Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 137
  1. #101
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh View Post
    But you can refute statements, as long as you take the "truths" you have validated as hypothesis and some of them happen to contradict with the statement you are probing.
    What it means, however, is that by doing so you consider the error of your approximations to be small enough (thus the necessity to have tested your "truths" as rigorously as possible). This is how scientific researches work btw...
    That doesn't make things much better, because all this changes is that everything that doesn't contradict earlier observations must be true. However, most of the possible statements that don't contradict earlier evidence do contradict each other, yet they must be by the law of the excluded middle. So again, we arrive to an inescapable contradiction.

    The only reasonable way to resolve this paradox is to define Truth (with a big T, and none of the quote marks) so that the negative is the default option, i.e. that nothing should be considered to exist, unless it can be proven that it exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    The emphasize is on unnecessary, right ?
    What is funny is that some obscurantist could use the exact same statement in favour of the opposite : why building up complex yet imperfect laws which aim to explain how this or that phenomenon occurs, why and when ? Stating that an omnipotent entity made things like that and rules our daily lives explains what we observe perfectly and make these complex laws totally unnecessary.
    Actually, saying that god did it explains jack shit. An explanation is by definition something that clarifies how something really is. Invoking the supernatural is merely claiming that B was caused by A. It says nothing about why this is true, gives no mechanism or rule and is essentially a completely trivial claim.

  2. #102
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    ...i.e. that nothing should be considered to exist, unless it can be proven that it exists.
    the only problemwith this is that the only thing that can truly be proven is that i exist (or you exist, in your own case).

  3. #103
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze View Post
    the only problemwith this is that the only thing that can truly be proven is that i exist (or you exist, in your own case).

    You have to make certain a priori assumptions, I'm pretty sure that we can all agree on somethings.

  4. #104
    Krytha is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Well, it sounds pretty silly to me, so I don't think they need me to go up their hit count.

  5. #105
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze View Post
    the only problemwith this is that the only thing that can truly be proven is that i exist (or you exist, in your own case).
    Actually, even if all we could conclude is that the self exists, it still would be an better model than the alternative, because the alternative contradicts itself. However, as adonai said, certain assumptions can be made so that the world makes some sense. In fact, given that any model that renders empiricism invalid is contradictory by definition, these assumptions must be made in order to maintain logical consistency.

    First of all, I would say that we must assume that the universe exists. Secondly, we must assume that our senses convey somewhat accurate information. Third, we must assume that the universe doesn't contradict itself. Naturally we must also assume that logic is valid. However, that assumption is essentially so trivial that it shouldn't have to be mentioned.

    If I haven't forgotten anything critical, these assumptions should be enough to make an reasonable and non-contradictory definition of truth possible.

  6. #106
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is online now Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Actually, even if all we could conclude is that the self exists, it still would be an better model than the alternative, because the alternative contradicts itself. However, as adonai said, certain assumptions can be made so that the world makes some sense. In fact, given that any model that renders empiricism invalid is contradictory by definition, these assumptions must be made in order to maintain logical consistency.

    First of all, I would say that we must assume that the universe exists. Secondly, we must assume that our senses convey somewhat accurate information. Third, we must assume that the universe doesn't contradict itself. Naturally we must also assume that logic is valid. However, that assumption is essentially so trivial that it shouldn't have to be mentioned.

    If I haven't forgotten anything critical, these assumptions should be enough to make an reasonable and non-contradictory definition of truth possible.
    Sounds like my train of thought.


    I'd like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
    I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
    before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends


    [Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009

  7. #107
    kaspar is offline Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The fantisy world in my head free of sadness and hate
    Posts
    78

    Default

    If you search for evolution on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, Wikipedia describes how the evolution theory has helped biologists in discovering new concepts and how life at the DNA/RNA level works. Conservapedia only presents opinions from scientists who have apparently "disproved evolution," saying that since it can not be proved in a 40 year lab experiment that evolution exists, even though the evolutionary process takes millions of years, in general Conservapedia is trying to persuade the reader that evolution is a lie.
    "Ash to ash, dust to dust, as it should be"

    "All the people you love in a river of blood."

    "Peace is a lie there is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain victory. Through Victory my chains are broken."

  8. #108
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    what's the point of conservapedia if it wasn't conservative?

  9. #109
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bipolargraph View Post
    what's the point of conservapedia if it wasn't conservative?
    Wait, there's actually a point with conservapedia now? I must have missed the memo.

  10. #110
    ruritsu is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    469

    Default

    ^A place for fail to manifest itself in text form...

 

 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79