Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 19:28:40 GMT -5
The objective reality you claim your opinions are based on is an assumed reality.
The assumption is that all our current true statements about reality are correct and will continue to be correct in the indefinite future.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 16, 2018 19:58:32 GMT -5
How are Rorty's words objective reality? You just argued that he is wrong. Yes, Rorty is wrong. But the words he wrote really exist. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 16, 2018 20:00:37 GMT -5
The objective reality you claim your opinions are based on is an assumed reality. Is that an objective fact? Are you saying that if no one made any statements about the Atlantic Ocean, it wouldn't exist? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:02:48 GMT -5
How are Rorty's words objective reality? You just argued that he is wrong. Yes, Rorty is wrong. But the words he wrote really exist. Bob Their meaning only exists in your head. Your thoughts are not an objective reality - they are inherently and necessarily subjective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 9:07:58 GMT -5
The objective reality you claim your opinions are based on is an assumed reality. Is that an objective fact? Are you saying that if no one made any statements about the Atlantic Ocean, it wouldn't exist? Bob I'm saying that there is no way to know whether anything we know to exist actually exists in the exact way we believe it does, nor is there a way to know whether any of our explanation for the phenomena we experience is correct. We can only ever achieve explanations that appear plausible at the moment, given our current state of knowledge. Therefore, it is a skeptic's responsibility to examine their knowledge from as many points of view as they can. That's why I'm a postmodernist - because the idea that there is a single correct interpretation for anything and everything is too implausible given my current state of knowledge. You are of a different opinion. That's fine. I just don't and can't agree with you on this fundamental level, and I actually believe that most our differences here originate from this fundamental divide.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 24, 2018 18:35:11 GMT -5
Is that an objective fact? Are you saying that if no one made any statements about the Atlantic Ocean, it wouldn't exist? Bob I'm saying that there is no way to know whether anything we know to exist actually exists in the exact way we believe it does,... Why should that be a standard for knowledge? Ans why is that even necessary? Then you can't know if the claim you just made is correct either. Searle had an answer for that. He said: "A philosopher goes to his computer, makes plane and hotel reservations, travels thousands of miles, takes a cab to a hotel, registers, and then goes to a meeting to give a lecture where he says 'We can't know anything.' It's laughable." That I agree with! In fact, that is why I participate in this board. I think we can be sure that the Nazi interpretation of the world is both false and evil, can't we? If you agree with me that the Nazi view is both false and evil, then we are not of different opinions, are we? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:37:28 GMT -5
Okay Bob, you've convinced me that my opinion is absolute certain truth. Therefore, I can be absolutely certain that I am always right.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 25, 2018 14:15:06 GMT -5
Okay Bob, you've convinced me that my opinion is absolute certain truth. Therefore, I can be absolutely certain that I am always right. Fine! Now please state your case as to why this is so. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 6:57:38 GMT -5
Oh, there is the theoretical possibility that I could be wrong.
But I am of course correct.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 26, 2018 16:03:02 GMT -5
Oh, there is the theoretical possibility that I could be wrong. But I am of course correct. Any supporting evidence for that claim? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 11:38:10 GMT -5
You first.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 29, 2018 18:35:11 GMT -5
There have been absolutely no reports of anyone being "traumatized" by that picture. I, however, have been traumatized by your panda picture logo. The fact that no one else is complaining about it is irrelevant. You must put up a warning statement before every one of your posts just in case there is someone else out there who is traumatized by panda photos. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 14:18:34 GMT -5
So why exactly are your claims objective truth, and will remain so in the indefinite future?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 30, 2018 16:20:40 GMT -5
So why exactly are your claims objective truth, and will remain so in the indefinite future? Find me a bunch of people who were actually traumatized by looking at that photograph and I will admit that my claims were wrong. You still didn't get rid of your panda logo and I am severely traumatized every time I see it. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 22:21:31 GMT -5
So the reason is your refusal to answer questions? Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 30, 2018 23:29:46 GMT -5
So the reason is your refusal to answer questions? Interesting. Complex Question Fallacy. For some reason you seem to think that this error in logic is a valid argument. Interesting. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 20:23:15 GMT -5
You still haven't put up any evidence why your claims will always remain true.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 2, 2018 22:14:27 GMT -5
You still haven't put up any evidence why your claims will always remain true. I never said that my claims will always remain true. You made that up. However, you can always prove I'm wrong here by simply quoting what I actually said. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 11:31:03 GMT -5
If you don't know whether anything you claim will be upheld as true in the near future, then how can you claim objective truth?
If your opinions really were corresponding to objective reality, they would always be true, right?
So in order to claim that you are objectively correct, you need to know whether they will be disproven in the future.
If you don't know that, then your claims to objective truth are not fully supported by evidence, and therefore invalid.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2018 13:37:16 GMT -5
If you don't know whether anything you claim will be upheld as true in the near future, then how can you claim objective truth? Complex Question Fallacy. People are fallible. From this fact, it does not follow that there is no objective world that does not depend on our opinions. In fact, if there were no objective world, you couldn't make your claim at all. Except that people are fallible (easily observed objective fact). Not at all. What you are talking about here is not objective knowledge. You are describing "omniscience." Since I never claimed omniscience, your claim here is a Strawman. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 18:22:47 GMT -5
Objective knowledge is knowledge that corresponds to an objective reality.
How do you know with certainty that your knowledge corresponds to objective reality?
If you believe yourself fallible, then so is your knowledge.
If your knowledge is fallible, then you can't actually know for certain whether any of it corresponds to objective reality.
And from the idea that there is an objective world, you cannot conclude that any of your claims about it are correct. You have to test those claims.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2018 21:11:38 GMT -5
Objective knowledge is knowledge that corresponds to an objective reality. True. LOL! You yourself have to assume certainty to even ask that question. The concepts of knowledge, correspondence, and reality are not possible without certainty. Non Sequitur. From the fact that humans can be fallible, it does not follow that all of their knowledge is fallible. From the fact that some of our knowledge is fallible, it does not follow that all of it is fallible. If there is no objective world, against what are you going to test those claims? Argumentum ad Futuris. "In its basic form, the ad futuris is an appeal to potential future evidence, culminating in the claim that this evidence will both vindicate the truth of some proposition p and show the falsity of p's negation." footnotesplato.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-argumentum-ad-futuris-or-appeal-to.htmlBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2018 8:12:58 GMT -5
So the term "fallible" is meaningless, because all knowledge is certain.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 7, 2018 11:09:05 GMT -5
So the term "fallible" is meaningless, because all knowledge is certain. When did I ever say that all knowledge is certain? It would be easier to discuss things with you if you would talk about what I actually said instead of making up things I never said. Perhaps there is another Bob Marks on another Board who says these things and you are simply mixing us up? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 20:12:53 GMT -5
You just dismissed the possibility of future evidence as fallacious. Therefore, what is currently considered true based on current evidence cannot be refuted. So whatever we currently consider true based on current evidence cannot be false at any point because we cannot consider the possibility of future refutation or future evidence.
Whatever is true cannot be proven not true because current evidence says it is true, and we can only consider current evidence.
Your appeal to fallibility is meaningless because it is impossible for any true statement to be proven faulty.
Since it is impossible to prove a true statement faulty, there is no actual fallibility. Whatever is objectively true, is certainly true.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2018 22:33:34 GMT -5
You just dismissed the possibility of future evidence as fallacious. Me? I didn't dismiss it. All I did is point out that your claim is a recognized fallacy. To say that something is false because it might be disproved in the future is merely an admission that you don't have any evidence to disprove it right now. Non Sequitur. Your first premise is a Fallacy so your conclusion does not follow. Since your first premise is a Fallacy, none of the conclusions you derive from it can be true. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 17:22:32 GMT -5
How is it possible to disprove true statements?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 9, 2018 17:47:13 GMT -5
How is it possible to disprove true statements? Are you asking a general question or do you have some specific true statements in mind? Are there any true statements you want to disprove? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 21:50:48 GMT -5
I ask whether it is possible at all given your premises.
Remember, we cannot assume any future evidence that would disprove current facts, because that would be a fallacy.
So how could we disprove existing true statements without new evidence? That sounds to me like a contradiction in itself.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2018 22:32:13 GMT -5
I ask whether it is possible at all given your premises. Remember, we cannot assume any future evidence that would disprove current facts, because that would be a fallacy. So how could we disprove existing true statements without new evidence? That sounds to me like a contradiction in itself. What do you think? Remember that old trick that children played on each other? "I'll give you a penny tomorrow!"? When the next day arrived, the prankster would say that they couldn't pay because it was now today and tomorrow never comes. That is the sort of thing you are doing here. When the future arrives, it becomes today. No evidence can be presented in the "future." Evidence can only be presented in the present. Evidence in the "future" cannot be examined. Therefore it is not evidence. Bob
|
|