attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:02 pm
Hey, wank on about stuff you can't beat a layman at at dismiss what I have to say, post links cos u cant think for yourself and reason on this little debate we are having...and remember I am doing you the courtesy of sitting at my compoooter at 5.30am for the (kicks) come on, you're better than that, i've got a new found respect for you...but don't sod me off because you have a losing argument.
Well, you have misjudged me if you think I care about winning arguments. I care about shining a light on ignorance (so you can go and self-correct)
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:02 pm
Hey, wank on about stuff you can't beat a layman at at dismiss what I have to say, post links cos u cant think for yourself and reason on this little debate we are having...and remember I am doing you the courtesy of sitting at my compoooter at 5.30am for the (kicks) come on, you're better than that, i've got a new found respect for you...but don't sod me off because you have a losing argument.
Well, you have misjudged me if you think I care about winning arguments. I care about shining a light on ignorance (so you can go and self-correct)
Hey, we are the same there. I've been trying to proselytise you for a while.
Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
By this criterion - how would I verify the universe's existence?
Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
By this criterion - how would I verify the universe's existence?
Do you understand the way a British Philosophy forum works during a debate? It entails providing your own entrails for all to see - not what you've read previously. Sure, read it, but under.stand it and collate it into your own words - and debate those fucking words - or don't waste people's intelligence.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:14 pm
Do you understand the way a British Philosophy forum works during a debate? It entails providing your own entrails for all to see - not what you've read previously. Sure, read it, but under.stand it and collate it into your own words - and debate those fucking words - or don't waste people's intelligence.
So I must re-invent the wheel every time I want to make an argument that somebody has already made?
That's not very intelligent!
I suppose you expect me to run my own experiments and collect my own evidence too?
Standing on the shoulders of giants - be damned!
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:14 pm
Do you understand the way a British Philosophy forum works during a debate? It entails providing your own entrails for all to see - not what you've read previously. Sure, read it, but under.stand it and collate it into your own words - and debate those fucking words - or don't waste people's intelligence.
So I must re-invent the wheel every time I want to make an argument that somebody has already made?
That's not very intelligent!
If you cannot collate what you have learned and deciphered no, it's not very intelligent -- is it?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:20 pm
You would say 'summarise' but that's the simpletons approach, i'd rather you get poignant with your points...the imperative ones.
OK. Doing leads to better understanding than reading.
Which is why I don't care to argue. Only point out your errors.
And since it's difficult to explain WHY what you are doing is an error, the best I can do is to point you to the theory.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:20 pm
You would say 'summarise' but that's the simpletons approach, i'd rather you get poignant with your points...the imperative ones.
OK. Doing leads to better understanding than reading.
Which is why I don't care to argue. Only point out your errors.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:23 pm
If the universe didn't exist, there would not be an argument.
Insufficient. If I went to bed - there would be no argument either.
If I was quadraplegic there would be no argument either.
There are many causal factors which can lead to "no argument"
There would be a contingent aspect to the universe that would deem - you - a quadraplegic would not be worth having an argument with...i'll grant you that.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:26 pm
There would be a contingent aspect to the universe that would deem - you - a quadraplegic would not be worth having an argument with...i'll grant you that.
Way to dodge the point.
If I had no internet there would be no argument.
If Earth exploded there would be no argument.
If the dinosaurs didn't get wiped out there would be no argument.
The observed consequence "no argument" has many possible causes
