"Therefore Dave is white"
That works, there's no tearing that down with logic alone. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that dave is not a swan, that all swans are not white. Even so, all swans may not be white, and Dave might still be a white. Or perhaps All swans are white, but dave is not a swan, and still dave is white. Evidence, evidence, evidence. All systems have limitations.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
December 23, 2011 at 6:01 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 6:07 pm by Perhaps.)
(December 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Mathematics is a form of logic with it's own rules, it need not conform to the rules of outside systems (or other systems in the same overall family) except in cases where it is to be applied to those systems.
No, I'm not. False positives would be evidence. Reason and evidence have their own words and definitions for a reason..hehehe, zing.
We trashed many of those lines of reasoning by applying them to situations in which evidence could be leveraged. Whittling down a system on the basis of certain parts of the system not conforming to its own rules is fine. To say, "this is illogical because it does not conform to the rules of logic" is one thing. To say that "this is illogical because evidence we have found in the material world annihilates this or that assertion" is an entirely different thing. It's a difference that should be appreciated.
I think what we're missing in this discussion is the understanding of how evidence is gathered or obtained. What is considered evidence? Are there criteria? If so, how did that criteria originate?
(December 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A fun example of this is the
"All swans are white"
"Dave is a swan"
"Therefore Dave is white"
That works, there's no tearing that down with logic alone. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that dave is not a swan, that all swans are not white. Even so, all swans may not be white, and Dave might still be a white swan. Or perhaps All swans are white, but dave is not a swan, and still dave is white. Evidence, evidence, evidence.
Once again, what is evidence? How is it gathered? Even the idea that the application of evidence is a method through which things can be confirmed or denied is an assumption. A useful assumption as it relates to the world as we know, but an assumption none the less.
(December 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: All systems have limitations.
Correct. Which are based on the original assumption.
December 23, 2011 at 6:13 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 6:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Depends on what subject we're looking at, but broadly defined-
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion
-As regards to the kind of evidence I prefer-
Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
The criteria for evidence in any area orignated in the same place as any criteria, our own constant refinements of the concept applied to reality and production of results specifically in the case of scientific evidence.
How evidence may be gathered is determined by the subject. That the application of evidence is a method through which things can be confirmed or denied was once an assumption, it has since shown results, and could be falsified at any point. No assumption or axioms required (and in fact both are a hindrance to the enterprise as a whole).
Incorrect, it is based on the varied results of any given system when it has been applied in different areas. No assumption required. I needn't even know why a system has limitations to demonstrate that it does.
I'm not saying that philosophy is useless, simply that we are at a point where we require more than philosophy by itself to draw conclusions. Also, that you often find people applying philosophy to subjects which would be better served by another tool, or combination of tools. That in any given situation the more tools you leverage the better the results. That simply accepting axioms is demonstrably bad practice, and that many things described as axioms and assumptions by those with the philosophic bent are neither.
This isn't anything radical or strange. We realized this a couple hundred years ago, and it's the reason that physicists get degrees in hard sciences rather than majoring in greek philosophy.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Does truth exist? If so,
Can truth be determined? If so,
Do the process of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it? If so,
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic? If so,
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence? If so,
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? If so,
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? If so,
Is science then true only in correspondence to the knowledge at the time? If so,
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? If so,
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? If so,
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence? If so,
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic? If so,
Do the processes of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it? If so,
Can truth be determined? If so,
Does truth exist?
December 23, 2011 at 6:42 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 6:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Does truth exist? -A fuzzy term.
Can truth be determined? -If only this weren't such a fuzzy term
Do the process of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it? Seems so, insomuch as the conclusions can be verified by observation for the most part.
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic? Contained within, no, but leveraging yes.
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence? Yes
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? No
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? No, mostly to do with the above.
Is science then true only in correspondence to the knowledge at the time? No, again, the above.
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? Fucking christ man.......
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? -and the philosoloop begins
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence?..............
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic?..............
Do the processes of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it?..................
Can truth be determined?.....................
Does truth exist?...................
Truth, as a concept that you are here discussing, can be said to exist. Anything beyond that is an argument of definitions, which is exactly what I began this whole thing by criticizing. Lemme make sure I have this straight. You choose a fuzzy concept, and then craft a looping rant (with some fun misconceptions thrown in just to make it seem as though the begining and end had something to do with the middle).....in a conversation about armchair philosophy?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Does truth exist? If so,
Can truth be determined? If so,
Do the process of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it? If so,
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic? If so,
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence? If so,
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? If so,
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? If so,
Is science then true only in correspondence to the knowledge at the time? If so,
Does the truth of science change as knowledge grows? If so,
Do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine truth? If so,
Are scientific assertions verified/falsified by the presentation of evidence? If so,
Is the field of science contained within the processes of reason and logic? If so,
Do the processes of reason and logic allow us to understand the world as we perceive it? If so,
Can truth be determined? If so,
Does truth exist?
Yes to every questions. But why didn't you use "theory" instead of "assertion"?
December 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 7:03 pm by Perhaps.)
Interesting, as you can easily see, as soon as you answer 'no' to one question the proof stops.
What is the field of science contained within?
What do scientific assertions verified by evidence determine?
(December 23, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Truth, as a concept that you are here discussing, can be said to exist. Anything beyond that is an argument of definitions, which is exactly what I began this whole thing by criticizing. Lemme make sure I have this straight. You choose a fuzzy concept, and then craft a looping rant (with some fun misconceptions thrown in just to make it seem as though the begining and end had something to do with the middle).....in a conversation about armchair philosophy?
Again with the editing .
I provided a proof of why evidence is contained with the processes of reason and logic. The fuzzy concepts are the base assumptions of existence, which are necessary premises for the rest of the proof. It is a loop to demonstrate the cyclical nature of logical proofs.
. 