Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[ApeNotKillApe]

No such thing as a true claim, only truth claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

So say something you think is true, then, and we'll examine it.

Sure, np.  Truth is what follows when valid arguments are applied to sound propositions.  Let's examine that, lol.  

You use the word "really" like it means something to you.  I'm guessing it means that it conforms to your hunches about which of your experiences represet reality.

It's a word we use to indicate truth status, you're familiar, I assume?  Is this where we're at now,  you're bitching about the word really?  Take it up with webster.

It's not surprising that a materialist doesn't get the point of establishing context-- it is your position that there's only one context, making the word pretty much irrelevant to you.  But if you're such a fan of evidence, then demonstrate, using evidence, that your metaphysical position really does represent truth.

Context isn't irrelevant to me, as I already told you, it's simply not an excuse.  The truth of my metaphysical claims, whatever they are, however, is irrelevant.  No amount of me being wrong about some metaphysical claim  will salvage equivocations. Go find an actual paradox and stop bullshitting yourself about a video game.

[bennyboy]

So say something you think is true, then, and we'll examine it.

Sure, np.  Truth is what follows when valid arguments are applied to sound propositions.  Let's examine that, lol.  

. . .

Try an example.

You use the word "really" like it means something to you.  I'm guessing it means that it conforms to your hunches about which of your experiences represet reality.

It's a word we use to indicate truth status, you're familiar, I assume?  Is this where we're at now,  you're bitching about the word really?  Take it up with webster.

I question your use of the word, because you seem to be using it about things which you cannot establish actually to represent truth.

Context isn't irrelevant to me, as I already told you, it's simply not an excuse.  The truth of my metaphysical claims, whatever they are, however, is irrelevant.  No amount of me being wrong about some metaphysical claim  will salvage equivocations.  Go find an actual paradox and stop bullshitting yourself about a video game.

Dude, your entire world view is a metaphysical claim. However, it is also context-dependent. Therefore you hold an unholdable position, and you must mediate it with bullshit terms like "weight of evidence," and you pretend that those mediators mean more than "I can't prove it, but I will still assert it."

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, np.  Truth is what follows when valid arguments are applied to sound propositions.  Let's examine that, lol.  

. . .

Try an example.

That -was- my example Benny, I think that's true.  

I question your use of the word, because you seem to be using it about things which you cannot establish actually to represent truth.

I'm not using it to establish -anything at all-.........I used it as an example of the difference between experience, evidence, and truth.  How they aren't interchangeable terms.  Understand?  

Dude, your entire world view is a metaphysical claim.  However, it is also context-dependent.  Therefore you hold an unholdable position, and you must mediate it with bullshit terms like "weight of evidence," and you pretend that those mediators mean more than "I can't prove it, but I will still assert it."

...........?  This salvages equivocation how? When you're done bitching about metaphysical claims that don;t present themselves in this thread, and likely don;t exist in my own opinions anyway, can we get back to talking about the things that do exist in this thread..that clearly are the positions of a person interacting in this thread, exactly as they put them?

[bennyboy]

. . .

Try an example.

That -was- my example Benny, I think that's true.  

I don't think you know what "example" means. Give an example of valid arguments applied to sound propositions with regards to your metaphysical view. You claim that claims require evidence, and that would include claims about the nature of our existence, about which I know you DO hold a position.

See, you've used sensory experiences as support for a material world view in the past. My argument is that this kind of evidence is limited in scope (which I call context)--it can give truth about our mundane world, but not about where the world comes from, or why. In other words, if you claim to have used evidence to support your metaphysical claims, you have violated the principle of evidence, and in a particularly self-deluding way.

[The Grand Nudger]

You asked me to provide some statement I took to be true...which I gave you....are you shooting for the trifecta at this point, compounding poor form on poor form?  Still not done bitching about me, still not willing to address your own statements. I only chimed in to help you turn them into something coherent, to try and find a way to express whatever you want to express that isn't shot down easily on grounds of l2logic.

Nothing...absolutely nothing about my metaphysical views, their accuracy or truth, or the arguments I might employ to establish them can change the fact that you're using context as an excuse to equivocate. That the yes and no paradoxes you point to do not exist, and so any position or criticism built atop that "context" is, without any consideration of any other thing, not a logical or philosophical position or criticism. It might be accurate, lemme throw you that lifeline....but even -that- won't make it logical.

[bennyboy]

You asked me to provide some statement I took to be true...which I gave you....are you shooting for the trifecta at this point, compounding poor form on poor form?  Still not done bitching about me, still not willing to address your own statements.  I only chimed in to help you turn them into something coherent, to try and find a way to express whatever you want to express that isn't shot down easily on grounds of l2logic.

That's a lot of words for someone refusing to provide an actual example.

Nothing...absolutely nothing about my metaphysical views, their accuracy or truth, or the arguments I might employ to establish them can change the fact that you're using context as an excuse to equivocate.  That the yes and no paradoxes you point to do not exist, and so any position or criticism built atop that "context" is, without any consideration of any other thing, not a logical or philosophical position or criticism.  It might be accurate, lemme throw you that lifeline....but even -that- won't make it logical.

Not sure why you think truth in context is even arguable against. In the context of my normal experience, a table top is flat and smooth. In the context of QM mechanics, there's no flat and smooth surface. It is true, in the context of doing my work, that the table is flat. It is not true, in the context of looking in a microscope, that the table is flat. See? Same assertion, different context, different truth value.

You can keep arguing if you want to keep being wrong about something so obvious. Not sure why'd you want to, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a lot of words for someone refusing to provide an actual example.

You don't like my example.  Tough titties?  Honestly, whats the problem?  Whatever you had to say about truth statements you can say about that one.  

Not sure why you think truth in context is even arguable against.  

I'm not arguing with you about context, Benny, I;ve repeatedly assured you of that. I'm informing you that the manner in which you've employed the terms amounts to nothing more or less than equivocation.

In the context of my normal experience, a table top is flat and smooth.

That's because the tabletop is flat and smooth.

In the context of QM mechanics, there's no flat and smooth surface.  

OFC there are.  QM is the underlying business of flat and smooth surfaces, of any surface, of anything.... isn't it?  

It is true, in the context of doing my work, that the table is flat.  It is not true, in the context of looking in a microscope, that the table is flat.  See?  Same assertion, different context, different truth value.

Here again we see a misconception applied to support equivocation, just as before with the video games. Nothing about -the table- changes when you look at it with your eyes or a microscope. It was always what you see before you under magnification.


You need to stop approaching this as some great debate between us where someone is right or wrong, in any case.  That's not whats going on.  I'm trying to help you understand why being right about any particular claim - even the claims I dispute-  won't change the fact that the positions and criticisms you use them as support for are not logically valid -regardless- of their accuracy - and so not true. Presumably, if they are accurate, theres a logically valid way to express it...and as I suggested before, perhaps you should be looking for that rather than defending this? Similarly, if they are logically valid, and also true, there's a valid way to express -that- with sound propositions. Once you've got that handled, not one or the other, but both, you get to call something true, but not before..this, ofc, in the context of logic, of philosphy (see, I can use the word context without committing a basic gaff, I bet you can too). As I expressed way, way back at th beginning, I'm not sure how we would go about sourcing those sound propositions in the absence of evidence..but I did try to softball you with my example, which you dislike, for whatever reason.......

[bennyboy]

That's a lot of words for someone refusing to provide an actual example.

You don't like my example.  Tough titties?  Honestly, whats the problem?  Whatever you had to say about truth statements you can say about that one.

It's not actually an example of anything. It's just word salad.

 
I'm not arguing with you about context, Benny, I;ve repeatedly assured you of that.  I'm informing you that the manner in which you've employed the terms amounts to nothing more or less than equivocation.

I've established that truth is context dependent. Do you agree with this, or do you not?

In the context of my normal experience, a table top is flat and smooth.

OFC there are.  QM is the underlying business of flat and smooth surfaces, of any surface, of anything.... isn't it?  

If you think my table top is flat and smooth, I can produce evidence very much to the contrary. Microscopes have been invented.

Here again we see a misconception applied to support equivocation, just as before with the video games.  Nothing about -the table- changes when you look at it with your eyes or a microscope.  It was always what you see before you under magnification.  

I haven't said anything changes except truth itself. The truth value of many statements is dependent on context. In the context of the game, there are things I can interact with; in the context of a sense of world outside the screen, I'm not actually interacting with those things. In the context of my normal view of physical objects, the table is a single surface, flat and undivided. In the context of a microscopic view, it is not.

You want to make everything context-independent. But reality doesn't work that way-- not in philosophy, and definitely not in science, either.

[The Grand Nudger]

The definition of truth given in the system we call logic...is word salad?  I think we may have isolated the disconnect, lol.  

Microscopes wont change the tabletop, it's not a power that they possess.  Just because the qualities you refer to as smooth and flat turn out to be something other than what you thought they were...doesn't make those qualities go poof in a puff of bad logic.  

The truth value of a singular, non equivocated statement is dependant upon nothing other than the soundness of the propositions, and the validity of the argument. The minute you tell me that the truth value of some singular statement is dependant on context you have openly acknowledged your equivocation. To whit, the misleading or confusing use of one term, or set of terms with two or more meanings....or, you know...truth-in-context.

---

You ask, for example, "am I running around the corner"....and I'm supposed to fucking intuit whether or not you mean you, or your ingame avatar, lol?  

You talk about physics as in..you know, actual physics, and physics, as in game programming, and I'm supposed to intuit which you mean (though, you really seemed to think there were seperate physics).

Then, you treat these seperate questions, these seperate meanings of some term x as though they were interchangeable, and respond to an asnwer of one with, "nuh uh, what about the other".

Do you see it now?

---

Hey, here's a q for you that might actually take us somewhere.  Are you trying to draw a line from epistemic contextualism, to something?  That would give us a shortcut passed whatever communicative difficulties we're having.