One last attempt to illustrate my point.
I don't know if you're football fans or not, but it just so happens that's what I'm watching right now.
Say a pass is thrown, and ruled as an incomplete catch.
There is criteria that such a play must meet in order to be ruled as a complete catch.
For this example, let's pretend that the only criteria required to be ruled as a catch, is that both of the receivers feet must be within the field of play while maintaining possession of the ball.
We watch the replay, and it's clear that only one foot is touching green while the other foot is entirely over the line. Not even close.
At this point, I begin to argue that it should be ruled complete!
I'm clearly wrong, as the criteria has not been met.
You explain to me the rules, and what qualifies as a catch, and how my argument is invalid.
Instead of addressing anything about the paradigm that governs American football, I argue that the rule doesn't matter.
I argue that the ruling doesn't matter, because we can't even be sure that the game we're watching is actually a game being played. It could be a recording. Or perhaps it's a bunch of frauds parading in NFL uniforms pretending to play football.
Truthfully, I don't have any doubt that we're watching the game we think we're watching, but because what I say cannot be falsified without using an assumption, we've just ended the conversation.
Nevertheless, the game is happening. Within that game, there are governing principles that define the events that we are watching.
So what do we do? Talk about the game that we both see? Or do we ignore and discard the conversation because there's a way to disregard its relevance to reality?
Do we ignore ones potential for for being delusional about one aspect of reality because reality, as a whole, can be in itself, a delusion?
I say we recognize the laws and rules that can mutually agree upon, and just talk about whether or not it's a complete catch.
I don't know if you're football fans or not, but it just so happens that's what I'm watching right now.
Say a pass is thrown, and ruled as an incomplete catch.
There is criteria that such a play must meet in order to be ruled as a complete catch.
For this example, let's pretend that the only criteria required to be ruled as a catch, is that both of the receivers feet must be within the field of play while maintaining possession of the ball.
We watch the replay, and it's clear that only one foot is touching green while the other foot is entirely over the line. Not even close.
At this point, I begin to argue that it should be ruled complete!
I'm clearly wrong, as the criteria has not been met.
You explain to me the rules, and what qualifies as a catch, and how my argument is invalid.
Instead of addressing anything about the paradigm that governs American football, I argue that the rule doesn't matter.
I argue that the ruling doesn't matter, because we can't even be sure that the game we're watching is actually a game being played. It could be a recording. Or perhaps it's a bunch of frauds parading in NFL uniforms pretending to play football.
Truthfully, I don't have any doubt that we're watching the game we think we're watching, but because what I say cannot be falsified without using an assumption, we've just ended the conversation.
Nevertheless, the game is happening. Within that game, there are governing principles that define the events that we are watching.
So what do we do? Talk about the game that we both see? Or do we ignore and discard the conversation because there's a way to disregard its relevance to reality?
Do we ignore ones potential for for being delusional about one aspect of reality because reality, as a whole, can be in itself, a delusion?
I say we recognize the laws and rules that can mutually agree upon, and just talk about whether or not it's a complete catch.
