RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 11, 2017 at 11:51 pm
(This post was last modified: January 11, 2017 at 11:54 pm by bennyboy.)
(January 11, 2017 at 10:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Little things like gravity, ballistics, orbital mechanics, aerodynamics, friction, and other likewise known and repeatable minutiae. Stuff that, so far at least, have demonstrated such reliability that you can trust your life to them, would certainly notice if they suddenly stopped working, and can be modelled mathematically with exquisite precision.
You know, the things that make up your video games.
None of the things you mentioned are dependent on a particular metaphysical reality, so far as you can demonstrate. All you know is that you experience things a certain way, and that you can draw certain patterns.
(January 11, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Games actually don't have their own rules, again you're equivocating. There are no special rules that make a video game function. They're a novel application of all the same rules.Sure there are. Games implement physics and character interactions in all kinds of different ways, some of which are not represented in any other context.
Quote:I personally doubt that our perception is arrived at rationally, which is why, again, I don't use the same terms for experience, evidence, and truth.........? Nevertheless, it does seem to be the case that the contents of our experience can be rationally assessed in order to arrive at truth. That's kind of the point of logic, of philosphy, in the first place.Let's say you've arrived at a truth-- say the truth of classical physics. Then you arrive at a truth-- the truth of general relativity. Then you arrive at a truth-- the truth of quantum mechanics. In what way do you feel you've arrived at big-T truth? Because remember, you are pushing that evidence is evidence and truth is truth, and that neither is dependent on context.
