The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.

[Immanuel Can]

An example of how absurd this can get, here in Canada, we support "MulticulturalismTM" and to appeal to the aboriginal part, we are actually encouraging them towards an 'alternative science' based upon unique aboriginal wisdom??!

I've heard. I've also heard that there's an "alternate justice system" based on the same.

...everything seem 'relatively' true.

"Relatively true" is actually a synonym for "false." It indicates that the item in question is not confirmed by an objective reality of any kind.

Most of today's university educated in the general 'West' are reverting to emotion as the basis of determining truth. Even in my own skeptic communities here, the younger generation are strongly susceptible to this "postmodernist" perspective and so contradict their own support for being rational without careful self-reflection.

A lot of that may be as much a sociological phenomenon as a genuine epistemological shift. Many in that generation have been raised with a combination of indulgence, complete media saturation, consumerism, and general neglect. They've learned to centre themselves in their own emotional state-of-the-moment, and to attribute great authority and urgency to these "now" states. Not-being-indulged is for them an instant proof of "oppression" of some kind.

[Logik]

"Relatively true" is actually a synonym for "false."

False dichotomy.

It indicates that the item in question is not confirmed by an objective reality of any kind.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

https://twitter.com/NonMeek/status/1014 ... 09152?s=09

[Immanuel Can]

"Relatively true" is actually a synonym for "false."

False dichotomy.

You would need to show that. But if you do, you can't use reason, logic or science, because Postmodernism denies they have objective truth value. And you can't afford to win, because if you do, then you've proved I was objectively wrong, and you're objectively right -- and then you're wrong again, because you've disproved relativism.

It indicates that the item in question is not confirmed by an objective reality of any kind.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, it's not "absence of evidence" that's the problem (because that implies that evidence could still exist "out there" somewhere, just as yet unknown to us until we correct our science -- which we could then do, and relativism would be shown to be false again.) Rather, it's "denial of the very possibility of objective evidence" that is the problem for relativism.

If there is no objective truth, then relativism is not objectively true. If it's not objectively true, then it's either merely unknown or outright false. But if it's unknowable, and permanently so (as Postmodernism requires, because it's all merely perspectival and no episteme has objective truth-privilege over any other), then relativism itself cannot be attributed any special truth-privilege.

It's not objectively right, by its own confession, and cannot be shown to be right by its own epistemological claims. Moreover, it can't (even in principle) accept that there is any part of reality that would confirm it. For if it did, then Postmodernism would have exclusive epistemic rightness, and there would be an objective truth again -- the objective truth of relativism. But then, by definition, it's not "relative" anymore.

Circular contradiction is the death of epistemic relativism. If it's true, then it's false. If it's false, then it's not true. Both ways, it's illogical on its own terms.

[Logik]

"Relatively true" is actually a synonym for "false."

False dichotomy.

You would need to show that.

No I don't. You claimed that "relatively true" is a synonym for "false".

I rejected it. The burden of proof is with you.

But if you do, you can't use reason, logic or science, because Postmodernism denies they have objective truth value.

So it doesn't deny subjective truth-value? Great! Because that's fine with me. All truth is subjective.

And you can't afford to win, because if you do, then you've proved I was objectively wrong, and you're objectively right -- and then you're wrong again, because you've disproved relativism.

Sure I can afford to win. You have confused yourself by conflating objective moral truths (the concepts of right and wrong) with objective linguistic truths (logic/language). You confuse the letter with the spirit of things.

And I fully expect you to accuse me of contradicting myself, but contradictions don't exist in practice, only in language - so you are losing this game too.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26192

If you are going to appeal to logic, you ought to first learn how it works

[Immanuel Can]

Sure I can afford to win. You have confused yourself by conflating objective moral truths (the concepts of right and wrong) with objective linguistic truths (logic/language).

The confusion is not on my side. I have referred here only to epistemic truths. I made no mention at all of moral ones.

Some truths can only be expressed in action, not in words.

If there IS any truth (as you suggest, since you say there are "some truths") then these are conclusive disproofs of epistemic relativism. And it essentially makes no difference what "language" these truths are couched in, or how they are "expressed". If they're truths, they're truths. And relativism is cooked.

[Logik]

The confusion is not on my side. I have referred here only to epistemic truths. I made no mention at all of moral ones.

Yes. Epistemic truths. Surely you know that murder is wrong?

I do.

Some truths can only be expressed in action, not in words.

If there IS any truth (as you suggest, since you say there are "some truths") then these are conclusive disproofs of epistemic relativism. And it essentially makes no difference what "language" these truths are couched in, or how they are "expressed". If they're truths, they're truths. And relativism is cooked.

No, it isn't You don't understand logic/language.

I can claim that murder is wrong is true, while in the same breath claiming that Earth is flat is also true.

Wrong is relative, but morality is objective.

[Immanuel Can]

The confusion is not on my side. I have referred here only to epistemic truths. I made no mention at all of moral ones.

Yes. Epistemic truths. Surely you know that murder is wrong?

I do.

QED. You said "epistemic truths," then cited, as your example, a moral truth. The confusion was never mine.

Some truths can only be expressed in action, not in words.

If there IS any truth (as you suggest, since you say there are "some truths") then these are conclusive disproofs of epistemic relativism. And it essentially makes no difference what "language" these truths are couched in, or how they are "expressed". If they're truths, they're truths. And relativism is cooked.

No, it isn't You don't understand logic/language.

Sure I do. Postmodernism claims truth is merely a "language game." And you were quite right to say "contradictions don't exist in practice, only in language" (though you should probably have said "reality," not "practice," since people do practice contradictory things -- your wording was ambiguous, at best)...that is exactly how Postmodernism is able to assert its claim of relativism -- only by manipulating language, not by reference to any reality.

Its contradiction appears in logic. It fails to correspond to any actual reality. And it denies the possibility of both.

[Logik]

QED. You said "epistemic truths," then cited, as your example, a moral truth. The confusion was never mine.

Surely this is not that difficult for somebody as intelligent as you.

I know that murder is wrong. I am making an epistemic claim. Do you reject it?

Do you reject the knowledge claim that murder is wrong?

And if you reject THAT, then by law of excluded middle then would you accept the claim that Murder is NOT wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

QED. You said "epistemic truths," then cited, as your example, a moral truth. The confusion was never mine.

Surely this is not that difficult for somebody as intelligent as you.

Do you know that murder is wrong? Yes or No.

I know that murder is wrong. I am making an epistemic claim.

Your word "know" is epistemic. But your term "wrong" is a value judgment, which belongs to the world of ethics, not to epistemology. You ought to choose something non-moral to illustrate an epistemic truth here.

[Logik]

Your word "know" is epistemic. But your term "wrong" is a value judgment, which belongs to the world of ethics, not to epistemology. You ought to choose something non-moral to illustrate an epistemic truth here.

No it's not a value judgment. It's a knowledge claim. Why? Because I am TELLING you what I KNOW.

I know that murder is wrong.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't know something so trivial even a 5 year old knows it?

[Immanuel Can]

Your word "know" is epistemic. But your term "wrong" is a value judgment, which belongs to the world of ethics, not to epistemology. You ought to choose something non-moral to illustrate an epistemic truth here.

No it's not a value judgment. It's a knowledge claim. Why? Because I am TELLING you what I KNOW.

I know that murder is wrong.

Do you not know that?

Again, the word "wrong" is ethical. It's a value judgment. You need a purely epistemological example.

But warning: if you assert any epistemological objective truth, you've defeated epistemic relativism.

[Logik]

Again, the word "wrong" is ethical. It's a value judgment. You need a purely epistemological example.

I am not talking about WORDS. I am talking about KNOWLEDGE. You just keep demonstrating that your notion of "truth" is linguistic!

You confuse the letter and the spirit of things, and worst of all - you are trying to dictate to me how I should USE my own words.
You are trying to tell me how to speak. Your linguistic prescriptivism has been noted and will not be tolerated.

I am telling you that the wrongness of murder is an epistemic example.

If there is only one thing I know - I KNOW THAT MURDER IS WRONG.

So will you answer the fucking question: Do you know that murder is wrong? Yes or no.

[Immanuel Can]

So will you answer the fucking question: Do you know that murder is wrong? Yes or no.

Again, your confusion between the ethical and the epistemological is inducing you to make an inapplicable example here. I can't fix that for you. I can only point out that you need to realize they're not the same thing, and hope you will.

[Logik]

So will you answer the fucking question: Do you know that murder is wrong? Yes or no.

Again, your confusion between the ethical and the epistemological is inducing you to make an inapplicable example here. I can't fix that for you. I can only point out that you need to realize they're not the same thing, and hope you will.

No, the confusion lies with you. You have assumed that you can prescribe your linguistic practices onto me.

You cannot. I am a free will, capable of free thought and free speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you ?

Reject it if you must, but do not remain silent.

[Immanuel Can]

No, the confusion lies with you.

Well, manifestly not.

You have assumed that you can prescribe language onto me.

Not at all. I have simply taken relativism at its own word, and shown that it cannot even meet its own terms. I have prescribed nothing. Any "prescription" has come from epistemic relativism itself.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you ?

My last message covers that correctly. I can only point you to it.