|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 12, 2013 19:02:05 GMT -5
Suppose you could prove conclusively that someone only believes that 1+1=2 because their first grade teacher forced them to memorize it. If you did that, would you also have proved that 1+1 does not equal 2? This is the Genetic Fallacy. Examining the motivations of someone is not a refutation of their arguments. You still have to do the hard work of refuting the arguments themselves.
Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 15:17:48 GMT -5
Suppose you could prove conclusively that someone only believes that 1+1=2 because their first grade teacher forced them to memorize it. If you did that, would you also have proved that 1+1 does not equal 2? This is the Genetic Fallacy. Examining the motivations of someone is not a refutation of their arguments. You still have to do the hard work of refuting the arguments themselves. Bob Marks And you know for sure that 1+1 equals 2? And forever will? Pray tell how you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 14, 2013 0:41:08 GMT -5
Suppose you could prove conclusively that someone only believes that 1+1=2 because their first grade teacher forced them to memorize it. If you did that, would you also have proved that 1+1 does not equal 2? This is the Genetic Fallacy. Examining the motivations of someone is not a refutation of their arguments. You still have to do the hard work of refuting the arguments themselves. Bob Marks And you know for sure that 1+1 equals 2? And forever will? Pray tell how you know that. 1+1=10 As far as I can tell, to do and understand 1+1=10 requires a brain capable of this. But this insistence on proof or rather Proof gets old, Bob! 1+1=10 is not objective in the strong sense, because you can't see as observe that 1+1=10. Someone either has the cognition to understand this or not. Brain-scans BTW show this to be the case, people who can do and understand 1+1=10 use their brains differently than those who don't. So it is not universal that 1+1=2 because not all humans can do this, but it doesn't mean that those who can do it are humans and the other not. It just means that for all humans with a functional brain the brains are not universally the same. That has a name, Bob, it is called cognitive relativism and it doesn't mean that everything is relative. It means that some forms of understanding are relative to the different individuals and it also has another name, Bob - subjectivism. Relevant for the other thread unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/329/origins-libertarianism it has the effect that what makes property property is a case of cognitive relativism and thus a special interest case. It is the refutation of "I am objective", because we can down to A OR non-A and reduce property to e.g. individual or non-individual(but rather a collective contract), but whether you believe it to be individual or non-individual doesn't make it objective. It is not objective as independent of thinking because the idea of property requires a brain; there is nothing in a 100$ dollar bill that makes it yours, mine or anybody else's. Who owns the bill is not objective and how you, I or anybody else understand property is not without bias(i.e. special interest), because it is the choice between the relevant different choices(A OR non-A), but it doesn't make A objective and non-A subjective. Both individual or non-individual are cognitive choices and not without bias, because the subjective bias is to choose between individual or non-individual. Edit: PS - BTW as per ad hominem |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 14, 2013 11:05:21 GMT -5
And you know for sure that 1+1 equals 2? And forever will? Pray tell how you know that. 1+1=10 As far as I can tell, to do and understand 1+1=10 requires a brain capable of this. But this insistence on proof or rather Proof gets old, Bob! 1+1=10 is not objective in the strong sense, because you can't see as observe that 1+1=10. Someone either has the cognition to understand this or not. Brain-scans BTW show this to be the case, people who can do and understand 1+1=10 use their brains differently than those who don't. So it is not universal that 1+1=2 because not all humans can do this, but it doesn't mean that those who can do it are humans and the other not. It just means that for all humans with a functional brain the brains are not universally the same. That has a name, Bob, it is called cognitive relativism and it doesn't mean that everything is relative. It means that some forms of understanding are relative to the different individuals and it also has another name, Bob - subjectivism. Relevant for the other thread unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/329/origins-libertarianism it has the effect that what makes property property is a case of cognitive relativism and thus a special interest case. It is the refutation of "I am objective", because we can down to A OR non-A and reduce property to e.g. individual or non-individual(but rather a collective contract), but whether you believe it to be individual or non-individual doesn't make it objective. It is not objective as independent of thinking because the idea of property requires a brain; there is nothing in a 100$ dollar bill that makes it yours, mine or anybody else's. Who owns the bill is not objective and how you, I or anybody else understand property is not without bias(i.e. special interest), because it is the choice between the relevant different choices(A OR non-A), but it doesn't make A objective and non-A subjective. Both individual or non-individual are cognitive choices and not without bias, because the subjective bias is to choose between individual or non-individual. Edit: PS - BTW as per ad hominem As usual, Mikkel, you are claiming that your assertion that all knowledge is subjective is objectively true.  As for Doug Walton's claim, even if it were true, Teri would still have to argue that Friedman's actions were hypocritical or that his actions contradicted his words. Neither she nor the author she quoted have provided any such evidence. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 14, 2013 11:33:50 GMT -5
Truth can't be objective, Bob. Truth is a mental construct and not objective. You can't observe (as see) truth and you are biased(not objective) if you believe in truth. A case of special interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 14, 2013 11:47:09 GMT -5
Truth can't be objective, Bob. Truth is a mental construct and not objective. You can't observe (as see) truth and you are biased(not objective) if you believe in truth. A case of special interest.  If truth can't be objective, then your statement that "truth can't be objective" is not objective. That means it is just your unsupported opinion. So why should anyone believe you? Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 14, 2013 11:52:51 GMT -5
Truth can't be objective, Bob. Truth is a mental construct and not objective. You can't observe (as see) truth and you are biased(not objective) if you believe in truth. A case of special interest. If truth can't be objective, then your statement that "truth can't be objective" is not objective. That means it is just your unsupported opinion. So why should anyone believe you? Bob Marks Just as Objectivists, communists. libertarians, different religious people and so on believe each other. You can't explain how that is possible if only truth can be believed. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 14, 2013 12:06:06 GMT -5
If truth can't be objective, then your statement that "truth can't be objective" is not objective. That means it is just your unsupported opinion. So why should anyone believe you? Bob Marks Just as Objectivists, communists. libertarians, different religious people and so on believe each other. You can't explain how that is possible if only truth can be believed. Sure I can. It is also objectively true that people are fallible and can make mistakes. However, this does not "prove" that truth is not objective. BTW Mikkel, once again what you just said you are claiming is an objective truth that does not depend on what anyone thinks, feels, or believes. So once again you contradict yourself. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 14, 2013 12:15:22 GMT -5
Just as Objectivists, communists. libertarians, different religious people and so on believe each other. You can't explain how that is possible if only truth can be believed. Sure I can. It is also objectively true that people are fallible and can make mistakes. However, this does not "prove" that truth is not objective. BTW Mikkel, once again what you just said you are claiming is an objective truth that does not depend on what anyone thinks, feels, or believes. So once again you contradict yourself. Bob Marks You can't even read your own posts and understand them, Bob! You claimed it is not possible that one human can believe another human if it is not objective/true. I answered you that it must be the case because e.g. Objectivists, communists. libertarians, different religious people, atheists and so on can't all be objective/true, yet they believe each other within their respectively shared belief-system. You didn't answer my question, Bob! |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 14, 2013 12:31:10 GMT -5
Sure I can. It is also objectively true that people are fallible and can make mistakes. However, this does not "prove" that truth is not objective. BTW Mikkel, once again what you just said you are claiming is an objective truth that does not depend on what anyone thinks, feels, or believes. So once again you contradict yourself. Bob Marks You can't even read your own posts and understand them, Bob! You claimed it is not possible that one human can believe another human if it is not objective/true. I answered you that it must be the case because e.g. Objectivists, communists. libertarians, different religious people, atheists and so on can't all be objective/true, yet they believe each other within their respectively shared belief-system. You didn't answer my question, Bob! Ad Hominem. And I did not write that it is not possible for anyone to believe another human if it is not objective/true. What I did write is why should anyone believe you? First of all, that is a question, not a statement. Questions are neither true nor false. Secondly, if your statements are not objectively true, what reason would anyone have for believing you? Well Mikkel, what reason would they have? None that I can see. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 15, 2013 3:39:25 GMT -5
Bob, I don't believe in God and IFF we agree on it doesn't make sense to believe in God, it doesn't stop one human in convincing another human that God exists. But that doesn't stop here, e.g. property rights can't be e.g. individual and not individual(rather a collective belief). So for all those cases in effect where only one side can be "objective true" it doesn't stop the other side from spreading their ideas though they are not "objectively true".
Your problem is that you only believe that someone can believe in what you believe. You believe it is only possible to believe in something if you, Bob, can believe in it.
So since you believe in Objective Truth, you can't also not believe and thus you believe is not possible for someone to convince someone else of the belief that there is no Objective Truth. But you see, I learned to believe that there is no Objective Truth by debating in part with other humans who don't believe in Objective Truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 15, 2013 11:43:54 GMT -5
Bob, I don't believe in God and IFF we agree on it doesn't make sense to believe in God, it doesn't stop one human in convincing another human that God exists. But that doesn't stop here, e.g. property rights can't be e.g. individual and not individual(rather a collective belief). So for all those cases in effect where only one side can be "objective true" it doesn't stop the other side from spreading their ideas though they are not "objectively true". Your problem is that you only believe that someone can believe in what you believe. You believe it is only possible to believe in something if you, Bob, can believe in it. So since you believe in Objective Truth, you can't also not believe and thus you believe is not possible for someone to convince someone else of the belief that there is no Objective Truth. But you see, I learned to believe that there is no Objective Truth by debating in part with other humans who don't believe in Objective Truth. No Mikkel, I don't believe that people can only believe in what I believe. Obviously people believe in all sorts of things, both true and false. What I am claiming is people who have false beliefs have no logical basis for those beliefs. And yes, it is possible for someone who hols false beliefs to convince some other people that these beliefs are true. It happens all the time. Just look at politics. But that does not make these beliefs true. Teri falsely believes that an ad hominem attack demonstrates that Milton Friedman's economic theories are false, even though they resoundingly right on in predicting the stagflation of the 1970's. By the same token, had Friedman said that the Sun rises in the morning and sets at night, that claim would also have been false. Bob Marks |
|
If truth can't be objective, then your statement that "truth can't be objective" is not objective. That means it is just your unsupported opinion. So why should anyone believe you?