Turd you're being called out- Tautology

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 02:09 AM

This Originally Appeared in "Obama is White" thread. As you can guess Turd chose not to respond. Attempt #2 to make turd back up his bullshit:

Originally Posted by TurdTenderloin

Do you know what a tautology is?

Look it up moron.

A tautology is the logical fallacy that you just engaged in.

Basically you just said science is true because it is true. What you have said is really nothing.

People who are dense and dull usually fall into this logical fallacy. Also, people who haven't studied logic or rhetoric usually make these kind of fallacious statements all the time.

Oh this is ON!

I was gonna stay out of this thread but then I sawr this.

"a tautology is a logical fallacy"

Okay let's go. Everyone else, just go look at porn or something cause you're not gonna understand this debate.

A tautology if I'm not mistaken (and too lazy to google) is a system of knowledge correct...sorry..bad example, a system of ascertaining what is true is more appropriate verbage.

Well you say it's a fallacy. Okay, so first let's define what is "True".

I'll submit that "True" is an adjective we use indicate that a certain arguement functions saliently in a closed system.

Ex 1. In the closed Mathamtical system 1+3 = 4 is an arguement that works within the prescribed limits. It is "True".

Ex 2. If I were to say Melvin Manhoef is the UFC Heavyweight Champ. Well we know what the UFC is, we know what the Heavyweight Champ is, we know it's Brock Lesnar and NOT Manhoef. So that arguement/statement is "False"

Would you agree? Yes or No?

Now if a tautology is a fallacy then the word "true" has no meaning. An overall universal scientific tautology may have problems, but Tautology itself is a necessary function of not only truth but all knowledge.

Without Tautology there is no knowledge, no useful data, no logic and no theory.

Would you agree? Yes or No?

Diego Sanchez · 02-10-2010, 07:03 AM

Turd is a retard, he seriously has the audacity to hold religion over scientific facts because he is a piece of shit.

padow1 · 02-10-2010, 07:07 AM

Your not going to get anywhere with this... Turd will argue semantics the whole time never actually getting to a point. He will come up with some dumb ass response about the actually definition of some word or what is logic. You cannot debate with someone that bases the whole arguement on a 2000 year old book and says anything that disagrees with it is wrong. Good luck though

TurdTenderloin · 02-10-2010, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by milesteg

This Originally Appeared in "Obama is White" thread. As you can guess Turd chose not to respond. Attempt #2 to make turd back up his bullshit:

Oh this is ON!

I was gonna stay out of this thread but then I sawr this.

"a tautology is a logical fallacy"

Okay let's go. Everyone else, just go look at porn or something cause you're not gonna understand this debate.

A tautology if I'm not mistaken (and too lazy to google) is a system of knowledge correct...sorry..bad example, a system of ascertaining what is true is more appropriate verbage.

No Miles. A tautology is:

"In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages). It is often regarded or thought of as a fault of style and was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

Your claim that atheism is true "by nature" was nothing more than a tautology.

You didn't prove anything, you just asserted your unproven assertion in a different way.

Tautologies are logical fallacies, because they merely re-assert your unproven assertions in a different way and draw attention away from the fact that you are not answering the question that is before you.

If you make the claim that atheism is true by default (because you just assert and re-assert over and over again that atheism is the "natural" state of the mind") then we are going to need some arguments as to why this is the case.

I am waiting for the arguments, not just uninterrupted series of tautologies.

Well you say it's a fallacy. Okay, so first let's define what is "True".

I'll submit that "True" is an adjective we use indicate that a certain arguement functions saliently in a closed system.

Ex 1. In the closed Mathamtical system 1+3 = 4 is an arguement that works within the prescribed limits. It is "True".

Ex 2. If I were to say Melvin Manhoef is the UFC Heavyweight Champ. Well we know what the UFC is, we know what the Heavyweight Champ is, we know it's Brock Lesnar and NOT Manhoef. So that arguement/statement is "False"

Would you agree? Yes or No?

No.

How do "we know" things?

This is what I keep asking and asking for you to show.

You just used two instances of empiricism. Please prove that empiricism (or sense perception) is not only reliable but able to give us knowledge.

Please show that inductive reasoning is not fallacious.

Secondly how do you know that knowledge is restricted to your senses? How do you prove a claim like this?

Now if a tautology is a fallacy then the word "true" has no meaning. An overall universal scientific tautology may have problems, but Tautology itself is a necessary function of not only truth but all knowledge.

Without Tautology there is no knowledge, no useful data, no logic and no theory.

Would you agree? Yes or No?

No.

Tautologies are merely re-statements of your unproven assertions, as I just showed you above.

**kittycollar** · 02-10-2010, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by TurdTenderloin

Please prove that empiricism (or sense perception) is not only reliable but able to give us knowledge.

Are you seriously going to argue that we are not able to get any knowledge from it?

TurdTenderloin · 02-10-2010, 09:27 AM

kittycollar,

I'm not ignoring your question, but I am busy today and it is much easier to have this conversation with one person who has at least a faint knowledge of induction and empiricism.

Sorry.

But to answer your question very quickly: yes. Empiricism and inductive reasoning is fallacious. No number of observation reports can bring down the conclusion that something is true. Also, it is begging the question to attempt to prove the uniformity of nature by past observation reports (or arguing that there can by types of events).

But I am busy and I think everybody would benefit from the discussion a little bit more if 2 people who were knoweldgable about the issues would go at it.

Sorry

Andy Wang · 02-10-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by TurdTenderloin

kittycollar,

I'm not ignoring your question, but I am busy today and it is much easier to have this conversation with one person who has at least a faint knowledge of induction and empiricism.

Sorry.

But to answer your question very quickly: yes. Empiricism and inductive reasoning is fallacious. No number of observation reports can bring down the conclusion that something is true. Also, it is begging the question to attempt to prove the uniformity of nature by past observation reports (or arguing that there can by types of events).

But I am busy and I think everybody would benefit from the discussion a little bit more if 2 people who were knoweldgable about the issues would go at it.

Sorry

Biggest twat on cameldog

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by TurdTenderloin

No Miles. A tautology is:

"In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages). It is often regarded or thought of as a fault of style and was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice."

Tautology (rhetoric) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See that little parenthesis after Tautology in the link? Yeah that means there are two definitions of the same term. I obviously expected you mean Logical Tautology as it fit within the context and rhetorical tautology does not, at least on the surface.

Luckily for us the crux of our debate lies in empiricism and not tautology so this double entendre doesn't shut us down.

Your claim that atheism is true "by nature" was nothing more than a tautology.

STRAWMAN ALERT! No turd, I did't say athiesm was "true" by nature or otherwise. If you MUST return to that I simply said that athiesm was the natural state of the human mind. We are ALL born athiests until someone with a religious education comes to us and explains the concept of God.

This by no means makes athiesm a necessary "truth" it just denies that athiesm is a "belief" or a "worldview" or a "faith".

You didn't prove anything, you just asserted your unproven assertion in a different way.

See, this is why I used the Socratic dialectic, I ask yes or no questions, you give yes or no answers and we discuss if there's a disagreeement.

Tautologies are logical fallacies, because they merely re-assert your unproven assertions in a different way and draw attention away from the fact that you are not answering the question that is before you.

Well you'd know but again I was referring to the logical tautology, IE the process by which we know something to be true.

Of COURSE no one is going to argue that re-stating the same point in different language is a method to discovering truth, however sometimes it is necessary for the purposes of communication.(but don't go down that road we're pretty much in agreement there.

If you make the claim that atheism is true by default (because you just assert and re-assert over and over again that atheism is the "natural" state of the mind") then we are going to need some arguments as to why this is the case.

It's a damn good thing I don't claim that. I don't even claim athiesm is true. I merely claim that Athiesm is the most salient of all human belief/non-belief systems out there. AKA Athiesm has a much higher probability of being true than ANY religion.

I am waiting for the arguments, not just uninterrupted series of tautologies.

Arguements were in the post asshole.

Originally Posted by MilesTeg

Well you say it's a fallacy. Okay, so first let's define what is "True".

I'll submit that "True" is an adjective we use indicate that a certain arguement functions saliently in a closed system.

Ex 1. In the closed Mathamtical system 1+3 = 4 is an arguement that works within the prescribed limits. It is "True".

Ex 2. If I were to say Melvin Manhoef is the UFC Heavyweight Champ. Well we know what the UFC is, we know what the Heavyweight Champ is, we know it's Brock Lesnar and NOT Manhoef. So that arguement/statement is "False"

Would you agree? Yes or No?

No.

So it's NOT true to say "1+3=4" and "Melvin Manhoef is NOT the UFC HW champ?"

How do "we know" things?

Empiricism.

This what I keep asking and asking for you to show.

You just used two instances of empiricism. Please prove that empiricism (or sense perception) is not only reliable but able to give us knowledge.

I guess someone's never read Plato, which means someone never took philosophy 101 which calls into question how someone came across the philosophical lessons he has had....

Here's some deductive reasoning for you to prove that empiricism is the only reliable way to give us knowledge.

What are the POSSIBLE ways we could come to knowledge? Empiricism, Psychic Messages, Guessing, Divine Intervention, Apriori.

Let's work backwords. No apriori, the evidence doesn't bear out that we know anything by nature.

Divine intervention? God tells ppl things all the time, "the world is ending" "there's gonna be a volcano in manhattan" "believe in books". None of it ever shows itself to be valid.

Guessing. Well at BEST uninformed guessing gives us about a 50% accuracy rating, that's no good.

Psychics? There has been a million dollar prize up for grabs for 22 years for ANYONE who can demonstrate any psychic or supernatural power...it goes unclaimed and for good reason.

Empiricism, sense experience. Well, everything I know and all reliable knowledge I've come across has been garnered by empricism. If you want 99% success you MUST go with empiricism.

Now forgive me for this indulgence but let's for the purposes of conversation not go into how one learns or knows a language. However if someone says "what's in this box."

How do we find out? We LOOK in the box, we SMELL the box, we do one of a thousand other things that put the contents of that box in range of our senses. Our senses take in data and our brains compile that data into knowledge.

We have no knowledge without this sense experience. Our very definition of "knowledge" requires a phenomenon that interacts with our senses.

Please show that inductive reasoning is not fallacious.

Why? It is. That's why I am madly in love with deductive reasoning.

INDUCTIVE reasoning has it's uses, for hypothesis and theories but if we want FACTS, we better use deductive.

Secondly how do you know that knowledge is restricted to your senses? How do you prove a claim like this?

Simple to explain, proof requires a level of understanding not possessed by human beings at this point. But I'm a cartesan(for or less) I believe that the ONLY thing I know is "Cogito Ergo Sum," "I think therefore I am."

There is no "proof" in this universe outside of that for me. HOWEVER like i said earlier, there ARE theories, understandings, ideas and so forth that are far more salient than others.

But every form of knowledge is an arguement, a boolean "If...Then" statement. "If I haven't been lied to and if there's not a problem with my eyes and brain and if words mean what they're purported to mean THEN firetrucks are red"

For the purposes of communication we usually drop all the preamble and just say "firetrucks are red"

But really that's just a theory contingent on several other things being true. This is pragmatism.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Now if a tautology is a fallacy then the word "true" has no meaning. An overall universal scientific tautology may have problems, but Tautology itself is a necessary function of not only truth but all knowledge.

Without Tautology there is no knowledge, no useful data, no logic and no theory.

Would you agree? Yes or No?

No.

Tautologies are merely re-statements of your unproven assertions, as I just showed you above.

I'm sure by now you understand my use of tautology is not yours.

Do you still disagree?

TurdTenderloin · 02-10-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by milesteg

See that little parenthesis after Tautology in the link? Yeah that means there are two definitions of the same term. I obviously expected you mean Logical Tautology as it fit within the context and rhetorical tautology does not, at least on the surface.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Luckily for us the crux of our debate lies in empiricism and not tautology so this double entendre doesn't shut us down.

I don't know what you mean. But I'll read on.

STRAWMAN ALERT! No turd, I did't say athiesm was "true" by nature or otherwise.

Yes you did. In fact you are going to say it again in the next sentence (without any argumentation...another tautology):

If you MUST return to that I simply said that athiesm was the natural state of the human mind. We are ALL born athiests until someone with a religious education comes to us and explains the concept of God.

What is the proof that we are born atheists? I'll wait to hear your arguments about this.

This by no means makes athiesm a necessary "truth" it just denies that athiesm is a "belief" or a "worldview" or a "faith".

I'll wait for you to try to prove that we are all natural atheists before I accept what you say it implies.

See, this is why I used the Socratic dialectic, I ask yes or no questions, you give yes or no answers and we discuss if there's a disagreeement.

Hmmmm....okay.

Well you'd know but again I was referring to the logical tautology, IE the process by which we know something to be true.

Hmmmm....

Of COURSE no one is going to argue that re-stating the same point in different language is a method to discovering truth, however sometimes it is necessary for the purposes of communication.(but don't go down that road we're pretty much in agreement there.

Don't know what you are talking about but I will read on.

It's a damn good thing I don't claim that. I don't even claim athiesm is true. I merely claim that Athiesm is the most salient of all human belief/non-belief systems out there. AKA Athiesm has a much higher probability of being true than ANY religion.

Probability? Probablity is inductive.

Why are you using inductive reasoning when later on in this post you agree with me that it is fallacious?

Do you know what you are talking about?

Arguements were in the post asshole.

No they weren't. Assertion after unproven assertion was in your post.

So it's NOT true to say "1+3=4" and "Melvin Manhoef is NOT the UFC HW champ?"

Based on what? Your senses? I am still waiting for you to justify empiricism.

But the next answer is coming and it is just ANOTHER assertion without any arguments.

Empiricism.

.......

I guess someone's never read Plato, which means someone never took philosophy 101 which calls into question how someone came across the philosophical lessons he has had....

......

Here's some deductive reasoning for you to prove that empiricism is the only reliable way to give us knowledge.

Deduced from what Miles? How can you sense a deduction?

What are the POSSIBLE ways we could come to knowledge? Empiricism, Psychic Messages, Guessing, Divine Intervention, Apriori.

How can you "deduce" possibility from sense experience????

How do you "sense" possiblity? Does it taste like a banana or look green?

This makes me understand that you don't know what you're talking about Miles.

Have you "sensed" every possible instance of a way to get knowledge? If you haven't sensed it, how do you know what is "possible"?

Let's work backwords. No apriori, the evidence doesn't bear out that we know anything by nature.

Another assertion without any argument. Are we all supposed to just take your word that "the evidence" does not bear out that we know anything a priori?

What are you saying then? Are you saying that we know things based on a posterori lines of justification?

Do you know the difference Miles?

Divine intervention? God tells ppl things all the time, "the world is ending" "there's gonna be a volcano in manhattan" "believe in books". None of it ever shows itself to be valid.

Guessing. Well at BEST uninformed guessing gives us about a 50% accuracy rating, that's no good.

Psychics? There has been a million dollar prize up for grabs for 22 years for ANYONE who can demonstrate any psychic or supernatural power...it goes unclaimed and for good reason.

Empiricism, sense experience. Well, everything I know and all reliable knowledge I've come across has been garnered by empricism. If you want 99% success you MUST go with empiricism.

How do you know that what you know is reliable?

Are you saying the "scientific method" gives us knowledge? Do you know that the "scientific" method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

If X is true, then Y is true.
Y is true.
Therefore, X is true.

This is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X. To repeat experiments is only to repeat this fallacious procedure over and over again.

So, again, how is empricism justified?

Now forgive me for this indulgence but let's for the purposes of conversation not go into how one learns or knows a language. However if someone says "what's in this box."

How do we find out? We LOOK in the box, we SMELL the box, we do one of a thousand other things that put the contents of that box in range of our senses. Our senses take in data and our brains compile that data into knowledge.

How do you know this? Show it.

We have no knowledge without this sense experience. Our very definition of "knowledge" requires a phenomenon that interacts with our senses.

How do you know this? Show it.

INDUCTIVE reasoning has it's uses, for hypothesis and theories but if we want FACTS, we better use deductive.

I'll read on....

Simple to explain, proof requires a level of understanding not possessed by human beings at this point. But I'm a cartesan(for or less) I believe that the ONLY thing I know is "Cogito Ergo Sum," "I think therefore I am."

How do you know this? Show it.

There is no "proof" in this universe outside of that for me. HOWEVER like i said earlier, there ARE theories, understandings, ideas and so forth that are far more salient than others.

How do you know this? Did you sense it? Did you sense that there are no proofs outside of you knowing yourself? How can you sense a non-proof?

But every form of knowledge is an arguement, a boolean "If...Then" statement. "If I haven't been lied to and if there's not a problem with my eyes and brain and if words mean what they're purported to mean THEN firetrucks are red"

For the purposes of communication we usually drop all the preamble and just say "firetrucks are red"

But really that's just a theory contingent on several other things being true. This is pragmatism.

How did you learn the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction)? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed (seen or heard) it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?

I'm sure by now you understand my use of tautology is not yours.

Do you still disagree?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you are talking about. Show it.

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by padow1

Your not going to get anywhere with this... Turd will argue semantics the whole time never actually getting to a point. He will come up with some dumb ass response about the actually definition of some word or what is logic. You cannot debate with someone that bases the whole arguement on a 2000 year old book and says anything that disagrees with it is wrong. Good luck though

You were 100% right Padow.

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by TurdTenderloin

I have no idea what you are talking about.

That's been apartent to me for a few days now.

I don't know what you mean. But I'll read on.

Please do.

Yes you did. In fact you are going to say it again in the next sentence (without any argumentation...another tautology):

What is the proof that we are born atheists? I'll wait to hear your arguments about this.

Well athiesm is a lack of belief in a god...I don't know about you but when I was young as well as every other human being I've come across, I didn't know what religion or god was until it was explained to me.

We're not BORN with opinions or beliefs. Are you really trying to argue that we are?

I'll wait for you to try to prove that we are all natural atheists before I accept what you say it implies.

Are you daft? Seriously am I mistaken or are you saying you need it PROVED to you that ppl aren't BORN Christian or Muslim or Calvinist or Jehovah's Witness???

Do you think Catholic babies are born with a rosary?

Hmmmm....okay.

Hmmmm....

Don't know what you are talking about but I will read on.

Probability? Probablity is inductive.

Not always, in fact it's the primary tautology for deductive reasoning. (look up Logical Tautology if you need to)

Originally Posted by Me

It's a damn good thing I don't claim that. I don't even claim athiesm is true. I merely claim that Athiesm is the most salient of all human belief/non-belief systems out there. AKA Athiesm has a much higher probability of being true than ANY religion.

Why are you using inductive reasoning when later on in this post you agree with me that it is fallacious?
Do you know what you are talking about?

It's not inductive? Can you not read? This is a clear example of deductive reasoning. I'm not profferring anything, I'm saying if you take all religions(and athiesm) and deductively pick through their tenants the only one left that can be reasonably true is athiesm.

Deduced from what Miles? How can you sense a deduction?

Originally Posted by me

What are the POSSIBLE ways we could come to knowledge? Empiricism, Psychic Messages, Guessing, Divine Intervention, Apriori.

How can you "deduce" possibility from sense experience????

How do you "sense" possiblity? Does it taste like a banana or look green?

This makes me understand that you don't know what you're talking about Miles.

No kid, YOU don't understand what I'm talking about, this is day one shit for philosophy students...

How do i "sense" possibility? I don't. I reason it. Reason is the other half of the empiricism coin. We SEE something, that's just data recieved by our brains, the PROCESSING of it is reason. This one-two punch is what we call tautology. How we come to know anything.

For instance, It is possible for a banana to be green. How do I know this? I've SEEN a green banana. IF you tell me you have a banana, the possibility is reasonable that it could be green. Do I KNOW it is green? Not without seeing it.

Have you "sensed" every possible instance of a way to get knowledge? If you haven't sensed it, how do you know what is "possible"?

No, but I have reasoned them. Again REASON is the process AFTER empiricism. A smoke detector can "sense" things but it can't reason.

Another assertion without any argument. Are we all supposed to just take your word that "the evidence" does not bear out that we know anything a priori?

Look for yourself you dumb fuck. I suggest you start with Descartes and don't come back until you've completed reading Searle and everything in between including B.F. Skinner and behaviorism. I'll led you slide on psychoananylis because it's hogwash but.........we could make this simpler. What have you EVER seen a newborn baby do apriori? Math? Theology? Do babies come out with vocabulary?

YOU'RE the one going against common sense, YOU'RE the one going against 400 years of study. I can't prove a negative but seriously, if you have any evidence of babies with knowledge I'd be fascinated to hear it.

What are you saying then? Are you saying that we know things based on a posterori lines of justification?

Do you know the difference Miles?

Yes...please explain it though if you can. (google if you have to, i don't care)

How do you know that what you know is reliable?

Because it doesn't contradict anything else I "know".

Are you saying the "scientific method" gives us knowledge? Do you know that the "scientific" method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

If X is true, then Y is true.
Y is true.
Therefore, X is true.

This is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X. To repeat experiments is only to repeat this fallacious procedure over and over again.

STRAWMAN!
Oh my god....you haven't studied one ounce of philosophy have you? Or science.

That's not the scientific method at all, not even close. You've been poorly educated if someone taught you that that is the scientific method.

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 04:32 PM

PART II

So, again, how is empricism justified?

Because it is the only epistemological process that can give us 99%-100% accuracy.

Originally Posted by tard

Originally Posted by me

Now forgive me for this indulgence but let's for the purposes of conversation not go into how one learns or knows a language. However if someone says "what's in this box."

How do we find out? We LOOK in the box, we SMELL the box, we do one of a thousand other things that put the contents of that box in range of our senses. Our senses take in data and our brains compile that data into knowledge.

How do you know this? Show it.

Let me give you brain damage. If I damage your eyes you no longer see but you can still put useful information together, but if I damage your brain your brain stops being able to turn sensory data into knowledge. Therefore the proccess of attaining knowledge happens in the brain/mind.

Luckily we have 100 years of case studies on brain damage showing this so niether of us need hit ourselves in the head with a hammer to prove it.

Originally Posted by tard

Originally Posted by me

We have no knowledge without this sense experience. Our very definition of "knowledge" requires a phenomenon that interacts with our senses.

How do you know this? Show it.

Give me a newborn baby or a braindead person and let's see what they "know"

Originally Posted by turd

Originally Posted by me

Simple to explain, proof requires a level of understanding not possessed by human beings at this point. But I'm a cartesan(for or less) I believe that the ONLY thing I know is "Cogito Ergo Sum," "I think therefore I am."

How do you know this? Did you sense it? Did you sense that there are no proofs outside of you knowing yourself? How can you sense a non-proof?

100% proof is not possible outside my own mind because my mind, my eyes, my worldview could all be defective. For all I know I'm plugged into the Matrix right now.

The only thing I CAN possibly know, that ANYONE can possibly know, is if they exist or not. Everything else could be a deception. However "I think therefor I am" provides it's OWN proof. Anyone who can think can realize their existence. It's the only 100% proof we have.

I know you think you're being clever Turd but really, questioning the Cogito just lets everyone know you've never studied one day of philosophy but also that you're not really thinking this shit through.

I've NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen someone stupid enough to ask for proof on the Cogito before. Just THINK about it for a second turd, it's un-fucking-deniable...the ONLY thing in the universe that is.

Originally Posted by tard

How did you learn the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction)? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed (seen or heard) it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?

He's asking how we know an apple isn't an orange. And the answer is simple, VOCABULARY and TRIAL AND ERROR.

As a child I'm sure I made baby talk. I had needs, perhaps a bottle or a nap but I found myself unable to communicate those needs making whatever sounds I wanted. So trial and error happens, sooner or later (and no doubt with help) I learned the word "bottle", and I learned it got me a bottle, not a nap. Then the word "nap" came. And so forth.

The law of contradiction is not something you learn and THEN apply. It's simply the most accurate methodology at our disposal to make sense of the world around us.

Without it we're mindless. We are unable to survive or see or hear or anything else. Our instinct to keep ourselves alive makes figuring out the tenets of the law of contradiction a necessity.

A functioning human mind grasps it firmly, if the mind does NOT grasp it then it is defective. Our brains are a computer that was build before "we" ever accessed it. It doesn't come with any preinstalled knowledge but it DOES have preexisting subroutines honed by years of natural selection. (or jesus for you religious ppl)

I don't know what you are talking about. Show it.

Socrates was lampooned because he always said "Define your terms." to win any arguement. You're not asking for that though. You're simply matter of factly DENYING anything I say with chants of "prove it" even when the proof is in the actual statement such as "I think therefor I am."

It's not clever, and here's why. Socrates "Define your terms" was a way to FURTHER communication and ideas. What YOU'RE doing isn't furthering anything. You're just saying "prove it" when the very nature of our discussion concerns proof in and of itself.

Want proof? You're talking to me. We're not off in our own universes speaking our own languages, we're communicating in english which we BOTH learned by using the very empiricism we're disgussing.

So either nothing means anything, or something means something and our only question is "Since something obviously means something then how do we know what that is."

You're denying we can know anything........in English, not gibberish.....can you read this sentence? Well then I guess you CAN see that certain methodology yields better results than others or you wouldn't have responded in English you'd only have shit in your pants and smeared it on your own face. Which I might add is what you've figuratively done with all the idiocy you've spoken here.

TurdTenderloin · 02-10-2010, 05:57 PM

[QUOTE=milesteg;381688]PART II

Because it is the only epistemological process that can give us 99%-100% accuracy.

Have you sensed that empiricism gives "us 99%-100% accuracy"?

What was that like?

If you didn't SENSE that emipricism is the "only process that gives us 99%-100% accuracy", then how did you come to know it?

If you came to know it by some other process than empiricism, then how can it be accurate?

Did you "sense" the other processes that were not accurate?

Let me give you brain damage. If I damage your eyes you no longer see but you can still put useful information together, but if I damage your brain your brain stops being able to turn sensory data into knowledge.

How do you know this? Did you sense it?

Secondly, are you able to write out the reasoning process by which a brain turns "sensory data into knowledge". I am interested to hear this because logicians for instance have a wide variety of opinions on this.

Therefore the proccess of attaining knowledge happens in the brain/mind.

How do you know this? Show it.

Give me a newborn baby or a braindead person and let's see what they "know".

How do you know what a baby or a braindead person knows? Did you sense it?

100% proof is not possible outside my own mind because my mind, my eyes, my worldview could all be defective. For all I know I'm plugged into the Matrix right now.

So proof is not possible outside your own mind because you could be defective?

How do you know this? How do you know "defective"? Did you sense it?
If you didn't sense it, then how did you come to know about it?

The only thing I CAN possibly know, that ANYONE can possibly know, is if they exist or not. Everything else could be a deception. However "I think therefor I am" provides it's OWN proof. Anyone who can think can realize their existence. It's the only 100% proof we have.

I know you think you're being clever Turd but really, questioning the Cogito just lets everyone know you've never studied one day of philosophy but also that you're not really thinking this shit through.

I've NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen someone stupid enough to ask for proof on the Cogito before. Just THINK about it for a second turd, it's un-fucking-deniable...the ONLY thing in the universe that is.

What is existence?

How do you know that we are not disembodied beings who are having our thoughts made for us?

He's asking how we know an apple isn't an orange. And the answer is simple, VOCABULARY and TRIAL AND ERROR.

As a child I'm sure I made baby talk. I had needs, perhaps a bottle or a nap but I found myself unable to communicate those needs making whatever sounds I wanted. So trial and error happens, sooner or later (and no doubt with help) I learned the word "bottle", and I learned it got me a bottle, not a nap. Then the word "nap" came. And so forth.

The law of contradiction is not something you learn and THEN apply. It's simply the most accurate methodology at our disposal to make sense of the world around us.

Without it we're mindless. We are unable to survive or see or hear or anything else. Our instinct to keep ourselves alive makes figuring out the tenets of the law of contradiction a necessity.

How did you come to know about the law of non-contradition? Did you sense it? And did that sensation come before or after you knew that it was the law of non-contradiction and not a red firetruck?

How do you sense a law?

A functioning human mind grasps it firmly, if the mind does NOT grasp it then it is defective.

How do you know what "functioning" is? Did you sense functioning and non-functioning?

So if someone breaks a law of logic, their brain is no longer functioning?

Our brains are a computer that was build before "we" ever accessed it. It doesn't come with any preinstalled knowledge but it DOES have preexisting subroutines honed by years of natural selection. (or jesus for you religious ppl)

So now you say the mind has "structure" when we are born?

How do you know this? Did you sense it?

Socrates was lampooned because he always said "Define your terms." to win any arguement. You're not asking for that though. You're simply matter of factly DENYING anything I say with chants of "prove it" even when the proof is in the actual statement such as "I think therefor I am."

Why are you focusing on "think therefore I am" when you haven't answered the basic problems of empiricsm?

That was what we began talking about right?

It's not clever, and here's why. Socrates "Define your terms" was a way to FURTHER communication and ideas. What YOU'RE doing isn't furthering anything. You're just saying "prove it" when the very nature of our discussion concerns proof in and of itself.

Want proof? You're talking to me. We're not off in our own universes speaking our own languages, we're communicating in english which we BOTH learned by using the very empiricism we're disgussing.

So either nothing means anything, or something means something and our only question is "Since something obviously means something then how do we know what that is."

You're denying we can know anything........in English, not gibberish.....can you read this sentence? Well then I guess you CAN see that certain methodology yields better results than others or you wouldn't have responded in English you'd only have shit in your pants and smeared it on your own face. Which I might add is what you've figuratively done with all the idiocy you've spoken here.

Are you saying that the laws of thought are like laws of grammar?

If this were the case, why wouldn't different cultures have different laws of logic?

milesteg · 02-10-2010, 06:34 PM

Look i may or may not respond to turd. i haven't decided yet.

I just posted my magnum opus post here, took two fucking posts actually it was so big..and the FIRST thing I read is turd COMPLETELY missing that I said reason and empiricism is how we know things.

He keeps asking me if I sensed conclusions and observations MISSING the fact that I said sensory is just data input and the MIND is where we do the heavy lifting.

If I read further and it's more of this I'll stop. Like Jesus I don't wish to cast my pearls before swine and if someone isn't going to bother to read what I write and just ask a bunch of (literally) stupid questions then why waste my time.

Everyone here knows I fucked you up turd. I know it. SPARKY knows it he's just a troll who's tried go get under my skin since he found out I hate Israel.

Turd has proven over and over again in this thread alone, by his own admission and refusal to use dictionary.com or wikipedia or google to even understand the philosophy I am imparting (which is VERY VERY basic).

Please turd, just READ what I wrote and quick trying to be a smart alec.

TurdTenderloin · 02-10-2010, 06:44 PM

Miles,

You are the king of assertions. But not the king of answering how to prove your assertions.

In the post just before you JUST posted, you said that:

Because it [empricism] is the only epistemological process that can give us 99%-100% accuracy.

Epistemology is how we know the things that we know. At first you said that the senses are the only way to know something. When you realized that sensation was not adequate as an epistemology (which it isn't) you brought "reason" into your epistemology, obstensibly to save it.

If you want to continue the discussion with your modified epistemology then fine, but you are going to have to define what you mean by "reason" in the first place.

Everyone here knows I fucked you up turd. I know it. SPARKY knows it he's just a troll who's tried go get under my skin since he found out I hate Israel.

Whatever you have to tell yourself is fine. You sound convinced.

Also, why all the name calling in your posts? Don't you know that the first sign that you are losing a debate is to engage in ad hominem attacks?