Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 22:34:06 GMT -5
Exactly. So it is impossible to disprove existing facts.
Therefore the fallibility of objective knowledge is entirely fictional.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2018 22:59:14 GMT -5
Exactly. So it is impossible to disprove existing facts. Therefore the fallibility of objective knowledge is entirely fictional. Non Sequitur. Statements have to be proved or disproved today with evidence that is available today. This has been done you know. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 17:33:35 GMT -5
And if they have been proven with evidence that is available today, then they are absolutely certain fact, because we cannot assume that there will ever be evidence to disprove our existing knowledge.
Therefore, knowledge that has been proven to be correct is infallible.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2018 18:44:47 GMT -5
And if they have been proven with evidence that is available today, then they are absolutely certain fact, because we cannot assume that there will ever be evidence to disprove our existing knowledge. True! Would you eat poison today because someday in the future there might be a cure? Non Sequitur. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 12:16:49 GMT -5
Knowledge that has been proven to be true with evidence available today cannot be disproven.
Knowledge that cannot be disproven is infallible.
QED.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 16, 2018 14:09:29 GMT -5
Knowledge that has been proven to be true with evidence available today cannot be disproven. That is true with the evidence available today. Yes. Infallible TODAY. Non Sequitur. You said "infallible." You neglected to say "infallible today. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 12:08:27 GMT -5
Knowledge that has been proven to be true with evidence available today cannot be disproven. That is true with the evidence available today. Yes. Infallible TODAY. Non Sequitur. You said "infallible." You neglected to say "infallible today. Bob It is a fallacy to assume that it will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, infallible today is infallible forever.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2018 16:33:35 GMT -5
That is true with the evidence available today. Yes. Infallible TODAY. Non Sequitur. You said "infallible." You neglected to say "infallible today. Bob It is a fallacy to assume that it will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, infallible today is infallible forever. Wrong. I never said that. It would be nice if you discussed things I actually said every now and then. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2018 16:37:12 GMT -5
It is a fallacy to assume that it will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, infallible today is infallible forever. Wrong. I never said that. It would be nice if you discussed things I actually said every now and then. Bob And here are two things that are Absolutely True. There is an external world that exists regardless of what anyone thinks about it. You are aware of that world. Try refuting them. Good luck. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2018 14:20:50 GMT -5
It is a fallacy to assume that it will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, infallible today is infallible forever. Wrong. I never said that. It would be nice if you discussed things I actually said every now and then. Bob Yes, let us discuss the things you said: As you said, is a fallacy to assume that what we currently consider true will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, what is true today is true forever.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 19, 2018 14:36:10 GMT -5
Wrong. I never said that. It would be nice if you discussed things I actually said every now and then. Bob Yes, let us discuss the things you said: As you said, is a fallacy to assume that what we currently consider true will be disproven by future evidence. Therefore, what is true today is true forever. Your conclusion is a Non Sequitur. It is a fallacy to assume that what is considered true today will be disproved by future evidence because that future evidence is non-existent today. You cannot disprove anything with non-existent evidence, can you? But it is possible that future evidence can disprove what we consider today to be true. Possibility, however, is not certainty. Therefore your conclusion does not follow. In fact, you are again committing the Ad Futuris Fallacy since you are assuming no evidence will ever be found in the future under any circumstances. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 14:43:00 GMT -5
So if your believe your knowledge to be certain (i.e. not subject to being disproved at any time in the future) then it is you who is committing the fallacy by assuming that no future evidence could disprove your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2018 20:11:57 GMT -5
So if your believe your knowledge to be certain (i.e. not subject to being disproved at any time in the future) then it is you who is committing the fallacy by assuming that no future evidence could disprove your knowledge. Where did I say that? I didn't. I said that knowledge cannot be disproved in the present if there is no contrary evidence. You're the one mentioning the future. I also mentioned that there is an objectively existing world that exists no matter what anyone thinks of it. This is absolutely certain. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 10:19:14 GMT -5
So if your believe your knowledge to be certain (i.e. not subject to being disproved at any time in the future) then it is you who is committing the fallacy by assuming that no future evidence could disprove your knowledge. Where did I say that? I didn't. I said that knowledge cannot be disproved in the present if there is no contrary evidence. You're the one mentioning the future. And if there can be no contrary evidence, then that knowledge is infallible. Agreed. But it does not follow that anybody's knowledge of that world is absolutely certain. In fact, it does not even follow that we have any sort of knowledge of an objectively existing world at all, beyond the fact of its existence. It's the Cartesian problem in reverse. From the fact that the world exists, we cannot derive any theories about its form, nature, internal or external qualities. And as the Cartesian problem shows, you cannot derive empirical certainty from axiomatic certainty. Cogito Ergo Sum tells us nothing about ourselves besides the fact of our existence, and your axiom of an objective world likewise does not allow us to derive any empirical data from the world as certain (and therefore, objective fact). Unlike your axioms, empirical data rests on the unsteady foundation of subjective perspective, subjective senses, and subjective understanding of the world. This is the problem with all empirical data, you have to accept a degree of uncertainty as a given.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2018 12:53:42 GMT -5
Where did I say that? I didn't. I said that knowledge cannot be disproved in the present if there is no contrary evidence. You're the one mentioning the future. And if there can be no contrary evidence, then that knowledge is infallible. I didn't say there can't be contrary evidence. I said that there is no contrary evidence. Therefore the knowledge is not infallible. What you seem to be saying is that we can't know anything at all because there may possibly new knowledge discovered in the future (which is a Fallacy, of course). But how do you know that? It is just as possible that no such future knowledge exists, isn't it? Okay. You said that "it does not even follow that we have any sort of knowledge of an objectively existing world at all, beyond the fact of its existence." Let's just take three words from that sentence: we, knowledge, and fact. If we don't have any sort of knowledge, then where did you get these concepts? If you don't have any sort of knowledge, then how do you know that there is any "we?" In fact, how do you even know that there is any such thing as "knowledge?" How can you be aware of any such thing as "facts?" In short, if you don't have any knowledge, that sentence of yours is incoherent. The words that you used, we, knowledge, and fact, show that we do have plenty of knowledge of this objectively existing world. After all, if we didn't have any knowledge, where did the concept of knowledge come from? And how exactly did we ever find out that there are such things as "facts?" In other words, your attempt to cast doubt on our knowledge of the objective world cannot even be asserted witout assuming that we quite a lot of knowledge indeed! And where did you get the idea that "empirical data rests on the unsteady foundation of subjective perspective perspective, subjective senses, and subjective understanding of the world?" First of all, in that sentence you are claiming to give an objective account of a fact about the world. That contradicts your own claim though! Your claim itself must be subjective. If it is, then why should anyone believe it? After all, by your own admission, it is not backed up by objective fact. You were depending on scientific devices to make your post. There is nothing subjective about your computer or the internet. They are based on objective scientific principles. In other words, your very actions contradicted your statements as soon as you made your post! Bob
|
|