|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2019 11:08:13 GMT -5
I think you might get a lot of arguments from scientists on that one. Scientific studies stand a much better chance of producing valid results. I'm certain that most scientists would agree with me that "wrong" and "invalid" are not synonyms. But the Cambridge Dictionary doesn't. "Wrong" is the first word they list as a synonym for "invalid." dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/invalidNever said that, never implied that, never believed that. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 16:30:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2019 18:25:01 GMT -5
Well since you were the one who wrote: "I'm certain that most scientists would agree with me that "wrong" and "invalid" are not synonyms", how were YOU using invalid?" At least you gave yourself a big list to choose from. I think so. What you are doing here is confusing the principles of a system with the results of applying those principles. The principles of science and scientific procedure are always correct. But since humans are fallible, sometimes they make mistakes in applying those principles. It's the same with Objectivism. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 11:31:09 GMT -5
What you are doing here is confusing the principles of a system with the results of applying those principles. The principles of science and scientific procedure are always correct. But since humans are fallible, sometimes they make mistakes in applying those principles. Fallible humans came up with the always-correct principles of science, always-correct scientific procedures, and always-correct Objectivism, did they not?
From that premise, it follows that even if they are fallible, humans can be always-correct in their reasoning. After all, "fallible" only means that I could conceivably be wrong, not that I am actually wrong. Therefore, it is possible for a human being to always be correct about everything, like the people who came up with science, or Ayn Rand.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2019 14:23:56 GMT -5
What you are doing here is confusing the principles of a system with the results of applying those principles. The principles of science and scientific procedure are always correct. But since humans are fallible, sometimes they make mistakes in applying those principles. Fallible humans came up with the always-correct principles of science, always-correct scientific procedures, and always-correct Objectivism, did they not? "Always correct" as far as we know. No it doesn't. What you are doing here is confusing the validity of the procedures with the validity of results. Scientific procedure is the best way we know of to achieve valid results. Do you deny this? Non Sequitur. Where is the Middle Term of your Syllogism? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 13:11:18 GMT -5
Non Sequitur. Where is the Middle Term of your Syllogism? Bob The Middle Term is that Objectivism is always correct. Since Objectivism is always correct, and it was discovered by Ayn Rand, it must be possible for a human mind to reveal a system that is always correct. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 23, 2019 14:10:19 GMT -5
Non Sequitur. Where is the Middle Term of your Syllogism? Bob The Middle Term is that Objectivism is always correct. Since Objectivism is always correct, and it was discovered by Ayn Rand, it must be possible for a human mind to reveal a system that is always correct. Do you disagree?
People can make claims that are correct or incorrect. But Objectivism is a philosophy. Philosophies make no claims by themselves. Only people can.
Could you please re-word your text to make it more understandable.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 21:27:57 GMT -5
Objectivism is a system of claims that are all correct, therefore Objectivism is always correct, therefore human beings can create systems that are always correct i.e. perfect.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 23, 2019 22:25:47 GMT -5
Objectivism is a system of claims that are all correct, therefore Objectivism is always correct, therefore human beings can create systems that are always correct i.e. perfect. Objectivism is a system of claims that as far as we know are correct. From this it does not follow that Objectivism is always correct. It is possible that some of the claims of Objectivism are incorrect, but we are unaware of it at this time due to the incompleteness of our knowledge. Therefore your conclusion does not follow. Human beings can create systems that are always correct for a particular level of knowledge. If new knowledge is discovered that does not fit into the context of older knowledge, then the knowledge based has to be modified to be consistent with the new discoveries. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 2:18:52 GMT -5
How can you know that your knowledge is incomplete if your knowledge is incomplete? Does that mean you could be wrong about your knowledge being incomplete?
What happens when you are confronted with a position that contradicts your incomplete knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 24, 2019 16:42:25 GMT -5
How can you know that your knowledge is incomplete if your knowledge is incomplete? Does that mean you could be wrong about your knowledge being incomplete? That's an easy one. Just about everyone knows that their knowledge is incomplete. If you don't believe this, then give me a complete explanation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in Chinese. If you are in a situation that contradicts your incomplete knowledge, then you gather more information until you are able to rectify the contradiction. That's normal Scientific Procedure. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 14:48:58 GMT -5
How can you know that your knowledge is incomplete if your knowledge is incomplete? Does that mean you could be wrong about your knowledge being incomplete? That's an easy one. Just about everyone knows that their knowledge is incomplete. Does that mean you have complete knowledge of everyone's incomplete knowledge? If you are in a situation that contradicts your incomplete knowledge, then you gather more information until you are able to rectify the contradiction. That's normal Scientific Procedure. Bob You are basing all these claims on incomplete knowledge, do you not? How would you know the full extent on what information is out there when you only have incomplete knowledge of that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 1:55:54 GMT -5
Well?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2019 13:06:26 GMT -5
That's an easy one. Just about everyone knows that their knowledge is incomplete. Does that mean you have complete knowledge of everyone's incomplete knowledge? Actually, yes. I do. The human brain is very finite. It can hold only so-much information. Therefore it is impossible for any brain to hold complete knowledge. That's easy. From what we already know, the amount of information out there is immense, far beyond the capacity of any human brain to hold. Therefore we have to proceed one step at a time. Our knowledge is considered valid until we discover something that contradicts it. Then we have to work to gather more information and resolve the contradiction. A contradiction is simply and indication that an error has been made. We then have to do more research until the contradiction is resolved. Bob
|
|